ACCforum: Section103 assessment by Occupational Physician - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Section103 assessment by Occupational Physician - suggestioins for an independent assessor?

#1 User is offline   Blue Horizon 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-November 16

Posted 11 February 2018 - 12:30 PM

Hi. My first post.

I dont know what a "Section 103 assessment by Occupational Physician" actually is ... it is a VIMA, VMA an IMA,a VMR a IOA a VIOA, an S103 or something else?
Hard to research something one cannot identify.

Have been referred to Dr Antoniadis.
Posts on this forum suggest he may not be the most independent of assessors.

Can anyone advise me of someone they have experienced as a reasonably independent and fair assessor?
Auckland/Manukau area

Thankyou.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 11 February 2018 - 01:01 PM

In order to come to to grips with section 103 it would be advisable to also consider 102.

Essentially under section 102 the ACC may Gather what information it seems necessary under the legislation by carrying out assessments from time to time and asked for an assessment from a medical professional and also obtain information from any other professional technical or specialist person including other advice are many other person it considers appropriate such as friends and neighbours relatives private investigators and suchlike. Now the states it does not say what they may do with this information, that comes up in section 103


102 Procedure in determining incapacity under section 103 or section 105


(1) The Corporation may determine any question under section 103 or section 105 from time to time.

(2) In determining any such question, the Corporation—

(a) must consider an assessment undertaken by a … medical practitioner; and

(B) may obtain any professional, technical, specialised, or other advice from any person it considers appropriate.


Subsection (2)(a) was amended, as from 18 September 2004, by s 175(1) Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (2003 No 48) by omitting the word “registered”.
Note that there is the word "and" between subsection (2) (a) and (B). Subsection (2) (a) uses the word "must". This makes the medical practitioner assessment mandatory and the other information,(B) supplementary With the use of the word "may". In addition the supplementary information is not compulsory and neither can supplant medical information, otherwise would have used the word "or".
This section prescribes assessments the Corporation must consider, and evidence it may obtain, in making any determination under s 103 or s 105.

The object of a determination under s 103 is to determine whether a person is, by reason of his or her personal injury, for the time being unable to engage in his or her pre-injury employment. The object is not to determine whether the person has a “capacity for work” generally. The Corporation may make a determination from time to time without restriction on frequency. By way of contrast, the object of a determination under s 105 is to determine whether a person is unable by reason of his or her personal injury to engage in work for which he or she is suited by way of experience, education or training or any combination of those things. In either case, the Corporation is obliged to consider any assessment undertaken by a registered medical practitioner. This applies irrespective of the timing of the assessment or the identity of the person under whose direction the assessment was carried out.




103 Corporation to determine incapacity of claimant who, [at time of personal injury, was earner or on unpaid parental leave]
(1) The Corporation must determine under this section the incapacity of—

(a) a claimant who was an earner at the time he or she suffered the personal injury:

(B) a claimant who was on unpaid parental leave at the time he or she suffered the personal injury.

(2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant is unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.

(3) If the answer under subsection (2) is that the claimant is unable to engage in such employment, the claimant is incapacitated for employment.

[(4) The references in subsections (1) and (2) to a personal injury are references to a personal injury for which the person has cover under this Act.]

[(5) Subsection (4) is for the avoidance of doubt.]


The heading to s 103 was amended, as from 11 May 2005, by s 21(1) Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act (No 2) 2005 (2005 No 45) by substituting the words “at time of personal injury, was earner or on unpaid parental leave” for the words “at time of incapacity, was earner”.
Subsections (4) and (5) were inserted, as from 11 May 2005, by s 21(2) Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act (No 2) 2005 (2005 No 45).


The Corporation must determine the incapacity of a claimant who is an earner or a person on parental leave by reference to whether or not the claimant can engage in employment in which he or she was engaged when the personal injury was suffered.

This section is based on s 85 of the 1998 Act and s 37A of the 1992 Act. Incapacity of earner to be determined in relation to date of injury.




Historically the ACC has quite frequently relied upon information other than medical information in order to claim by way of inference that the claimant can work. Of course if a person can work that does not in itself mean that it is safe to work which is the reason why medical information is mandatory.



0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 11 February 2018 - 01:04 PM

View PostBlue Horizon, on 11 February 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

Hi. My first post.

