ACCforum: Need some help going to review please - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Need some help going to review please *posted in members/archived forum sorry mods

#21 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7763
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 December 2017 - 12:12 PM

View PostMINI, on 10 December 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

doppelganger

Do you know if a spinal injury of only one or two disc with a root injury can only be caused by a injury when all the rest are claimed as being OK.

Any input appreciated.

Mini


Mini it is not much good asking someone who is not a medical professional such a question.
0

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7763
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 December 2017 - 12:13 PM

View Postgreg, on 11 December 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

From my world ; a previous X-ray showed no 'ruptured disc, torn disc, slipped disc, collapsed disc, disc protrusion' during a work medical. The
X-ray was of the chest checking for lung damage . This image was again used when back damage occurred
and cover granted.


Yes but you would still need a medical professional to report on these facts as the reviewer could not determine a decision in your favour if you only asked the reviewer to look at both medical reports as the reviewer is not permitted to make medical determinations but rather simply judge whether or not one medical report or the other is incapable of being true.The problem is both ACC staff and reviewers/district court judges alike fancy that they are permitted to make medical determinations. The judge cannot generate their own evidence and then rule on that evidence ..
0

#23 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7763
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 December 2017 - 12:16 PM

View Posttommy, on 11 December 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

when a claimant is put to close scrutiny as in assessors reports . and if the claimaant has only x, ray images , then new imaging as in ct , or mri , scans may give new evidence , but as at whoms expense


Generally x-ray images and the radiographers comments on what is visible is not actually a diagnosis. For this you would need a relevantly qualified medical professional to make a relevant interpretation of those scans. It is this report that is the actual evidence that is needed.
0

#24 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7763
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 December 2017 - 12:21 PM

Mini it sounds like you need to get a report from a relevantly qualified medical professional That can clearly identify the previous mistakes of his colleagues, produce a report and then submit a claim under the ACC act for the misdiagnosis which has resulted in your loss of entitlement to relevant treatment since that the relevant treatment was not clearly diagnosed to make this possible With the result that there has been further degeneration which of course will result in a financial gain to you.
0

#25 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7081
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 December 2017 - 09:09 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 December 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Mini it sounds like you need to get a report from a relevantly qualified medical professional That can clearly identify the previous mistakes of his colleagues, produce a report and then submit a claim under the ACC act for the misdiagnosis which has resulted in your loss of entitlement to relevant treatment since that the relevant treatment was not clearly diagnosed to make this possible With the result that there has been further degeneration which of course will result in a financial gain to you.


The first part has been done ie 'the report from a relevant specialist has over ridden a peer to say No medical injury for the past 25 years.'

The second part to prove what it is, ie 'damage/injury at same time as covered accident, is a problem as there are no records.' ACC lost them.

So they will be going to Court with dirty hands. But I would not feel easy on going that alone, and yes, there will be more specialists looking at problems, as they are getting urgent.

Mini
0

#26 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1039
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 15 December 2017 - 11:55 AM

re lost info.; ACC supplied me with a list of pre 82 injuries and
also all the financial costing of those injuries.

Using them , I finally found out the injury numbers ACC claimed was
destroyed and could prove a 20% payment under 82 Act. section 59 or similar??.

I believe they do still have the all this info. , also as I found some documents
were in other closed injury files including incorrect addresses etc. .
0

#27 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7763
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 December 2017 - 12:10 PM

View Postgreg, on 15 December 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

re lost info.; ACC supplied me with a list of pre 82 injuries and
also all the financial costing of those injuries.

Using them , I finally found out the injury numbers ACC claimed was
destroyed and could prove a 20% payment under 82 Act. section 59 or similar??.

I believe they do still have the all this info. , also as I found some documents
were in other closed injury files including incorrect addresses etc. .


Greg the ACC legislation under the 1992 act requires them to determine whether your injury was temporary or permanent. Section 59 describes an incapacity that the ACC expect shall resolve itself and is therefore temporary or that you would be permanently incapacitated by that injury which is under section 60. Typically ACC has failed to be obedient to this section of the legislation requiring them to choose.. From memory I think they must choose which section they are going to determine matters under within six months. The biggest difference is that a temporary injury will pay compensation based on historical earnings while a permanent injury were required the ACC to calculate by way of probability a projected earnings capacity to follow your career path and as such may very well be quite a lot more. To attempt to persuade you to accept that your injury was temporary when in fact was permanent would be an act of insurance fraud on the ACCs part when sending you a letter describing section 59 when there has either been no assessment, no decision or they have never bothered to determine their own liabilities in the matter.

