ACCforum: Criteria for review hearings - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Criteria for review hearings Telephone conference

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 11 October 2017 - 11:23 AM

I have noticed that there is a pattern emerging whereby ACC is distancing itself from the legislated criteria within Part 5 of the Act in matters that involve ACC duties in this regard.

We see a diminishment of access to judicial procedures and criteria set down for the safety of the judicial process.

I have observed on number of occasions that claimants are being provided with a telephone conference as an alternative to a review hearing at a time and place.

Fellows such as myself, because of the nature of disability, do not have an option to elect to have a telephone conference as there would be very little capacity to be heard by way of that mode of hearing. While I can appreciate that some may choose to have a review hearing by way of telephone conference and may even accept it but does the ACC have any form of licence under the legislation to arrange a telephone conference as the review hearing in the first instance?

From where I am looking when I peruse the ACC legislation it does seem that the ACC is required to arrange for not only a time for the review hearing with and three months but also a place whereby the claimants may have a presence by way of right. Is it possible to have the right of being present taken away and ACC still complying with the legislated criteria within the time period?
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 13 October 2017 - 04:36 PM

A few days ago I wrote to the ACC confirming that as the ACC failed to set a date for a hearing at a location in order that I may express my entitlement to be present at that time and location due to 3 months passing from the date of my application the review hearing application had been converted into deemed decision in my favour asas if a reviewer has made the decision.

Today I have just received a decision made by Mr Walker on Fairway Resolution Limited stationery which to my mind confirms that Mr Walker would have never been independent in any event. Although I had produced submissions and asked to be present it seems that the reviewer was told that I found a telephone arrangement unacceptable resulting in the reviewer deciding to have a telephone hearing On the basis that I had disagreed with the arrangement. I had not disagreed with the arrangement I simply questioned it and as such the reviewer appears to have been wrongly informed leading me to believe that the reviewer is being deprived of communications with the review hearing applicant in such matters.Further it seems that based on statements made within the decision the reviewer did not even receive my submissions either.

Any thoughts anybody?
0

#3 User is offline   Hemi 

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

Posted 14 October 2017 - 11:36 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 October 2017 - 04:36 PM, said:



Any thoughts anybody?


Yes

Health Safety Security issues of the reviewer staff and others involved or in the vicinity of such hearings you wish to attend, would be quite prominently in the thoughts of the reviewer whom has a right to decide apon those grounds.
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 October 2017 - 12:25 PM

View PostHemi, on 14 October 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

Yes

Health Safety Security issues of the reviewer staff and others involved or in the vicinity of such hearings you wish to attend, would be quite prominently in the thoughts of the reviewer whom has a right to decide apon those grounds.


And what is the point that you're trying to make?
Are you suggesting that lunatic ravings of Douglas weal, Kenneth Miller and yourself can cause all and sundry to deprive me of my rights to be heard?
-1

#5 User is offline   Hemi 

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

Posted 14 October 2017 - 01:57 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 October 2017 - 12:25 PM, said:

And what is the point that you're trying to make?
Are you suggesting that lunatic ravings of Douglas weal, Kenneth Miller and yourself can cause all and sundry to deprive me of my rights to be heard?


you asked for thoughts on your issue-so a point was made re safety issues that can / could / would prevent one from attending personally any meetings with acc fairways or winz for that matter

Lunatic ravings- [1] none that im aware of but i have read the court case documentation that would place you in the area i have given thoughts apon,
Your rights to be heard are still available,same as anyone else-alas by telephone for you.
Lunatic ravings /[2] you were on the not wanted list with acc winz well before i ever had anything to do or know of you thomas so any depriving of your rights would thus be self made,
You are most capable,and have shown that ability for many many years to everyone including acc, of setting out as formal documentation ,and also as to orally expressing your veiwpoints very detailed at that so im unsure why you think your deprived of your rights ,as thru experience with you there is nothing else like you on the fone playing lawyers,making sure insiting that your points are raised heard and taken in.
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 October 2017 - 05:18 PM

The point that I'm really trying to address is what the legislation says about the arrangement of review hearings.

