ACCforum: Correctly understanding and applying: 'wholly or substantially' - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 11 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Correctly understanding and applying: 'wholly or substantially'

#1 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 754
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 08 February 2018 - 04:03 PM

In the previous thread 'Submissions', there seemed to exist a significant amount of confusion around the law that pertains to: 'wholly or substantially'. I have uploaded the leading case on this issue.

From reading the case, it can legitimately be argued that, even if an injury is mostly caused by the ageing or non-covered gradual process, cover will nonetheless be available so long as it is evidenced that the accident was a 'slightly more than marginal' contributor to the injury.

The evidence can be constituted from:

(a) medical evidence, opinion; and
(b] circumstantial evidence; and
(c] legal inference.

Grant

Attached File(s)


1

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 08 February 2018 - 04:34 PM

In the case cited it was the medical evidence that confirmed the asbestosis played no part in the death of the claimant. this case cited did not really examine the legal need to any great depth of wholly or substantially and that there are quite a number of other cases that traverse this issue so as to provide a clearer understanding of this situation.

Grant thinks the following is relevant when considering the issue of wholly or substantially.

The evidence can be constituted from:

(a) medical evidence, opinion; and
(b] circumstantial evidence; and
(c] legal inference.


Legislation only permits medical evidence from a medical professional that is both registered and his experience and the relative discipline of medicine to the issue at hand. No other evidence is relevant.

This means that circumstantial evidence has no bearing whatsoever on the decision. It is quite impossible for circumstantial evidence to override medical science or to have any influence or bearing at all. If there were areas of concern regarding associated factual considerations then that information would have to be submitted to the medical professional in order that the medical professional take such information into account for their medical report. It simply is not to the ACC or even the judge to take into account what information I would like to have influence medical matters.
Likewise legal and friends has no bearing whatsoever on the decision, that would just be silly as the ACC law has excluded that type of possibility even though other courts might routinely determined facts by way of inference. The legislation making the medical information mandatory is plain and therefore eliminates any kind of inferential malarkey or legal fancy footwork.

The only issue that might come up as if there exists a differential of determination by competing medical professionals. Normally the judge would be compelled to rule in favour of the most senior and experienced professional as being the relevant evidence to rely upon. The provision that exist under part five of the act provides a mechanism by which the court may move forward in circumstances whereby the judge is not able to clearly distinguish which medical professional is the most superior. The legislation enables the judge to have a medical professional sit with him so as to guide the judge as to how to interpret the medical information. In the event that the judge is not able to clearly determine one medical professional from another the judges then compelled to order yet another medical professionals report.
0

#3 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 08 February 2018 - 04:58 PM

Wholly or substantially applies to Cover.

Section 55 requires the claimant to be assessed by a health professional if the Corporation requires it. However I can find nothing in the legislation that requires the Corporation to be bound by the opinion of a health professional by dictated legal process. A 103 and a VIMA have set processes dictated by legislation as well as the Ramsay principles ( an example of legal inference I believe though Grant can correct me if I am wrong). Section 117 gives the Corporation even wider powers to cancel entitlements.


The question of Cover is a wide consideration and cannot be compared to the 103 and VIMA components of the legislation.


0

#4 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 754
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 09 February 2018 - 05:26 AM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 08 February 2018 - 04:03 PM, said:

In the previous thread 'Submissions', there seemed to exist a significant amount of confusion around the law that pertains to: 'wholly or substantially'. I have uploaded the leading case on this issue.

From reading the case, it can legitimately be argued that, even if an injury is mostly caused by the ageing or non-covered gradual process, cover will nonetheless be available so long as it is evidenced that the accident was a 'slightly more than marginal' contributor to the injury.

The evidence can be constituted from:

(a) medical evidence, opinion; and
(b] circumstantial evidence; and
(c] legal inference.

Grant


Therefore to keep cover [s117], or obtain cover [s26] causation needs to be established by an injury that is slightly more than a marginal contributor to the injury. The claimant must establish the 'marginal contribution' through evidence.



