ACCforum: Review Decision for Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Review Decision for Alan Thomas 46/92/1988 Surgery approval

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 19 April 2018 - 05:44 PM


Review No : 46/92/1988


APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

by Alan Gordon Thomas
Held at Auckland : Date 3 July 1992
Before: R M Carter, Review Officer
Present : The Applicant, his companion Miss Cynthia Lui and his counsel Ms Jill Carhart

DECISION

Issue
: This application is for review of the Corporation’s decision contained in its letter of 24 April 1992 declining to pay for private hospital costs on the grounds that Mr Thomas was not prevented by his injuries from returning to his principal economic activity.

Background : On or about 27 December 1989, Mr Thomas was sailing a yacht on his own in Queen Charlotte Sound when he was pushed overboard by the sail. He was left hanging on to a rope with his right hand three miles out to sea in a storm. In a CI Advice of Injury Form signed on 7 September 1990, Mr Thomas said he strained an old injury in his right arm. At the time he couldn’t straighten it out. Now his elbow was painful and weak. A C14 First Medical Certificate signed by Dr JB Wilcox refers to recurrent tenosynovitis and epicondylitis.

The file on this matter is very large and it is not possible for me to traverse the whole of the background.
There is a form on file filled out by Dr Wilcox giving further information in which he stated that the patient recalled having wrenched his arm after falling overboard. He wrote that Mr Thomas was unable to extend his elbow fully the following day and subsequently developed pain in the right elbow. He had previously also had a right injury after falling out of a tree in 1974.

When seen on 13 March 1990, Mr Thomas had traumatic chronic epicondylitis consistent with the description given. Keyboarding aggravated the pain as did other voluntary wrist movement.

The prognosis was excellent providing the arm was rested appropriately. He might require intercurrent physiotherapy, rest and/or steroid injections. The latter had given him excellent relief. The injury was easily re-aggravated.

There is then a letter on file dated 3 October 1990 which stated that Mr Thomas was employed by Trigon Packaging Systems (NZ) Ltd from 16 January 1989 to 3 November 1989. His employment was terminated by mutual agreement.

There is also a letter on file from Mr Russell Davey stating that Mr Thomas started on 8 June 1990 and finished on 13 July 1990. This letter makes allegations against Mr Thomas.

There is also a letter on file dated 5 October 1990 from Enterprise Marketing concerning Mr Thomas’ participation in a project, it stated that if Mr Thomas was not able to operate a keyboard once the project commenced, he would be employed part time.

There is a letter on file from Mr Joe Brownlee, Orthopaedic Specialist, dated 1 November 1990, to whom Mr Thomas had been referred by the Corporation. This letter describes the condition of Mr Thomas’ right wrist and right elbow. Mr Brownlees thought that the wrist injury related to his original wrist injury in 1974 and had been aggravated by the injury in December 1989. The elbow symptoms had developed since the December 1989 accident. He recommended surgical tennis elbow relief; he did not recommend any treatment for the wrist at that stage.

Concerning Mr Thomas’ work capability, once his tennis elbow condition was resolved he considered he would be fit for light work. In the interim, any physical activity including repetitive tasks such as keyboard work were reported to cause him pain.

There is a letter on file dated 10 January 1991 giving approval for private hospital treatment costs. The amount of the Surgeon’s treatment approved was $309.40 plus accommodation and theatre. There is another letter on file dated 23 April 1991 giving approval for private hospital treatment costs. This letter stated that the Regulations allowed the Corporation to pay a maximum of $196.87 for the wrist plus either $855.00 or $731.29, and $450.65 for the elbow.

There is a memorandum on file dated 29 May that the injured person notified he did not want surgery on 14/1/91. The memorandum records that on 16 April 1991 Mr Thomas called to say he would fax through a request for private surgery. This memo relates to the two approvals above.

There is a letter on file from Career Pilot dated 25 June 1991 stating that Mr Thomas was not employed by the company and did not receive and income from it and had refused to work as a consultant.

There is a lengthy report on file dated 7 August 1991 from Insurance and Commercial Investigations [1987] Ltd dealing with various matters.

A C15 Further Medical Certificate from Dr Wilcox’s surgery states that Mr Thomas was awaiting surgery and was still unable to work as he was suffering from a painful right wrist and loss of strength. There was also right epocondylitis and shoulder pain. An earlier certificate said he could not do keyboarding.

At about that stage Ms Carhart appears to have begin to represent Mr Thomas. In a letter dated 25 October 1991 she referred to the second grant [with regard to corrective surgery] not being followed up and respectfully suggested that the Corporation communicate with Mr L John Tonkin on that matter.

There is a further report from the Investigations Company dated 5 November 1991, and there follows a report dated 21 November 1991 from Mr O R Nicholson, Orthopaedic Surgeon.

He referred to the injury to the right arm in 1974 that Mr Thomas told him about. He also referred to the 1989 accident.