Legislation requires ACC to set a place and a time for review hearings yet we see a private company doing this.. How did that happen?
0

#7 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2160
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 14 October 2017 - 08:15 PM

Alan

In addition to the points made by Hemi ...have you considered that magic money does not grow on trees for some claimants like yourself to continue using perhaps?

I have no idea how much your reviews have now cost the taxpayers since those *unless orders* were issued by Judge L G Powell 2014 and the various 118 Appeals were dismissed. So it is IMHO likely a pragmatic decision by Fairway which may allow other genuine claimants a fair chance also. Basically I envisage a range of solutions may become more commonplace so that everyone with their different review needs can be heard too cf communication plans etc

 Alan Thomas, on 11 October 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

... Fellows such as myself, because of the nature of disability, do not  have an option to elect to have a telephone conference as  there would be very little capacity to be heard by way of that mode of hearing....


In addition to this comment of mine above, I have noted that you have used voice recognition for years [and also had software/hardware funded by the taxpayers] I would consider that you have years of experience and advantage over the majority of ACC Claimants with this method Alan.

I am not sure yet if all the NZ courts & tribunals are providing videoconferences yet Alan, but you have previously disclosed or confirmed usage of Skyping too. So because I know that you must supply your submissions and evidence to support your case BEFORE any hearing in front of others, this is another method where you will be able function without restriction IMHO.
 
You may however wish to prepare for videoconferences by ensuring any particular documentary evidence you think may be examined more closely is prepared in a visual format in order to ensure everyone is on the same page etc  This will help you from wasting your/their precious time and resources by any later avoidable complaints that you made mistakes within your extensive referencing of reams of pages or personal opinions. Also remember there may be some of this material which may be considered contradictory or irrelevant to the dispute by other professionals who are more objective and experienced than any applicant perhaps?

As I have previously pointed out to you, my concern is that with the extreme costs and blockages of the system from many of your reviews [think it was 25% of backlog last time the courts examined this burden on the taxpayer as I mentioned above], and certainly in NZ with Fairway there are many benefits of their system compared to many other comparable tribunals around the world where additional obstacles are created and even more measures are put in place to promote written submission processes and streamline review management etc

I am referring here mostly to the need to balance everyones equitable access to the Fairway company and I would much prefer everyone not having to pay for their reviews to be considered alongside with helpful systems in place like telephone conferences for the few users such as yourself etc I think I have previously highlighted that I would be more worried that ACC start seeking security for costs in advance of hearings too as well as the awards afterwards due to behaviour and losses such as yours Alan :(

However if you currently feel incompetent with speaking to any of your written submissions or evidence Alan, then you may be able to find volunteers at the Citizens Advice or similar and they will recite the relevant material on your behalf ie much like a translator system. If you can not get a volunteer to help then student job search &or WINZ subsidies for a young person may be another possibility if you check with your current accountants to see if this could be part of your present business planning with your websites &or real life factory premises etc

Sorry Alan but the bottom line is that I would much rather that any extreme user of shared but limited resources and facilities is being properly managed Alan - rather than any fees being introduced before other disabled people can get to a Review etc Perhaps you yourself may be able to come up with an alternative solution to reassure the tribunals that the majority of ACC claimants and the taxpayers are not having to fund repetitive hearings of a minority eg you have one videoconference at the courtrooms per year and start demonstrating some reasonable behaviour to others, then after 3 reviews, you prepay for a security provision for an in person hearing perhaps?

HTH :)
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2017 - 12:26 AM

141 Conduct of review: hearing to be held
(1) In the course of conducting a review, the reviewer must hold a hearing unless—
(a) the applicant withdraws the review application; or
(B) the applicant, the Corporation, and all persons who would be entitled to be present and heard at the hearing agree not to have a hearing.
(2) The reviewer must hold the hearing at a time and place that are—
(a) agreed to by all persons who are parties to the application and the reviewer; or
(B) decided on by the reviewer if those persons do not agree.
(3) The reviewer must take all practicable steps to ensure that notice of the time and place of the hearing is given—
(a) to every person entitled to be present and heard at it; and
(B) at least 7 days before the date of the hearing.
(4) The reviewer may admit any relevant evidence at the hearing from any person who is entitled to be present and be heard at it, whether or not the evidence would be admissible in a court.