There seems to be no argument over the requirement for 'medical evidence'. There is no legal argument, or medical argument from 'circumstantial evidence' either. Doctors use 'circumstantial evidence' all of the time in a diagnosis. From ACC v Ambros [2007] at [74] and [75(c]], In Seltsam, Spigelman CJ made reference to Sir Austin Bradford Hill, then Professor Emeritus of Medical Statistics at the University of London. One of the key principles enunciated by the Professor was:

(a) temporality: the exposure or risk factor must precede the effect. Strength of temporality, such as cause immediately precedes its effect, supports an inference of causation. There are several other areas that can be useful to claimants, with [obviously] different factual scenarios to their claims.

This is not legal inference. It is circumstantial evidence that supports an argument made via legal inference.

The point here is that circumstantial evidence is admissible [it is used all of the time in reality] and it can tip the balance when/if, ACC are making an argument under either s26 or s117 to disallow/deny a claim for cover.

Grant
0

#5 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 754
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 09 February 2018 - 05:39 AM

View PostLupine, on 08 February 2018 - 04:58 PM, said:

Wholly or substantially applies to Cover.

Section 55 requires the claimant to be assessed by a health professional if the Corporation requires it. However I can find nothing in the legislation that requires the Corporation to be bound by the opinion of a health professional by dictated legal process.

A 103 and a VIMA have set processes dictated by legislation as well as the Ramsay principles ( an example of legal inference I believe though Grant can correct me if I am wrong). Section 117 gives the Corporation even wider powers to cancel entitlements.




The question of Cover is a wide consideration and cannot be compared to the 103 and VIMA components of the legislation.


Lupine,

The 'Ramsey' principles apply to [as you state] the assessment of VI by the Corporation.

The Review and any appeal are to be determined by Wildbore and Austin Nichols.

Martin is now the leading case for claimants seeking to challenge VI determinations.

Grant
0

#6 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 09 February 2018 - 05:57 AM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 09 February 2018 - 05:39 AM, said:

Lupine,

The 'Ramsey' principles apply to [as you state] the assessment of VI by the Corporation.

The Review and any appeal are to be determined by Wildbore and Austin Nichols.

Martin is now the leading case for claimants seeking to challenge VI determinations.

Grant


That is indeed the case. Martin was one of the most important outcomes for claimants in ACC history. I focused on Ramsay as that is the ruling that applies directly to how the Corporation is to treat VI under the legislative process which confines the Corporation's considerations.

(Interestingly the Courts apply Martin to WPI assessment appeals and Ramsay to a claimant who has no contrary medical evidence but still allow the Corporation to use "Peer Reviewers" to influence the outcome of the assessment. Essentially the Corporation is going behind the assessment in breach of Ramsay by "peer reviewing" before the report is concluded. A nasty trick but the Court was not concerned. Luckily the Minister is not so relaxed about that situation and is seeking ways of making things fairer or so I am informed.)


The point I was trying to make was that the 103 and 110 VIMA processes have set criteria on who may assess and how the Corporation is to treat such assessments. When it comes to Cover however (which is the aspect of the process that relies on wholly or substantially) no such criteria exists. The Corporation may require an assessment if it so determines but there is nothing in the way of legislation that forces the Corporation into a consideration in the manner in which a VIMA would occur.

This I believe supports your view (which is actually fact) that circumstantial evidence and legal inference will apply to the wholly or substantially question.
0

#7 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 462
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:58 AM

Everybody has an opinion including Judges.

But what is important is stability of law.

In that context the following Judgment in Kaulima v ACC from Judge Joyce QC is crucial:-

[11] Speaking of confusion , I was reminded when reading the determination of the reviewer, and the judgment of Judge Beattie, of what the Chief Justice said in the recent case of Allenby v Middlemore Hospital and Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZSC 33.

... (this is not) easy legislation to follow. It contains much

cross-referencing, repetition, and circularity in expression.

[13] Although Her Honour was speaking in the context of matters quite removed from the present, I respectfully suggest that what she said has — in greater or lesser degree because it depends on the circumstances - application right across the legislation. And it is through the thicket of this legislation that lay litigants (who are numerous at all levels) must make their way — sometimes perhaps led by nothing better than instinct - towards a possible remedy.