I dont know what a "Section 103 assessment by Occupational Physician" actually is ... it is a VIMA, VMA an IMA,a VMR a IOA a VIOA, an S103 or something else?
Hard to research something one cannot identify.

Have been referred to Dr Antoniadis.
Posts on this forum suggest he may not be the most independent of assessors.

Can anyone advise me of someone they have experienced as a reasonably independent and fair assessor?
Auckland/Manukau area

Thankyou.


From what I recall prior to my being an ACC claimant over 30 years ago Dr Antoniadis was a psychiatrist. Of course any assessment under section 103 relating to medical matters must also have the medical matters attended to by someone who is suitably qualified. That means your claim must have a psychiatric base of some sort of which the ACC want to consider remain still valid. If you do not have a psychiatric condition of any sort that is relevant to your claim for cover and entitlements in the ACC have absolutely no business asking you to see a psychiatrist. If that is the case that trying to find another reason to form the basis of your injuries, psychiatric instead of orthopaedic for example.
0

#4 User is offline   INTER 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 231
  • Joined: 19-August 14

Posted 11 February 2018 - 08:14 PM

https://accforum.org...ty-and-the-ima/
0

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 12 February 2018 - 12:42 PM

This needs to be attacked with care as section 103 determines if you are incapacitated as to that section

As one needs that any assessment under section 103 has to look at your employment at the time of your accident and why you are unable to return.

The questions asked by the case manager is important as it must contain all of the reasons you have claimed to the ACC through other medical treating providers. If these reasons are not in the assessors position and supplied by ACC, before the interview is started then the case manager is trying to obtain information that is not correct.

Search the assessors name both on here and also at http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZACC/
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 12 February 2018 - 02:22 PM

So what information is mandatory and what information is supplementary?
What is the purpose of these types of information?

We quite often see ACC challenging and existing claim whereby they are not satisfied with their own prophecies that the claimant will no longer be injured and incapacitated by those injuries after a predicted amount of time has expired. For example a person might have a broken leg and the ACC imagine that after 6 to 8 weeks the claimant will be ready for work and when the doctor tells the ACC that the claimant is not able to work after 10 weeks for example the ACC start looking for alternative information, even psychologists and psychiatrists coming into the picture or worse still getting private investigators to try and find out if the claimant is carrying out activities which they think might be contrary to someone with a broken leg.

So while the ACC is welcomed to challenge the treatment providers diagnosis, prognosis and determination that a claimant cannot work and the claimant is obliged to make themselves available for any assessment and information gathering process desired by the ACC, what information is it that the ACC are permitted to acquire and what may ACC do with that information?
0

#7 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:34 AM

View PostBlue Horizon, on 11 February 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

Hi. My first post.

I dont know what a "Section 103 assessment by Occupational Physician" actually is ... it is a VIMA, VMA an IMA,a VMR a IOA a VIOA, an S103 or something else?
Hard to research something one cannot identify.

Have been referred to Dr Antoniadis.
Posts on this forum suggest he may not be the most independent of assessors.

Can anyone advise me of someone they have experienced as a reasonably independent and fair assessor?
Auckland/Manukau area

Thankyou.



Have you been on a VIMA, VMA an IMA,a VMR a IOA a VIOA assessment and found that you can not be found to work 30 or 35 hours per week?

If so then the same injuries apply.

(2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant is unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:49 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 13 February 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

Have you been on a VIMA, VMA an IMA,a VMR a IOA a VIOA assessment and found that you can not be found to work 30 or 35 hours per week?

If so then the same injuries apply.

(2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant is unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.


Are we able to address what the criteria as for determining whether or not the claimant continues to be unable to return to their preinjury occupation as a result of their injuries?
Obviously most of the above assessment procedures are totally irrelevant to section 103 which deals with incapacity to return to the preinjury occupation. So what is relevant? What is the criteria for the relevant assessment? What questions have the ACC asked the assessor?
It is not until we gain control of the ACCs procedures that we are able to maintain the safety of our claim for cover and entitlements. The main problem we face is ACC staff incompetence that asked the wrong assessment to be done, asked the wrong questions of the assessor and with the wrong information make a wrong decision. Of course the ACC staff officer is encouraged to get claimants of the books in order to gain bonuses so some staff will even deliberately make mistakes as it were to collect their bonus at our cost.
0

#9 User is offline   Blue Horizon 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-November 16

Posted 14 February 2018 - 10:35 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 13 February 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

Have you been on a VIMA, VMA an IMA,a VMR a IOA a VIOA assessment and found that you can not be found to work 30 or 35 hours per week?