142 Persons entitled to be present and heard at hearing The following persons are entitled to be present at the hearing, with a representative if they wish, and to be heard at it, either personally or by a representative: (a) on every review, the applicant and the Corporation:
0

#9 User is offline   Hemi 

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

Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:29 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 15 October 2017 - 12:26 AM, said:

141 Conduct of review: hearing to be held
(1) In the course of conducting a review, the reviewer must hold a hearing unless—
(a) the applicant withdraws the review application; or
( the applicant, the Corporation, and all persons who would be entitled to be present and heard at the hearing agree not to have a hearing.
(2) The reviewer must hold the hearing at a time and place that are—
(a) agreed to by all persons who are parties to the application and the reviewer; or
( decided on by the reviewer if those persons do not agree.
(3) The reviewer must take all practicable steps to ensure that notice of the time and place of the hearing is given—
(a) to every person entitled to be present and heard at it; and
( at least 7 days before the date of the hearing.
(4) The reviewer may admit any relevant evidence at the hearing from any person who is entitled to be present and be heard at it, whether or not the evidence would be admissible in a court.

142 Persons entitled to be present and heard at hearing The following persons are entitled to be present at the hearing, with a representative if they wish, and to be heard at it, either personally or by a representative: (a) on every review, the applicant and the Corporation:


You make much reference to the words ENTITLEMENT/ENTITLED etc
Do you have such entitlements?
It would appear that you do not have the entitlements that you refer to.
WHY?
Your conduct behaviour towards the judiciary /courts system /acc staff and acc claimants winz beneficiaries /general public over your acc life span has been abhorrently bad.

The ENTITLEMENTS you think you have

Sorry Thomas

Just alone on issues of the Health Safety well being of anyone in your vicinity - YOU HAVE FORFEITED YOUR RIGHTS to normal interactions with acc LONG AGO.and in my opinion thru having personal experience with you the same applies to any winz recipients / acc claimants of members of this or other forums re acc winz matters.

Posted Image/>
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:43 AM

 Hemi, on 15 October 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

You make much reference to the words ENTITLEMENT/ENTITLED etc
Do you have such entitlements?
It would appear that you do not have the entitlements that you refer to.
WHY?
Your conduct behaviour towards the judiciary /courts system /acc staff and acc claimants winz beneficiaries /general public over your acc life span has been abhorrently bad.

The ENTITLEMENTS you think you have

Sorry Thomas

Just alone on issues of the Health Safety well being of anyone in your vicinity - YOU HAVE FORFEITED YOUR RIGHTS to normal interactions with acc LONG AGO.and in my opinion thru having personal experience with you the same applies to any winz recipients / acc claimants of members of this or other forums re acc winz matters.

Posted Image/>


It seems that you have focused in on the primary element of this issue.

Should this country be organised in a manner whereby the needs of the many outweigh the interests of the few
or
the needs of the few.

Socialist and Communist governmental structures are orchestrated to put the interests of the many ahead of the interests of the few
while
this country aspires to have regards for the needs of the few.
For example it is better that 100 men go free than one man be found guilty for a crime he did not commit.


As a side note you have never met me, had had no personal contact with me and of course have no idea who I am And therefore can offer nobody any opinion about me. It seems on this point you are experiencing the same cognitive difficulties as Kenneth Miller who told the court that he knew me well on the basis that he had actually met me once In a similar manner as Douglas weal portrayed himself that he knew me well Over a long period of time because he had met me for about five minutes on a stairwell in the factory where he worked and then again later for another five minutes in a car park to bolster his meeting with me and having a couple of hours discussion with them asking me for guidance concerning ACC prosecuting him for fraud before he turned the conversation towards blowing up the ACC and asking me what I thought.. He got it wrong of course because I said to him the best thing to do with ACC if you are unhappy with them is to help others with their claims like i was doing.Breaks you to could be following my lead instead of simply criticising all and sundry
0

#11 User is offline   Hemi 

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

Posted 15 October 2017 - 11:39 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 15 October 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

It seems that you have focused in on the primary element of this issue.