Clearly, if the Chief Justice and Judge Joyce QC find the legislation confusing it follows that the law is unstable.

The ACC Act is administered by MBIE who have the role for the legislation and they should have taken this judicial dicta back to the Minister and Parliament to remedy the situation

So what chance do claimants (and Judges) have in properly construing, interpreting, and applying the law which is effectively unstable?

The omissions of MBIE is there we should be focusing our attention and requiring them to act.
3

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2018 - 10:26 AM

View Postmagnacarta, on 09 February 2018 - 08:58 AM, said:

Everybody has an opinion including Judges.

But what is important is stability of law.

In that context the following Judgment in Kaulima v ACC from Judge Joyce QC is crucial:-

[11] Speaking of confusion , I was reminded when reading the determination of the reviewer, and the judgment of Judge Beattie, of what the Chief Justice said in the recent case of Allenby v Middlemore Hospital and Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZSC 33.

... (this is not) easy legislation to follow. It contains much

cross-referencing, repetition, and circularity in expression.

[13] Although Her Honour was speaking in the context of matters quite removed from the present, I respectfully suggest that what she said has — in greater or lesser degree because it depends on the circumstances - application right across the legislation. And it is through the thicket of this legislation that lay litigants (who are numerous at all levels) must make their way — sometimes perhaps led by nothing better than instinct - towards a possible remedy.

Clearly, if the Chief Justice and Judge Joyce QC find the legislation confusing it follows that the law is unstable.

The ACC Act is administered by MBIE who have the role for the legislation and they should have taken this judicial dicta back to the Minister and Parliament to remedy the situation

So what chance do claimants (and Judges) have in properly construing, interpreting, and applying the law which is effectively unstable?

The omissions of MBIE is there we should be focusing our attention and requiring them to act.


MagnaCarta

Thank you for your most enlightening and excellent posting.

While the legislation appears to be complex, when stepping back and look at the legislation as a whole in order to see all of the interrelationships between the various sections, I find that the legislation is quite complete and robust in this format.
This seems to be a common theme with those who are having difficulty with the legislation. They seem to be focusing on one section of legislation at a time or even one portion of legislation at a time. This is clearly a mistake.

I do notice that those who are focusing their mind on just one section at a time seem to be looking at the sizzle rather than the sausage which is getting themselves into trouble as they seem to be wanting to promote a particular viewpoint without regards to the whole of the legislation.
To assist us comprehend the finer points such as this posting I find it useful to look at the purpose of the act which is described in the opening sections.
Has there been an accident event injury, including a series of micro injuries (gradual process) that have caused a disability and/or incapacity described by the relevantly qualified medical professional? If this is so it follows that there must be cover and entitlements. There can be no possibility of excuse and those who talk about the sizzle of the sausage rather than the actual sausage simply playing with words. I trust this will be helpful in cutting through the proverbial...
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2018 - 10:47 AM

In the event that either the previous injury or the subsequent injury is, or was for a particular period, wholly or substantially causing the claimant's ongoing incapacity or the claimant's need for ongoing entitlements, the ACC must bear all of the responsibilities for entitlements from a specified time or for a specified period.

As always the initial onus is upon the claimant to provide to the ACC the relevant information requirements described in the legislated criteria. For a injury to have cover it is necessary that the medical professional reports to the ACC the extent of the injury and if there are other relational aspects that could contribute towards the disability in that information must be made known. This concept is consistent with other types of insurance. In this regard the claimant's treatment provider providing the initial information to the ACC must demonstrate that the injury is not wholly or substantially caused by a non-ACC claim element such as a non-work-related infection, old age and suchlike. It is the "but for the accident event" principle.

Taking the word by itself, ‘substantial’ ownership could seem to range from a bottom mark of 50% or perhaps even below up to anything slightly under 100%; the full gamut of appreciable ownership. However, the word ‘substantially’ is not to be taken by itself. It is to be taken in the context of the phrase ‘wholly or substantially’, and in the wider context of the purpose of the matrimonial property legislation as a whole. The phrase ‘wholly or substantially’ gives the first interpretative clue. It is a gradation. The word ‘wholly’ of course requires the entirety: the word ‘substantially’ then is used in the sense of some reduction downwards from that entirety. The word ‘substantially’ is not used in a context envisaging a building upwards from nothing; or in an objective comparative way. The use envisages a relatively marginal departure away from entirety.”




