ACCforum: Question about Schedule 2 - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Question about Schedule 2

#1 User is offline   Tish 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 23-September 15

Posted 03 October 2017 - 11:48 AM

Hi, I have been reading but have yet to find an answer to this so maybe those of you more experienced in the ACC Act can give a concise answer.

When dealing with elements such as these

eg

Schedule 2 ss 30(3), 60

13
Diseases of a type generally accepted by the medical profession as caused by nitro and Amidotoxic derivatives of benzene or its homologues.
14
Diseases of a type generally accepted by the medical profession as caused by ionising radiations.


which particular members of "the medical profession" are they specifically referring to and how do they place a legal requirement that a member of a specific branch of medicine is who must be satisfied that the cause is as written, and how can they enforce an opinion on this as fact from a practitioner who is not a medical doctor, not a physician, and not registered with the Medical Council, and subsequently potentially decline a claim?

Is a non MCNZ registered member, non-doctor, non-physician actually a member of the the medical profession in New Zealand?

I'd like to understand this one much better than I do.

Thanks
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7686
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 October 2017 - 01:15 PM

In order to submit an application for cover for the purposes of entitlements (ACC45 form) you are going to need a medical professional as described by legislation to sign that application. So if you have had a diagnosis of a certain type of which fits with the category above then it is automatic that the claim must be accepted. Generally speaking this will happen during the process of seeking treatment and it will be the treatment provider that signs off on the ACC45 application for cover form. The list of disorders that you have described is one of many that it can be problematic in determining with precision that the exposure has caused the disease but in these cases though being accepted as a given that there was a cause-and-effect.

I think what you're looking for is a registered medical practitioner of whom the medical Council has oversight.
0

#3 User is offline   Tish 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 23-September 15

Posted 03 October 2017 - 02:02 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 03 October 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

In order to submit an application for cover for the purposes of entitlements (ACC45 form) you are going to need a medical professional as described by legislation to sign that application. So if you have had a diagnosis of a certain type of which fits with the category above then it is automatic that the claim must be accepted. Generally speaking this will happen during the process of seeking treatment and it will be the treatment provider that signs off on the ACC45 application for cover form. The list of disorders that you have described is one of many that it can be problematic in determining with precision that the exposure has caused the disease but in these cases though being accepted as a given that there was a cause-and-effect.

I think what you're looking for is a registered medical practitioner of whom the medical Council has oversight.


Good thanks. That last sentence would therefore (theoretically) cut out the neuropsychologists who aren't medical doctors and therefore do not come under the Medical Council and are only registered with the psychology board, and put it right back into the field of the neuropsychiatrist, who is.

One would hope that made it even harder for them to attempt to continue down the psychobabbler's route, should it go to Appeal.
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7686
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 October 2017 - 04:28 PM

 Tish, on 03 October 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

Good thanks. That last sentence would therefore (theoretically) cut out the neuropsychologists who aren't medical doctors and therefore do not come under the Medical Council and are only registered with the psychology board, and put it right back into the field of the neuropsychiatrist, who is.

One would hope that made it even harder for them to attempt to continue down the psychobabbler's route, should it go to Appeal.


Yes a Neuropsychiatrist does have the necessary medical training to be qualified to form an opinion of some sort.A neuropsychologist certainly does not but would still be able to generate an opinion for what it is worth in as much as they should be able to distinguish that there is something abnormal. however their opinion would be inconclusive and fraught with risk.

A toxicologist would determine the nature of exposure. In this country however the ACC has driven the more way. We do have a few experts and occupational medicine that have experience in this area but really this type of issue needs to be addressed by both toxicologist and neuropsychiatrist or even neurologist.

With my chemical injury there has been extensive examination with both the hospital and my treatment provider seeking funding from the ACC for clarification with the toxicologist which was sorted by the ACC with the ACC claiming that they employ the only toxicologist in New Zealand, the same fellow that the hospital recommended me to, and that they could speak on his behalf when saying that he would feel it would be a conflict of interest to see me.
0

#5 User is offline   Tish 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 23-September 15

Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:38 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 03 October 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

Yes a Neuropsychiatrist does have the necessary medical training to be qualified to form an opinion of some sort.A neuropsychologist certainly does not but would still be able to generate an opinion for what it is worth in as much as they should be able to distinguish that there is something abnormal. however their opinion would be inconclusive and fraught with risk.

A toxicologist would determine the nature of exposure. In this country however the ACC has driven the more way. We do have a few experts and occupational medicine that have experience in this area but really this type of issue needs to be addressed by both toxicologist and neuropsychiatrist or even neurologist.

With my chemical injury there has been extensive examination with both the hospital and my treatment provider seeking funding from the ACC for clarification with the toxicologist which was sorted by the ACC with the ACC claiming that they employ the only toxicologist in New Zealand, the same fellow that the hospital recommended me to, and that they could speak on his behalf when saying that he would feel it would be a conflict of interest to see me.


Thanks for that, Neurologist says not his thing, ordinary psychiatrist says not the man to talk to, neuropsychiatrist gave a likelihood it was chemically induced.

Lots of work yet to do yet and plenty still to play with. Your input is appreciated, thanks.
0

#6 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1026
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:44 PM

View PostTish, on 03 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Thanks for that, Neurologist says not his thing, ordinary psychiatrist says not the man to talk to, neuropsychiatrist gave a likelihood it was chemically induced.

Lots of work yet to do yet and plenty still to play with. Your input is appreciated, thanks.


maybe ;

https://accforum.org...ricky-gorringe/
0

#7 User is offline   Tish 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 23-September 15

Posted 03 October 2017 - 06:05 PM

 greg, on 03 October 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:



Thanks.

How do ACC view them? One had a conviction for Professional Misconduct and Disgraceful Conduct and stripped of his license to practice medicine, and the other is widely regarded as a snake oil dispensing quack.

Cos if we could find the money to go somewhere,it would have to be to someone we could rely on as at least having professional integrity and regarded as a decent doctor by the people that matter.
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7686
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 October 2017 - 06:34 PM

 Tish, on 03 October 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

Thanks.

How do ACC view them? One had a conviction for Professional Misconduct and Disgraceful Conduct and stripped of his license to practice medicine, and the other is widely regarded as a snake oil dispensing quack.

Cos if we could find the money to go somewhere,it would have to be to someone we could rely on as at least having professional integrity and regarded as a decent doctor by the people that matter.


It's not a matter of the professional integrity rather the science. They need to have a science qualification that provides them with the right to have an opinion about a chemically related injury.
A toxicologist would be at the top of the list with a doctor who has a specialist qualification in occupational related injuries with a specialty in chemical injury. Don't expect to find more than 1 or 2 in New Zealand.
0

#9 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1323
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:48 AM

 Tish, on 03 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Thanks for that, Neurologist says not his thing, ordinary psychiatrist says not the man to talk to, neuropsychiatrist gave a likelihood it was chemically induced.

Lots of work yet to do yet and plenty still to play with. Your input is appreciated, thanks.


you will ultimately end up with the three involved.
0

#10 User is offline   Tish 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 23-September 15

Posted 05 October 2017 - 01:06 PM

 Hemi, on 04 October 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

you will ultimately end up with the three involved.


Already have their reports, so they have already had their opinion entered by ACC and used to decline. We are waiting for Appeal dates etc so can't really go much into it here with so many hostile eyes watching, but just because ACC accept almost nothing at all as a reason to decline over qualified opinion and reports, maybe the Judge won't. Baby steps, just rounding up the liars one report at a time :-)

Thanks.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users