Should this country be organised in a manner whereby the needs of the many outweigh the interests of the few
or
the needs of the few.

Socialist and Communist governmental structures are orchestrated to put the interests of the many ahead of the interests of the few
while
this country aspires to have regards for the needs of the few.
For example it is better that 100 men go free than one man be found guilty for a crime he did not commit.


As a side note you have never met me, had had no personal contact with me and of course have no idea who I am And therefore can offer nobody any opinion about me. It seems on this point you are experiencing the same cognitive difficulties as Kenneth Miller who told the court that he knew me well on the basis that he had actually met me once In a similar manner as Douglas weal portrayed himself that he knew me well Over a long period of time because he had met me for about five minutes on a stairwell in the factory where he worked and then again later for another five minutes in a car park to bolster his meeting with me and having a couple of hours discussion with them asking me for guidance concerning ACC prosecuting him for fraud before he turned the conversation towards blowing up the ACC and asking me what I thought.. He got it wrong of course because I said to him the best thing to do with ACC if you are unhappy with them is to help others with their claims like i was doing.Breaks you to could be following my lead instead of simply criticising all and sundry


im not particularity concerned with what weal said of did as to your assumptions
the court acted and convicted YOU.
end of
MUCH VERY PERSONAL contact thomas That was/ is the problem you had with your defensive legal matters with me.
where i would have /still would = simply toss them out the door for the prosecution
you have dealt with me for many years orally written etc etc and are on record as doing that and in that time rather easy to know you and how you act what you want and how you proceed to get what you want so try all you like to look the aggrieved thomas
your a dangerous person to be involved wth vulnerable people
sue me all you like
what you tried on with me is on record/mp3 so im afraid youll lose badly there Posted Image/>
Follow your lead
what the f'k?
where to JAIL?
you wanted me to follow your lead many times-one of your follow you procedures/plans got you in the crap big time when it all arrived in court Thomas
pp
according to the courts you said to weal the best thing to do is make a bomb

This Forum would operate and have a life as it should do
IF YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH IT Thomas
Very clearly -YOU ARE -ALWAYS HAVE BEEN =THE PROBLEM that prevents the ones who can help within the forum from working to assist others in a safe environment for vulnerable claimants,
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2017 - 12:33 PM

Hemi reported
off topic
-1

#13 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2160
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:04 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 15 October 2017 - 12:26 AM, said:

141 Conduct of review: hearing to be held
(1) In the course of conducting a review, the reviewer must hold a hearing unless—
(a) the applicant withdraws the review application; or .... snipped


hhhmmmm I am not sure when the original of this section was worded ... BUT I am not sure if you are aware Alan but there has been technological advances with the internet and videoconferencing tools which have been in use for a long time ... and these progressive changes are now offering different strategies to courts & petitioners & witnesses & users all around the world...

Even with criminal cases Alan, thankfully there have been a few gains made by vulnerable victims too ... so I am not sure if there is/was a procedure involved for felons such as yourself participating with court hearings Alan BUT this is a different jurisdiction. Also it is likely the voices of the minority are finally being heard more fully and the balance between victim rights and criminal rights is being considered etc It may be that ACC are still being properly regarded as a victim too Alan and they are using telephone conferences for ALL people who have crossed their safety lines perhaps?

Obviously I am struggling to understand why you think you can demand any human being to submit to your dictates &or have their basic human rights ignored Alan?