0

#10 User is online   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7231
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:11 PM

View PostLupine, on 08 February 2018 - 04:58 PM, said:

Wholly or substantially applies to Cover.

Section 55 requires the claimant to be assessed by a health professional if the Corporation requires it. However I can find nothing in the legislation that requires the Corporation to be bound by the opinion of a health professional by dictated legal process. A 103 and a VIMA have set processes dictated by legislation as well as the Ramsay principles ( an example of legal inference I believe though Grant can correct me if I am wrong). Section 117 gives the Corporation even wider powers to cancel entitlements.


The question of Cover is a wide consideration and cannot be compared to the 103 and VIMA components of the legislation.


Lupine

Your first and last sentences are alive and well in my world. The trouble with this site is it always looks at the problems that concern Alan Thomas, and from his point of view alone.

The troubles I have are completely different than his therefore the wholly and substantially are not considered under the same sections of the Act that his are.

The case law is even different, so not all considerations fall into the same arena as Thomas' does.

Will read the case law cited and see if it fits into my criteria.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:22 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 09 February 2018 - 08:58 AM, said:

Everybody has an opinion including Judges.

But what is important is stability of law.

In that context the following Judgment in Kaulima v ACC from Judge Joyce QC is crucial:-

[11] Speaking of confusion , I was reminded when reading the determination of the reviewer, and the judgment of Judge Beattie, of what the Chief Justice said in the recent case of Allenby v Middlemore Hospital and Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZSC 33.

... (this is not) easy legislation to follow. It contains much

cross-referencing, repetition, and circularity in expression.

[13] Although Her Honour was speaking in the context of matters quite removed from the present, I respectfully suggest that what she said has — in greater or lesser degree because it depends on the circumstances - application right across the legislation. And it is through the thicket of this legislation that lay litigants (who are numerous at all levels) must make their way — sometimes perhaps led by nothing better than instinct - towards a possible remedy.

Clearly, if the Chief Justice and Judge Joyce QC find the legislation confusing it follows that the law is unstable.

The ACC Act is administered by MBIE who have the role for the legislation and they should have taken this judicial dicta back to the Minister and Parliament to remedy the situation

So what chance do claimants (and Judges) have in properly construing, interpreting, and applying the law which is effectively unstable?

The omissions of MBIE is there we should be focusing our attention and requiring them to act.


Whether we like it or not the legal court system is modern humanities civilized version of the Circus Maximus.

The legislation provides the rules and the court provides the arena. But just like the arenas of old the skill of the parties involved will play a significant role in the outcome. So the advantage will generally lay with the incumbent veterans. The only counters are hiring your own champion (who will cost heaps and may still lose) or pulling off a Spartacus and turning the order of things on their head.

Whatever the nature of the battle it will always gets down to is skill with a spot of luck. It is going to take a shit load more than declarations of how unfair it all is to change things.

The only realistic way forward is to learn ACC policy, identify the discrepancies and get the Corporation to change those policies. It takes time for the changes to filter through and it often means little to those who have lost in the past. That is life.

Now before anyone wishes to claim that ACC cannot be moved on policy I can assure you all that I have done it on several occasions and am still doing it. This has involved extensive discussions but it has been done. Let us not forget that I have done this even as I launched into ACC Executive, Complaints, Accounting and Government Services and ACC Legal. Oh and there is a certain Reviewer I have a serious bone to pick with as well.

This is because I discovered that ACC has totally screwed the Levy / ERC process for Self Employed Schedular PAYE claimants. They failed to implement Section 221 and Schedule 4 and substituted and unlawful policy. The people involved are aware that I will do what it takes to hold them to proper account. My vow on it.

My view is that Grant is totally correct. My track record speaks for itself.

