ACCforum: The purity of the medical report - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

The purity of the medical report Legislated criteria

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9672
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 08 February 2018 - 12:12 PM

As we all know the ACC legislation is totally driven by way of medical reporting in order to determine the effects of an accident event or gradual process (a series of micro-accidents)
both claimants and ACC staff or their agents and the judiciary are totally excluded from any kind of opinion as to the nature of the injury and degree of incapacity.

The determination of accident damage and degree of disability/incapacity can only be described and reported by way of medical professionals who are relevantly qualified and experienced to carry out the scientific analysis for purposes of an ACC medical report and/or certificate.

Quite frequently it can be notice that the ACC will commission a medical professional who does not have the relevant qualification or experience, such as a psychologist being asked to report on an orthopaedic matter, or a claimant providing the ACC with their own opinion as to what is wrong with them or the claimant obtaining a report from a general practitioner with regards to matters that are beyond the scope of the general practitioner to provide a definitive answer. However the claimant is entitled to obtain a report to indicate a problem based on the medical providers qualification and experience which is rudimentary with the expectation that the ACC will fund a more comprehensive assessment by a relevantly qualified medical specialist. Of course it would be necessary to observe whether or not the ACC actually commission and appropriately qualified and experienced professional who meets the criteria of the legislation.

If the matter gets into a disputed situation then it should be the most senior medical professional by way of qualification and experience that should be the report that should be relied upon with that report containing a critique of the other reports on file with sufficient detail as to why those other reports are wrong aand unusable. This is problematic of course because in a small country is New Zealand medical professionals don't usually like to challenge one another but nonetheless that is what should be done and all too frequently ACC don't submit the relevant questions to achieve such a report last generating unnecessary very complex and lengthy legal battles.

We should not leave out the reality that when the claimant appears to be destined to becoming a long-term claimant with undeniable medical evidence of their injuries and incapacities that the ACC do have a inclination towards commissioning private investigators to try and find a discrepancy in the claimants information and with this in mind it is quite common for the private investigators to gather inferential information produced by friends family neighbours and suchlike to the extent that there may be an arguable appearance that the claimant is not actually injured. In these circumstances the ACC simply cut the claim and leave it for the claimant to challenge the ACC only the ACC in such situations do not under any circumstances release the information to the claimant on the basis that the privacy act prevents such disclosure when the ACC are considering whether or not to prosecute for fraud as a matter of public interest. The ACC fraud unit claims to have the greatest success rate and the highest profit centre within the ACC.

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