Further if it should be determined that you were permanently incapacitated under section 60 then under subsequent legislation you would not be required to have any assessments or any kind of retraining into a new occupation. Indeed ACC are not permitted to fund such a thing. The reasoning as that a permanent incapacity under the 1982 legislation would mean that the injury has retired you. Should you engage in any other income generating activities, even full-time, and perhaps a lower paid job than your career path would have indicated, ACC are then required to calculate an abatement of earnings calculation as they are not required to pay compensation when you have gained a capacity to earn in some other activities different to your preinjury occupation.

Even if the ACC has lost the documentation the 1982 act would require these matters to be determined by way of reasonable estimation based on whatever information is at hand anyway so claiming they have lost the information is not a reason for not making any decisions. Keep in the back of your mind that any attempt of the individuals employed by the ACC To falsify documentation or even not obey the legislation to administer your files properly would be quite clearly an act of insurance fraud on their part personally. It is an awful thing to have someone steal from you
0

#28 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1039
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 15 December 2017 - 01:46 PM

I have just found the correct wording
"The Pre 1982 Claim and Tax year Summary Report"


plus they supply an 'Archive Reference' and a Date Closed.

Also shows Sec 78 and Sec. 79 payments = Injury % = $ payments .

This is not a file as by todays standard but I found the injury by
Date as the injury description was wrong along with an incorrect address .
0

#29 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1163
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 15 December 2017 - 07:07 PM

hows your case going allan as getting your entitlements restored as in your up to date medical files , reports and as as in xrays , mri,s ct scans etc presented towards the corporation , any updates
0

#30 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1163
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 15 December 2017 - 07:37 PM

as in your reply to posting 20 allan , the point tommy was forwarding to the forum , was related to as in seeking all infos , as in then when and where were utulised was a different matter
0

#31 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1039
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 15 December 2017 - 08:03 PM

View Posttommy, on 15 December 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

as in your reply to posting 20 allan , the point tommy was forwarding to the forum , was related to as in seeking all infos , as in then when and where were utulised was a different matter


This post is not about Alan Thomas even though he thinks every post should only be about him .
I assume 'mini' is helping this claimant due to the type of inquiries requested and most
are happy and willing to help .
0

#32 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7081
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted Yesterday, 09:56 AM

View Postgreg, on 15 December 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

re lost info.; ACC supplied me with a list of pre 82 injuries and
also all the financial costing of those injuries.

Using them , I finally found out the injury numbers ACC claimed was
destroyed and could prove a 20% payment under 82 Act. section 59 or similar??.

I believe they do still have the all this info. , also as I found some documents
were in other closed injury files including incorrect addresses etc. .


Gregg I have been right thru my file and noted the missing docs dated pre 1992-1996. Sept 2001. I know they weren't there, and I will let ACC mysteriously find them and bring them forward. The major doco they lost was my list of injuries in 1992. They can bring it forward to show I am not telling the truth, but how can I when they have lost the documentation. Not my fault, I have it written on paper with their letterhead.

I don't disagree with you at all, I think someone has it, but who is that someone. It is not me.

That's it for now. Time for shower and lunch date.

Mini
0

#33 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7763
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted Yesterday, 10:00 AM

View Posttommy, on 15 December 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

hows your case going allan as getting your entitlements restored as in your up to date medical files , reports and as as in xrays , mri,s ct scans etc presented towards the corporation , any updates


The current tactic is for a review hearing to be set at an unknown location,, not invite me to be present, not read the submissions I have prepared and claim to have a hearing before making a decision about entirely different subject matter with references to their position that they assume what my issues are without reference to anything I have said and then make a decision on that.

The result is that I have now been denied the whole review hearing process completely.


For example review hearings in my favour requiring ACC to fund the independent medical assessments required in relation to my injuries many years have gone by with the ACC disregarding those review hearings which have resulted in further review hearings regarding the delay of the process of that decision. Then of course if I am not invited to the review hearing itself and my submissions are not looked at it appears the whole matter, from ACC's point of view, is dead and buried by this newly emerging technique. I guess that is why they take seriously the Douglas Weal's of this world
0

#34 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1163
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted Yesterday, 06:20 PM

so where now next allan , as in your determination of as having your entitlements restored, as in your reply to posting 33
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