My point is lets have more on what can be done.
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:27 PM

View PostMINI, on 09 February 2018 - 02:11 PM, said:

Lupine

Your first and last sentences are alive and well in my world. The trouble with this site is it always looks at the problems that concern Alan Thomas, and from his point of view alone.

The troubles I have are completely different than his therefore the wholly and substantially are not considered under the same sections of the Act that his are.

The case law is even different, so not all considerations fall into the same arena as Thomas' does.

Will read the case law cited and see if it fits into my criteria.

Mini


Mini I think you have the wrong end of the stick. ACC and I are in total agreement inasmuch as my claims are accepted and there are no wholly or substantially issues connected to my claims. Perhaps you could consider not beating me up at every opportunity
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:36 PM

View PostLupine, on 09 February 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:

Whether we like it or not the legal court system is modern humanities civilized version of the Circus Maximus.

The legislation provides the rules and the court provides the arena. But just like the arenas of old the skill of the parties involved will play a significant role in the outcome. So the advantage will generally lay with the incumbent veterans. The only counters are hiring your own champion (who will cost heaps and may still lose) or pulling off a Spartacus and turning the order of things on their head.

Whatever the nature of the battle it will always gets down to is skill with a spot of luck. It is going to take a shit load more than declarations of how unfair it all is to change things.

The only realistic way forward is to learn ACC policy, identify the discrepancies and get the Corporation to change those policies. It takes time for the changes to filter through and it often means little to those who have lost in the past. That is life.

Now before anyone wishes to claim that ACC cannot be moved on policy I can assure you all that I have done it on several occasions and am still doing it. This has involved extensive discussions but it has been done. Let us not forget that I have done this even as I launched into ACC Executive, Complaints, Accounting and Government Services and ACC Legal. Oh and there is a certain Reviewer I have a serious bone to pick with as well.

This is because I discovered that ACC has totally screwed the Levy / ERC process for Self Employed Schedular PAYE claimants. They failed to implement Section 221 and Schedule 4 and substituted and unlawful policy. The people involved are aware that I will do what it takes to hold them to proper account. My vow on it.

My view is that Grant is totally correct. My track record speaks for itself.

My point is lets have more on what can be done.


How about we look at the world in a different way.
The legislation is written in stone and the way towards correcting mistakes of the ACC is enforce that legislation.

With regards to policy, ACC are simply not permitted to have a policy so I think we can just totally disregard any notion of "ACC policy" as being a relevant as the corner dairy policy. The reason the ACC are not permitted to have policy is that the ACC legislation is a complete code And that's the ACC do not have authority to determine fact but rather must be submissive to the outside independent to terminators of fact.

Another way to look at this policy malarkey is your insurance policy. Your insurance policy is a contract that cannot be changed during the course of the contract. It is the same with the ACC legislation, it cannot be changed by anyone except Parliament and as such the legislation is a permanent fixture. Any confusion about the interpretation of the legislation is not for the ACC to be making but rather the courts.

Just to give you an example Of the ACC self-delusion regarding the notion of policy, ACC tried to convince the court that it is their policy to make decisions by way of "commonsense" at which time the Court very quickly shut down with a rebuke or good telling off.

Lupin try to resist the urge of self promoting your business.
0

#14 User is online   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7231
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:46 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 February 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

In the event that either the previous injury or the subsequent injury is, or was for a particular period, wholly or substantially causing the claimant's ongoing incapacity or the claimant's need for ongoing entitlements, the ACC must bear all of the responsibilities for entitlements from a specified time or for a specified period.

As always the initial onus is upon the claimant to provide to the ACC the relevant information requirements described in the legislated criteria. For a injury to have cover it is necessary that the medical professional reports to the ACC the extent of the injury and if there are other relational aspects that could contribute towards the disability in that information must be made known. This concept is consistent with other types of insurance. In this regard the claimant's treatment provider providing the initial information to the ACC must demonstrate that the injury is not wholly or substantially caused by a non-ACC claim element such as a non-work-related infection, old age and suchlike. It is the "but for the accident event" principle.