If so then the same injuries apply.

(2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant is unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.


I have been on fortnightly compensation for 3 years and slowly trying to build myself back to pre-injury work hrs at my old employment.
I had an MCR 1 year ago where the assessor was adamant my injury was responsible (the BMA challenged him but failed).

Now they want to knock me off again because I am getting closer to my pre-injury hrs as evidenced by my monthly GP ACC18s.
So this time I may be terminated not for an age related process but for being very close to my pre-injury capacity I presume.

This is recently complicated by a 2 month flare-up - which means my last two ACC18 forms demonstrate I am now well below pre injury work levels.
Nevertheless I am still being forced to do this assessment. Is this correct procedure?


I want to nominate and choose my own assessor but not knowing exactly what type of assessment this is I don't know who to choose.

Hence my question: re a "Section 103 assessment by Occupational Physician" actually is ... it is a MCR VIMA, VMA an IMA,a VMR a IOA a VIOA, an S103 or something else?

I presume it is a medical assessment again - but perhaps a different sort.
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 February 2018 - 10:42 AM

Blue Horizon by any chance are you working on light duties in your occupation?
Quite clearly light duties are not the same thing as being able-bodied given the fact that you must be employable in the open market place. When you're on light duties effectively your employer is subsidising your employment.

I think your priority is to find out the reason why the ACC want to carry out the assessment in the first place and what type of things they want assessed. Simply write to the ACC asking them for this information. This will be the first and foremost type of information before you even think about which occupational medical assessor is relevant. Quite often the ACC commission a psychologist to carry out an assessment with the thoughts that your perception of pain is irrelevant and that you should be able to work while in pain or that your pain is imagined.

With regards to the variety of codes you have given Which designate different types of assessments quite obviously you cannot be assessed for capacity to work in a new occupation after a period of rehabilitation under section 103. A medical occupational assessment can't be assessing something else. The first thing you need to do is know exactly what the ACC are trying to do and the only way to do that is to ask them. Unfortunately the ACC will more than likely be setting up some kind of ambush.
0

#11 User is offline   Blue Horizon 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-November 16

Posted 14 February 2018 - 10:43 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 February 2018 - 10:49 AM, said:

Are we able to address what the criteria as for determining whether or not the claimant continues to be unable to return to their preinjury occupation as a result of their injuries?
Obviously most of the above assessment procedures are totally irrelevant to section 103 which deals with incapacity to return to the preinjury occupation. So what is relevant? What is the criteria for the relevant assessment? What questions have the ACC asked the assessor?
It is not until we gain control of the ACCs procedures that we are able to maintain the safety of our claim for cover and entitlements. The main problem we face is ACC staff incompetence that asked the wrong assessment to be done, asked the wrong questions of the assessor and with the wrong information make a wrong decision. Of course the ACC staff officer is encouraged to get claimants of the books in order to gain bonuses so some staff will even deliberately make mistakes as it were to collect their bonus at our cost.


I have asked for the questions but no response as yet.
The purpose of the 103 Assessment as advised includes:
"If it is deemed that you are unable to complete your pre-injury work hours and work tasks, then recommendations for rehabilitation and support moving forward will be provided. If the assessment deems you have the capacity to complete your pre-injury work hours in your pre-injury work tasks, regardless of the change in your work contract, then your entitlement to compensation will cease, as the incapacity that your compensation is based upon is no longer incapacitating you from completing your pre-injury work."
0

#12 User is offline   Blue Horizon 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-November 16

Posted 14 February 2018 - 10:52 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 February 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

Blue Horizon by any chance are you working on light duties in your occupation?
Quite clearly light duties are not the same thing as being able-bodied given the fact that you must be employable in the open market place. When you're on light duties effectively your employer is subsidising your employment.