IMHO even if you offered your friends or workers or some people a sum of money to sit in a room to listen to your gobbing, there will still be some individuals who would likely refuse such bribery Alan &or it would be prohibited by professional ethics etc I have already written of my concern that such shenanighans like your gameplaying may only trigger greater changes so that everyone has a fair go and the taxpayer is not being used and abused by a minority eg claimants may have to pay fees for Fairway hearings; or decisions introduced to manage some individuals more quickly or widely etc

There are now so many factors involved Alan that I can even understand why your testing & or wordgame about *not disagreeing* is potentially recognised as being inappropriate and rehashing old vexatious episodes by Fairway and Mr Walker. I am referring to all of the taxpayer resources expended in numerous times past giving you help & attention ie where your deemed decisions misunderstandings have been examined by Higher Courts and your various opinions and arguments dismissed Alan. Plus it is now likely you are on a type of communication plan that is being networked to prevent loopholes or oversights between different agencies etc

Bottomline Alan is that I believe even if you were to pay the airfares of everyone who has experience of your claim to go to Auckland & their accomodation and make alternate arrangements for all of their other caseloads .. you still have the fact that it is the 21st century you can not force anybody into a room of your choosing Alan...

Returning to your statement in the OP, do you have

"Fellows such as myself, because of the nature of disability, do not have an option to elect to have a telephone conference as there would be very little capacity to be heard by way of that mode of hearing..."


As this issue is still vague in your writings, I have also made the point that you can probably go to a local room somewhere in a courtroom or CAB and sit at a desk and look at the Fairway end moniters if you do not wish your lounge to be seen on Skype or you worry your Mobile Phone battery will not cope? No guarantees though that they will not speak to their monitors shielded Alan because of your past threats against staff and their families etc
0

#14 User is offline   Hemi 

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

Posted 16 October 2017 - 01:00 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 October 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:



Fellows such as myself, because of the nature of disability, do not have an option to elect to have a telephone conference as there would be very little capacity to be heard by way of that mode of hearing. While I can appreciate that some may choose to have a review hearing by way of telephone conference and may even accept it but does the ACC have any form of licence under the legislation to arrange a telephone conference as the review hearing in the first instance?




That above such as you write Thomas
IS
ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS
Because of the nature of your disability-
If you are so badly injured and unable to provide your views / paperwork and subsequent oral submissions on the day =then get an advocate to represent you and your issues.:P/>

''But as to your alleged non capacity-You do have the capacity to carry out a telephone conference
Your shown activity ''thus the ABILITY'' doing that ''telephone conferenceing'' for many many hours at a time = is and have been well documented.
pp
I note you report postings that are ON TOPIC AND as responses to your own writings
something wrong when you cant handle the responses you get to your own viewpoint/comments about issues and others challenge you on your wrongness and misleading
Thats being CONTROL FREAK thomas -or more to the point A BULLY.
2

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 October 2017 - 10:04 AM

The situation certainly is not vague as those who suffer from a submissive personality disorder who seek the comfort of the unknown and imaginary authority with the delusional notion that they should have faith in whatever they are told to do. It is this type of delusional submissive that gets these types of people into trouble with the result that they have developed a pattern of behaviour making howls of complaint and seeking others to howl with complaint with them about how unfair the system's yet remain submissive to the system that they have actually endorsed. This is the nature of the injuries some experience while others of us seek to make the world a better place So as to reduce the dangers posed by those who seek power and then law that power over the week among us.

Do not forget that the ACC's primary duty is to minister to the injured and alleviate their suffering.

Legislation requires ACC to administer the review hearing arrangements which includes
a time
a place
an independent reviewer
A right to be heard
a time limit of three months to make the arrangement

These 5 items on the legislated directions are not complicated yet we find the ACC no longer apparently involved at all thus attempting to disengage itself from all responsibility.
In addition we find that those who are making the arrangement claim not to have any connection to the legislation and as such, as a privately owned organisation, have no duty of care nor have any duty to answer for their actions under the Official Information Act.
We find that this private organisation appears to be dismantling the levels of duty for a proper driven motive taking away the rights of the individual applicant by not even arranging for a place to be heard.

We must look at the judicial process as part of the rehabilitation process whereby injuries and the effects of those injuries are reduced by way of not only medical treatment and compensation but also legal protection which is the reason why in the first instance the ACC is required by law to make the arrangements for not only funding for treatment and compensation but also funding for judicial recourse.
0

#16 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1534
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 20 October 2017 - 10:07 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 20 October 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

The situation certainly is not vague as those who suffer from a submissive personality disorder who seek the comfort of the unknown and imaginary authority with the delusional notion that they should have faith in whatever they are told to do. It is this type of delusional submissive that gets these types of people into trouble with the result that they have developed a pattern of behaviour making howls of complaint and seeking others to howl with complaint with them about how unfair the system's yet remain submissive to the system that they have actually endorsed. This is the nature of the injuries some experience while others of us seek to make the world a better place So as to reduce the dangers posed by those who seek power and then law that power over the week among us.