Taking the word by itself, ‘substantial’ ownership could seem to range from a bottom mark of 50% or perhaps even below up to anything slightly under 100%; the full gamut of appreciable ownership. However, the word ‘substantially’ is not to be taken by itself. It is to be taken in the context of the phrase ‘wholly or substantially’, and in the wider context of the purpose of the matrimonial property legislation as a whole. The phrase ‘wholly or substantially’ gives the first interpretative clue. It is a gradation. The word ‘wholly’ of course requires the entirety: the word ‘substantially’ then is used in the sense of some reduction downwards from that entirety. The word ‘substantially’ is not used in a context envisaging a building upwards from nothing; or in an objective comparative way. The use envisages a relatively marginal departure away from entirety.”




Alan Thomas is writing from an outcome of case law in the majority of this posting without citing it here for us to read. They are not his words he writes and as can be seen the case is a matrimonial case, not an ACC case. it is talking of furniture and actual objects. It is not talking of people. And disadvantaged clamiants.

You make a fool of yourself when you do that Thomas and people would be silly to use a case when it also has a section on 'Repugnent to Justice' in it'

Now if we could use that and make it stick against ACC we would be given a chance to have the ACC Act and Administration changed in some very expensive entitlements that are due us but never arrive.

Mini
0

#15 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 462
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 09 February 2018 - 03:41 PM

It has become very apparent from some posters on this forum that they clearly do not understand the difference between ACC and Government policy and Parliament's legislation and between the separation of powers between the executive the legislature and the judiciary.

It was suggested some years ago on this forum that a conference of claimants and interested parties be held in a central NZ location to address all the issues of concern, what could be done and then to move forward with a united voice.

But no, all that fell on deaf ears with no movement or resolution.

Meanwhile, years later, people continue to bleat on this forum.
1

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2018 - 03:57 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 09 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

It has become very apparent from some posters on this forum that they clearly do not understand the difference between ACC and Government policy and Parliament's legislation and between the separation of powers between the executive the legislature and the judiciary.

It was suggested some years ago on this forum that a conference of claimants and interested parties be held in a central NZ location to address all the issues of concern, what could be done and then to move forward with a united voice.

But no, all that fell on deaf ears with no movement or resolution.

Meanwhile, years later, people continue to bleat on this forum.


As the ACC are not able to form policy there is not much point in having any kind of meeting as a meeting is not capable of achieving anything.

The problem that we will experience is the ACC failure to comply with the legislated criteria.

The politicians have frequently commented and criticise the ACC for being wayward in its disregard of legislation with its self-importance (policy) approach rather than being of Serbian to the legislation and Act as an administrator of the legislation as is required by that legislation.

If anybody thinks that the ACC is entitled to produce and operate under its own policy please correct me if you think I'm wrong quoting the relevant section of legislation that permits the ACC to administer the ACC in accordance with its own policy.
1

#17 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:26 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 February 2018 - 02:36 PM, said:

How about we look at the world in a different way.
The legislation is written in stone and the way towards correcting mistakes of the ACC is enforce that legislation.

With regards to policy, ACC are simply not permitted to have a policy so I think we can just totally disregard any notion of "ACC policy" as being a relevant as the corner dairy policy. The reason the ACC are not permitted to have policy is that the ACC legislation is a complete code And that's the ACC do not have authority to determine fact but rather must be submissive to the outside independent to terminators of fact.

Another way to look at this policy malarkey is your insurance policy. Your insurance policy is a contract that cannot be changed during the course of the contract. It is the same with the ACC legislation, it cannot be changed by anyone except Parliament and as such the legislation is a permanent fixture. Any confusion about the interpretation of the legislation is not for the ACC to be making but rather the courts.

Just to give you an example Of the ACC self-delusion regarding the notion of policy, ACC tried to convince the court that it is their policy to make decisions by way of "commonsense" at which time the Court very quickly shut down with a rebuke or good telling off.

Lupin try to resist the urge of self promoting your business.


Alan try to resist being obtuse.

The notion that ACC is not allowed to have a policy is just ridiculous. After all the law does state the the reviewer must put aside all ACC policy so there is a big clue right there.