I think your priority is to find out the reason why the ACC want to carry out the assessment in the first place and what type of things they want assessed. Simply write to the ACC asking them for this information. This will be the first and foremost type of information before you even think about which occupational medical assessor is relevant. Quite often the ACC commission a psychologist to carry out an assessment with the thoughts that your perception of pain is irrelevant and that you should be able to work while in pain or that your pain is imagined.

With regards to the variety of codes you have given Which designate different types of assessments quite obviously you cannot be assessed for capacity to work in a new occupation after a period of rehabilitation under section 103. A medical occupational assessment can't be assessing something else. The first thing you need to do is know exactly what the ACC are trying to do and the only way to do that is to ask them. Unfortunately the ACC will more than likely be setting up some kind of ambush.


Re "Blue Horizon by any chance are you working on light duties in your occupation?"
Not possible, I am doing exact same duties as per pre-injury. The only issue is how long I can do them for before the pain and loss of concentration makes me stop each day.


Re "The first thing you need to do is know exactly what the ACC are trying to do"
Yes. At the moment its the following:
"The section 103 assessment focuses on a clients fitness for work, taking into account an in-depth review of:
•The clients pre-injury role and work tasks
•The clients pre-injury work hours
•The physical environment
•The clients current injury and any non-injury restrictions"


This seems to be a templated ACC response.
Hence I have asked them already for the questions they are putting to the assessor.

Regardless, would be interested to hear from members suggested names of section 103 medical assessors they regard as fair (Auckland region).
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:00 AM

View PostBlue Horizon, on 14 February 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

I have asked for the questions but no response as yet.
The purpose of the 103 Assessment as advised includes:
"If it is deemed that you are unable to complete your pre-injury work hours and work tasks, then recommendations for rehabilitation and support moving forward will be provided. If the assessment deems you have the capacity to complete your pre-injury work hours in your pre-injury work tasks, regardless of the change in your work contract, then your entitlement to compensation will cease, as the incapacity that your compensation is based upon is no longer incapacitating you from completing your pre-injury work."


Firstly you need to acquire the information concerning the issues that the ACC are looking into along with the questions put to the assessor and the type of assessor that they feel is appropriate. This will enable you to challenge which assessor is used and suchlike.

Okay with your ongoing injuries are you still receiving medical treatment with a view to arriving at a medical solution to your injuries and incapacities with a view to returning to the preinjury occupation? If that is the case the ACC are not permitted to consider rehabilitating you into a new occupation, no matter how long the medical treatment back to recovery takes. It looks like from the above wording that they are First hoping to call you rehabilitated by the fact that you are remaining in the same job despite the fact that the job specification has alturnitive to meet with your injuries. The factual error that they have made is referring to the modified job as your original job. This fact is an untruths and if you wanted to push the matter further would be a conspiracy to commit fraud by the ACC officer concerned as they no for an absolute certainty that they may not do this. Successfully working to a full-time standard while on light duties is not rehabilitation and does not qualify for the ACC to exit you from the ACC scheme. Failing that the ACC will be seeking to transfer you through to a vocational rehabilitation program which will involve rather than rehabilitation a simple relabelling process utilising your existing work skills in a new occupation, in other words downgrade you.
0

#14 User is offline   Blue Horizon 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-November 16

Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:01 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 12 February 2018 - 12:42 PM, said:

This needs to be attacked with care as section 103 determines if you are incapacitated as to that section

As one needs that any assessment under section 103 has to look at your employment at the time of your accident and why you are unable to return.

The questions asked by the case manager is important as it must contain all of the reasons you have claimed to the ACC through other medical treating providers. If these reasons are not in the assessors position and supplied by ACC, before the interview is started then the case manager is trying to obtain information that is not correct.

Search the assessors name both on here and also at http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZACC/

Thanks.

Re "why you are unable to return."

Apart from a few weeks off to start off I never left my work, I just had to drastically reduce my hrs.
My contract got changed as well, to casual as I could no longer do long hrs.
Its been 3 years or so now.

Thanks for the links, though they seem better for a checking a known name rather than finding a new one.
Any other suggestions?

Can I choose an independent assessor I nominated and saw last year for an MCR if he is qualified for this assessment?
(They have chosen their favourite already and set an appointment...giving me no choice)
0

#15 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

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

Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:02 AM

View PostBlue Horizon, on 14 February 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

I have been on fortnightly compensation for 3 years and slowly trying to build myself back to pre-injury work hrs at my old employment.
I had an MCR 1 year ago where the assessor was adamant my injury was responsible (the BMA challenged him but failed).