Do not forget that the ACC's primary duty is to minister to the injured and alleviate their suffering.

Legislation requires ACC to administer the review hearing arrangements which includes
a time
a place
an independent reviewer
A right to be heard
a time limit of three months to make the arrangement

These 5 items on the legislated directions are not complicated yet we find the ACC no longer apparently involved at all thus attempting to disengage itself from all responsibility.
In addition we find that those who are making the arrangement claim not to have any connection to the legislation and as such, as a privately owned organisation, have no duty of care nor have any duty to answer for their actions under the Official Information Act.
We find that this private organisation appears to be dismantling the levels of duty for a proper driven motive taking away the rights of the individual applicant by not even arranging for a place to be heard.

We must look at the judicial process as part of the rehabilitation process whereby injuries and the effects of those injuries are reduced by way of not only medical treatment and compensation but also legal protection which is the reason why in the first instance the ACC is required by law to make the arrangements for not only funding for treatment and compensation but also funding for judicial recourse.



Can you post the legislation that relates to each of the items as you have claimed.
0

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 October 2017 - 10:30 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 20 October 2017 - 10:07 PM, said:

Can you post the legislation that relates to each of the items as you have claimed.



Corporation to engage and allocate reviewers
(1)The Corporation must engage as many persons as it considers necessary to be reviewers under this Part.

(2)As soon as practicable after receiving an application for review, the Corporation must arrange for the allocation of a reviewer to the review even if it considers that there is no right of review in the circumstances.

(3)If for any reason the Corporation has to allocate a new reviewer to a review, the Corporation must do this as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the need to allocate a new reviewer.





Reviewer’s duty to act independently and disclose previous involvement
(1)A reviewer must act independently when conducting a review.

(2)A reviewer to whom the Corporation proposes to allocate a review must disclose to the Corporation any previous involvement that the reviewer has had in the claim other than as a reviewer.





Corporation’s duties to secure independence of reviewer
(1)The Corporation must not engage as a reviewer a person who is currently—


(a)employed by the Corporation; or

(b)engaged by the Corporation to make decisions on claims in a capacity other than that of reviewer; or

©employed or engaged by a subsidiary of the Corporation.
(2)[Repealed]

(3)The Corporation must not include in a contract with a reviewer any term or condition that could have the effect, directly or indirectly, of influencing the reviewer, when conducting a review, in favour of the Corporation.

(4)The Corporation must not allocate a claim to a reviewer who discloses to the Corporation any previous involvement in the claim other than as a reviewer.





141 Conduct of review: hearing to be held
(1)In the course of conducting a review, the reviewer must hold a hearing unless—


(a)the applicant withdraws the review application; or

(b)the applicant, the Corporation, and all persons who would be entitled to be present and heard at the hearing agree not to have a hearing.
(2)The reviewer must hold the hearing at a time and place that are—


(a)agreed to by all persons who are parties to the application and the reviewer; or

(b)decided on by the reviewer if those persons do not agree.
(3)The reviewer must take all practicable steps to ensure that notice of the time and place of the hearing is given—


(a)to every person entitled to be present and heard at it; and

(b)at least 7 days before the date of the hearing.
(4)The reviewer may admit any relevant evidence at the hearing from any person who is entitled to be present and be heard at it, whether or not the evidence would be admissible in a court.





142 Persons entitled to be present and heard at hearing


The following persons are entitled to be present at the hearing, with a representative if they wish, and to be heard at it, either personally or by a representative:

...





146 Deemed review decisions
(1)The reviewer is deemed to have made a decision on the review in favour of the applicant if—


(a)the date for the hearing has not been set within 3 months after the review application is received by the Corporation; and

(b)the applicant did not cause, or contribute to, the delay.
(2)The date of the deemed decision is 3 months after the review application is received.