Dealing with policy means preventing the process getting screwed in the first place. The problem for you Alan is twofold. One you will never be in a position to influence policy except maybe health and safety. Two those changes and improvements will not make one bit of difference to your personal circumstances. You are aware of this so you devote all your energy to undermining anything and anyone that may divert people's attention from the Ballad of Alan Thomas. Sad but true.
0

#18 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:46 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 09 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

It has become very apparent from some posters on this forum that they clearly do not understand the difference between ACC and Government policy and Parliament's legislation and between the separation of powers between the executive the legislature and the judiciary.

It was suggested some years ago on this forum that a conference of claimants and interested parties be held in a central NZ location to address all the issues of concern, what could be done and then to move forward with a united voice.

But no, all that fell on deaf ears with no movement or resolution.

Meanwhile, years later, people continue to bleat on this forum.


Claimant groups can only go so far though they do make a valuable contribution. There are claimant groups operating that I am aware of that shun association with this site.

There are of course differences as you describe but they are all interconnected at various key parts. If the flaw is in the legislation then its the political route for example.

The problem is actually much bigger with more players than most people realize. The biggest problem is that ACC often cannot comprehend and follow its own legislation. Then when we add in all the nasty stuff and we have quite the situation. Most organisations will not help and most claimants cannot fight the fight for a wide range of reasons. Then add the underbelly of the appeal process and ground feeding ACC legal seeking to defeat claims regardless of merit and the fact there is so much noise in the ether being heard is nearly impossible and it is clear we have a big problem.

The only answer I have found to date is found in forcing policy change.

For instance assessments.

I have come across VIMA by stealth where claimants are told they are being sent for treatment considerations and it is actually an occupational assessor.

On that basis I present the argument that treatment recommendations can only be provided by treatment providers and that any assessor asked to do so is no longer a non treating medical assessor and so clinical rights must apply. I then argue that only treatment providers can sign off on the 110 McGrath test.

On a wider level I push for policy that clearly defines assessor roles according to the nature of the assessment thus preventing to a large degree an aberration in process.

The limitation is found in that it only helps future claimants which I acknowledge.

Yet this site is here to assist all claimants and that includes future claimants who will benefit from knowing what not to do and to recognize issues before they develop.
0

#19 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 09 February 2018 - 05:47 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 09 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

It has become very apparent from some posters on this forum that they clearly do not understand the difference between ACC and Government policy and Parliament's legislation and between the separation of powers between the executive the legislature and the judiciary.

It was suggested some years ago on this forum that a conference of claimants and interested parties be held in a central NZ location to address all the issues of concern, what could be done and then to move forward with a united voice.

But no, all that fell on deaf ears with no movement or resolution.

Meanwhile, years later, people continue to bleat on this forum.


And unfortunately , the same person , 'Mr Thomas' wanted to take over that meeting in Rotorua.
Everything this person 'Mr Thomas' touches never has a happy ending .
The camp and extra accommodation were all organized until guess who wanted control, just
like every post on this forum.
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2018 - 06:01 PM

View PostLupine, on 09 February 2018 - 04:26 PM, said:

Alan try to resist being obtuse.

The notion that ACC is not allowed to have a policy is just ridiculous. After all the law does state the the reviewer must put aside all ACC policy so there is a big clue right there.

Dealing with policy means preventing the process getting screwed in the first place. The problem for you Alan is twofold. One you will never be in a position to influence policy except maybe health and safety. Two those changes and improvements will not make one bit of difference to your personal circumstances. You are aware of this so you devote all your energy to undermining anything and anyone that may divert people's attention from the Ballad of Alan Thomas. Sad but true.


I think it is a given that what we are talking about here is determination of cover and entitlements and not any of the operational matters.

What do you imagine ACC can have a policy about when determining a claim and/or entitlements?

ACC certainly may have policy when managing their staff and suchlike but not with regards to administering the act itself such as calculating entitlements. The fact that ACC is not able to play any part in the production of any information likewise deprives them of any kind of policy about interpretation. We could go on addressing every single little element of our interactions with the ACC to to distinguish the difference between operational matters and matters of determining entitlement.
0

Share this topic:


  • 11 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users