Now they want to knock me off again because I am getting closer to my pre-injury hrs as evidenced by my monthly GP ACC18s.
So this time I may be terminated not for an age related process but for being very close to my pre-injury capacity I presume.

This is recently complicated by a 2 month flare-up - which means my last two ACC18 forms demonstrate I am now well below pre injury work levels.
Nevertheless I am still being forced to do this assessment. Is this correct procedure?


I want to nominate and choose my own assessor but not knowing exactly what type of assessment this is I don't know who to choose.

Hence my question: re a "Section 103 assessment by Occupational Physician" actually is ... it is a MCR VIMA, VMA an IMA,a VMR a IOA a VIOA, an S103 or something else?

I presume it is a medical assessment again - but perhaps a different sort.


Let's start from the beginning:

[1] As you are a long-term claimant, has ACC pursuant to s75, determined a need to prepare a rehabilitation plan? You should know the answer as ACC must have consulted with you on this.

[2] If the answer is yes, then: pursuant to s77 there will be certain requirements that need to be undertaken.

[3] If the answer to [1] is no, then we are in a different area.

[4] You have indicated that ACC is wanting to assess you pursuant to s103. This rather suggests that the answer to [1] is actually no.


Before we move on, I'll wait to see how you respond.

Grant
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:03 AM

Blue Horizon you of identified the problem area as being one of pain and work and endurance. By any chance when you reach the threshold of your endurance is it possible that the work task activities involve them would become dangerous? What pain medication are you taking if any and what is the guidelines concerning that pain medication? Getting back to issue raised before, are you receiving ongoing medical treatment with a view that that medical treatment results in an improvement of your condition to better able you to perform your duties at work? Has your doctor had a talk to you about the safety of the individual task activities?
0

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:10 AM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 14 February 2018 - 11:02 AM, said:

Let's start from the beginning:

[1] As you are a long-term claimant, has ACC pursuant to s75, determined a need to prepare a rehabilitation plan? You should know the answer as ACC must have consulted with you on this.

[2] If the answer is yes, then: pursuant to s77 there will be certain requirements that need to be undertaken.

[3] If the answer to [1] is no, then we are in a different area.

[4] You have indicated that ACC is wanting to assess you pursuant to s103. This rather suggests that the answer to [1] is actually no.


Before we move on, I'll wait to see how you respond.

Grant


An ACC work-related claim has to levels starting with the first level which concerns itself with medical treatment for the purposes of returning to the preinjury occupation. ACC are required to have a rehabilitation plan to accommodate all of your needs and at this stage to ensure that you are receiving the appropriate medical treatment to return you to preinjury occupation of that is possible.
The ACC may only moved to the next level in the event that no medical treatment is available to return you to your preinjury occupation and that there is reason to believe that you have a capacity to work in a new occupation of which will require a different type of rehabilitation plan, a plan to obtain the necessary qualifications experience and skill to become an earner in the new occupation. The rehabilitation plan will first arrange for the necessary training to obtain qualifications and then expose you to some form of work experiences until you achieve a satisfactory level of experience and his master the necessary skills and that occupation to be an earner. I'm not sure of the current legislation but previously the ACC were not allowed to fund rehabilitation of that exceeded three years so they are on a timeline.
0

#18 User is online   MINI 

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

Posted 14 February 2018 - 12:54 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 February 2018 - 01:04 PM, said:

From what I recall prior to my being an ACC claimant over 30 years ago Dr Antoniadis was a psychiatrist. Of course any assessment under section 103 relating to medical matters must also have the medical matters attended to by someone who is suitably qualified. That means your claim must have a psychiatric base of some sort of which the ACC want to consider remain still valid. If you do not have a psychiatric condition of any sort that is relevant to your claim for cover and entitlements in the ACC have absolutely no business asking you to see a psychiatrist. If that is the case that trying to find another reason to form the basis of your injuries, psychiatric instead of orthopaedic for example.


You are wrong Alan Thomas. In 2001 Dr Antoniadis was a skeletal, type assessor as he assessed my operatored on shoulders/ie rotor cuffs in Jan 2001. There are assessors about that can do both however, ie Dr Rosy Fenwick.