0

#18 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1485
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 21 October 2017 - 10:50 AM

Your problem Alan is that every argument on both sides can be boiled down to the word *entitled".

Entitlement does not confer an absolute right. For example a drivers license provides an entitlement to drive but that license can be taken away and the entitlement lost. A claimant has an entitlement but is found to have capacity so is no longer eligible for that entitlement.

Entitlement normally comes with contingencies. In your case your entitlement is contingent on the whether you meet health and safety requirements. As this is not the case then you do not have an entitlement to be at the Review in person. Entitlement is not an absolute right which appears to be the standard you are putting forward.

You will not find legislation you can rely upon to force the issue as the legislators will have been certain to avoid implementing law that would prevent employers from applying the Health and Safety Act according to their reasonable circumstances.
2

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 October 2017 - 11:16 AM

If the legislators had felt that there could be an exception to the existing legislation they would have said so.

There can be no thought that a health and safety issue could in any way or form deprive a person of Justice in any way or form.

Such a behaviour pattern would be barbaric in the extreme.

I imagine you would be referring to my situation is an example whereby I prosecuted individual staff members of the ACC so they transferred my claim to the remote client unit as I posed a risk to the ACC staff on that basis. When asked to provide evidence of why the ACC felt there was a risk they carried out an extensive investigation lasted for more than 10 years trying to find someone who would accuse me of something until they found a man who lived in the bus who acknowledged being a drunkard who while trying imagine that I was going to blow up the officers of the ACC that were actually investigating that very same fellow for fraud. In no way or form could anyone in their right mind imagine that was a health and safety issue. That is just ludicrous and does not form the basis for the ACC to deprive Justice as a mechanism to stop payment in relation to the ACCs contingent liabilities whereby an accident event, injury and incapacity, confirmed by medical professionals, has deprived earnings of which the ACC has a liability to fund compensation and medical treatment.

If you wish to discuss myself you ought to address issues concerning myself and the issue of the reality of information on a thread concerning myself.
If you wish to publish your thoughts on the points of law and criteria of the legislation without being sidetracked into issues concerning your views of perception and persuasion of the enforcement of these laws do so in this thread.

Obviously I take the purist viewpoint in as much as the law is as what the law states.
0

#20 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2160
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 21 October 2017 - 02:48 PM

View PostLupine, on 21 October 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

....

Entitlement normally comes with contingencies. In your case your entitlement is contingent on the whether you meet health and safety requirements. As this is not the case then you do not have an entitlement to be at the Review in person. Entitlement is not an absolute right which appears to be the standard you are putting forward.

You will not find legislation you can rely upon to force the issue as the legislators will have been certain to avoid implementing law that would prevent employers from applying the Health and Safety Act according to their reasonable circumstances.


Agreed Lupine :)

Looks like some of these issues have been recently discussed in a judicial review proceeding by a claimant who is not already 'care-indicated' High Court Judgement

Quote


...
[41] One aspect, however, requires comment. Mrs Todd sought out Mr Dunn’s views about the risks presented by Mr O’Neill without affording him an opportunity to respond to what was said about him. Mr O’Neill claims this breached the obligation to remain independent, required by s 138(1) of the Act. There can be nothing inherently wrong with a reviewer seeking information that might assist him or her in reaching a properly informed decision about security. I agree with Mr Opie; FairWay and Mrs Todd, as a contractor to FairWay, were obliged by various provisions of Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to, in short, secure as far as practicable a safe environment at the hearings.

[42] But the information given by Mr Dunn behind closed doors was adverse to Mr O’Neill’s interests. This raises the spectre of unfairness, particularly given the importance placed on the presence of a security guard by Mr O’Neill. Mrs Todd’s decision to proceed without first obtaining Mr O’Neill’s response is therefore amenable to review. Nevertheless, in the full circumstances of this case, I am satisfied any unfairness to Mr O’Neill was inconsequential. First, the discussion with Mr Dunn concerned health and safety, not the merits of his complaints. Second, upon being allocated the role of hearing reviewer, Ms Clark independently reconsidered the requirement for security. Third, in reality, the litany of verbal abuse directed to ACC staff, Ms Browne and then Ms Clark overwhelmed the significance of the comments by Mr Dunn to the effect that Mr O’Neill could be confrontational and verbally abusive.
...
[57] Mr O’Neill submits s 142 precludes any person other than the claimant, the claimant’s representative and an ACC representative from being present at hearing. This is incorrect. Section 142 identifies the persons entitled to be present and heard. It does not exhaustively list who may or may not be present. On Mr O’Neill’s construction, the reviewer could not attend the review. Plainly that is wrong, but it nevertheless serves to illustrate that s 142 is concerned with rights of audience. It is not directed to the issue of who might be present in the hearing room with the permission of the reviewer. The central issue is therefore whether the presence of a security guard was reasonable in the circumstances.
...
[64] Furthermore, a claimant’s expectation of privacy must be tempered by context, including the need to provide a safe working environment. Given the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act, a proportionate measure designed to achieve a safe hearing environment is a legitimate fetter on any right to privacy engaged in this context. The presence of a security guard subject to an undertaking as to confidentiality in the present circumstances is an example of a proportionate limit.
...
[70] Mr Dunn explained that the use of executive reviewers emerged as a response to the sudden increase in work flow, from 6,000 to 10,000 reviews. Messrs Tuiqereqere and Opie submit, against this background, the reference to “the reviewer” at ss 140 and following may include an executive reviewer essentially responsible for case managing the review. They submit in the context outlined by Mr Dunn it was available to FairWay to decide the system was necessary. They both also stress no applicants were disadvantaged by the system, and indeed it benefitted them by making the processing of claims more efficient.
...
[73] The executive/hearing reviewer system is not expressly enabled by the Act. It is an overlay to it. But I do not consider that it is unlawful. As Cooke J said in Northland Milk, the responsibility of the Courts “is to work out a practical interpretation appearing to accord best with the general intention of Parliament as embodied in the Act”. A “pragmatic approach” to the interpretation and application of s 146 and its predecessor was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in an earlier appeal brought by Mr O’Neill, Accident Compensation Corporation v O’Neill.

[77] Finally, Mr O’Neill’s prayer for relief, that is a favourable deemed decision in terms of s 146, is also misconceived. The object of s 146 is to secure a date for hearing within three months. On the true construction of this provision, it merely requires a notice which is formally valid and has not been quashed on review. This was achieved and had practical effect until set aside either by the reviewer or this Court, whatever the legality of the executive/hearing reviewer system. In any event, the proper recourse on a finding of illegality of this procedural kind, if material, would be to set aside the final review decision and refer it back for reconsideration on another date. The deeming provision has no application in this context.


Lastly I was not going to reply to the abuse from you Alan so these next comments require no reply from you kk

View Postanonymousey, on 15 October 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:


...snipped ...

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 October 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

"Fellows such as myself, because of the nature of disability, do not have an option to elect to have a telephone conference as there would be very little capacity to be heard by way of that mode of hearing..."

As this issue is still vague in your writings, I have also made the point that you can probably go to a local room somewhere in a courtroom or CAB and sit at a desk and look at the Fairway end moniters if you do not wish your lounge to be seen on Skype or you worry your Mobile Phone battery will not cope?  No guarantees though that they will not speak to their monitors shielded Alan because of your past threats against staff and their families etc


I was referring to your self claimed alleged incapacity or incompetence to participate in a telephone conference Alan

View PostAlan Thomas, on 20 October 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

The situation certainly is not vague ...


Your wordgames avoiding basic facts and then trying to manipulate by changing the vague issue to a vague situation of unrelated gobbing ... and trying to insult is pointless ...

I repeat the basic truism that taxpayer money does not grow on trees for you personally Alan ... and I now personally believe that your obsessive crusades are causing harm to other genuine claimants on multiple fronts


ps One other possible factor to consider Alan is whether or not you have already participated in ANY telephone conferences with ACC or other judicial officers etc? For example, Judge L G Powell details that you were involved with two directions conferences which related to the 118 Appeals which he dismissed
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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