Mini
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:38 PM

View PostBlue Horizon, on 14 February 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

I have asked for the questions but no response as yet.
The purpose of the 103 Assessment as advised includes:
"If it is deemed that you are unable to complete your pre-injury work hours and work tasks, then recommendations for rehabilitation and support moving forward will be provided. If the assessment deems you have the capacity to complete your pre-injury work hours in your pre-injury work tasks, regardless of the change in your work contract, then your entitlement to compensation will cease, as the incapacity that your compensation is based upon is no longer incapacitating you from completing your pre-injury work."


the answer is t me an abuse of process.

In wicks V ACC 50 / 93 a decision about ACC trying to claim that a person 97% legally blind no longer having an incapacity due to his covered injury when the employment and rehabilitation had changed.

It refers to another case in a question to your case manager how they intemperate this in relationship to his explanation.


[*]

Quote

    • I am of the view that the principle to be applied in the instant issue of
    • principle is no better summarised than it was by Fletcher Moulton LJ more
    • than 80 years ago in Cardiff Corporation v Hall [1911] KB 1009 where he
    • said:

    • "If the incapacity caused by the accident has practically
    • ceased so that the workman [sic] is able for the time being
    • to do his own work and a fit competitor for obtaining it
    • there is no difficulty in applying this principle. In these
    • circumstances if the workman cannot get employment it
    • must be due to the fluctuations of the labour market and
    • not the' consequences of the accident, and therefore the
    • employer is entitled to be relieved from making the weekly
    • payments. It is, however, no easy task to apply it in a case
    • where partial incapacity still remains. By reason of this
    • partial incapacity the workman 'may be unable to resume his
    • old work and may be forced to take up something else for
    • his livelihood. Or he may be able to • pursue his old
    • avocation earning lower wages. Or he" may be able to earn '
    • his former wages at his own work when he can get
    • employment but suffers from being one of those who will b'e
    • the first to be discharged, as soon as employment gets
    • slack. Under these circumstances the results of the
    • accident may affect his earning power either by increasing
    • the difficulty of obtaining employment or by diminishing the
    • remuneration when it is obtained, or by both combined.
    • Now the effect of the particular accident in diminishing the
    • chance of obtaining employment is in many cases so
    • personal a matter that it can only be arrived at by evidence
    • as to the results of the efforts to obtain it. Such evidence is
    • open to the objection that the difficulty of obtaining
    • employment in the same or other trades may not be due
    • solely to the effect of the accident but also partly to the
    • state of the labour market. This consideration no doubt
    • increases the difficulty of the Tribunal in arriving at a right
    • decision, but it does not affect the admissibility and in some
    • cases the necessity of the evidence, and the Tribunal must

    • use all the material before it so as to separate as far as
    • practicable that which is due to the one cause from that
    • which is due to the 0 ther. "
    • And further in language which may grate a little, but nonetheless is telling in
    • its force, said :
    • "If I might be allowed to use such an undignified phrase I
    • should say that if the accident Ieeves the workman's labour
    • in the position of an 'odd lot' in the labour merket, the
    • employer must shew that a customer can be found who will
    • take it. For in such a case were (sic) are not in truth dealing
    • with fluctuations of the labour market at all. We are dealing
    • with the chance of someone being found who can and will
    • avail himself of the special residue of powers which has
    • been left in the workmen, end, seeing that it is the result of
    • the accident that the workman has been made dependent
    • on the finding of such a special emptover, it is right that
    • those who are liable to pay to him compensation for his loss
    • of earning power should only be allowed to take credit for
    • his partial capacity for work if they can shew that it can
    • actually be made productive otrernuneretion to him. "
    • In my view there can be no conclusion (if-the correct test is applied
    • and the proper inquiry undertaken) but that at 1 April 1992, in terms of
    • s 59, Mr Wicks was suffering a loss of earning capacity.

0

#20 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:58 PM

As with he above in that they want to look at Vocational Rehabilitation into retraining for the purpose of obtaining other employment

You may want to look at what employment you have now (Type like labouring (skilled or unskilled) Clerical , retail, and ask the the case manager what is the upskilling are ACC prepaid to complete so you can increase your earnings into a suitable employment were the injury will not deteriorate.

You should have an idea your self what you can do so should your case manager.
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