He referred to Mr Thomas having been referred to Mr Tonkin. In March 1991 Mr Tonkin advised the extensor origin release for the tennis elbow symptoms and a limited wrist fusion for the wrist symptoms. This operation was not proceeded with within the time limit and a further application was made on 18 June 1991. This was not proceeded with, Mr Nicholson recorded that Mr Thomas stated that this was cancelled by ACC as it was felt he was working. Mr Nicholson discussed matters with Mr Tonkin who told him that Mr Thomas did not go ahead and the assumption was that he did not feel able to pay the additional costs involved.

Mr Nicholson said the right wrist was fractured in 1974. The fracture of the lower end of the radius had united in a position of slightly backward tilting of the articular surface and there was evidence of an ununited fracture of the ulna styloid.

He said there was no doubt that there had been a considerable strain placed on the arm in December 1989. The symptoms in the elbow were consistent with the diagnosis of a strain of the extensor muscle origin. In addition a strain to the wrist was sustained.

There is a photocopy on file of the patient’s own report as to the state of his arm and there is then a C11 request for private hospital costs dated 10 March 1992 put in by Dr Martin Rees, applying for private hospital costs approval. He applied for Items 373 x 2 and items 111,113,115 and 116 plus anaesthetist, theatre and bed charges.

There is a report on file from Mr Rees dated 4 March 1991 in which he describes the Xray findings. He describes the wrist as being grossly unstable as a result of the two accidents. Mr Thomas had a wrist which was functionally useless for heavy work but a normal range of movement for light work. However his wrist was inadequate for computer and keyboard work.

The Corporation considered the matter and wrote its letter of 24 April 1992.

Application for Review : On 4 May 1992 Miss Carhart made an application for review of the decision on Mr Thomas behalf stating that treatment was required to restore him to his earning capacity.

The Corporation administratively reviewed the matter but decided that, as it believed Mr Thomas was clearly capable of working, the decision should not be changed and the matter came to hearing.

Review Hearing : The matter before me at the review hearing was the decision in the Corporation’s letter of 24 April 1992 and accordingly I was not able to hear extensive evidence on nor am I in a position to make a decision on the Corporations’ decision in its letter of 28 April 1992 relating to the cessation of earnings related compensation. Ms Carhart would have preferred to have had both heard at once.

However, some evidence about Mr Thomas’ activity since the 1989 accident was given in order for me to be able to make this decision on private hospital treatment costs.

Nr Thomas told me that he was originally employed as an engineering manager and then an employee. His work was primarily the design of packaging machinery using a computer. He did this for 7 or 8 years. It involved the use of the keyboard using both hands and the use of a mouse using the right hand. Fine movements were required using the mouse – it was not simply a matter of poking it at the screen and moving it around in a fairly large way but being absolutely precise. His hand and arm had to be used in tension. He told me that he worked at Trigon Plastics and design sessions could last 16 hours. Now he was able to do this kind of work for only half an hour.

I must say at this point that I gained the impression that Mr Thomas was at Trigon for the 7 or 8 years but I noted from the letter of 3 October 1990 that he was employed only from January to November 1989. This concerns me as it makes me wonder whether this kind of work was Mr Thomas principal economic activity. Mr Thomas seems constantly to be having such misunderstandings.

It was also necessary for him to lift machinery once it had been made and to assist in the assembly of it. The parts were expensive and could weigh about 20 kg.

He submitted that he could not go back to this kind of work because his wrist was not stable enough and his arm was not strong enough.

He said he had his own computer equipment and had tried to keep using it for letters and so on but there was a 15 minute time limit on how long he could work without pain.

There was then evidence given at the hearing that Mr Thomas was not working in 1990 when the Corporation said he was.

Reference was made to the consultation with Mr Brownlee. It was submitted that Mr Brownlee applied for private hospital treatment costs himself but Mr Thomas did not know that he had applied and approval had been given, and that that first C11 approval lapsed.

He then went back to his own doctor and was referred to Mr Tonkin.

Whereas Mr Brownlee was going to do only the elbow, Mr Tonkin was going to operate on his elbow and wrist.
Submissions were made that the first approval to Mr Tonkin in April 1991 had been allowed to overrun by one week which was a technical lapse and that Mr Tonkin did not apply to extend that approval. Instead he reapplied all over again.

Mr Thomas said he had the money to pay the extra that ACC would not cover and it was a question of the hospital booking when Mr Tonkin could operate.

Submissions were made that Mr Rees, who Mr Thomas on balance now preferred to do the operation, had discovered the true nature of the problem without having to operate whereas Mr Tonkin was going to do a preliminary exploratory procedure and then operate further if necessary on the wrist once that had been done in theatre.
Mr Thomas was told that the total cost would be in excess of $4,000.00 and my understanding is that the approved amounts as per the Schedule for the surgical procedures are in the vicinity of $2,500.00.

Considerations : At the review hearing I indicated that I would give my approval to the payment of private hospital costs as applied for by Mr Rees. I did so because I had reached the conclusion on the basis of the evidence given to me on oath that, whether or not Mr Thomas was working or capable or working in the way that the corporation said he was [and I make no comment on that matter here], it was clear to me that to restore him to his principal economic activity which involves extensive use of computers, these operations need to be carried out. The Regulations require that for the costs to be paid the procedures are necessary for the due restoration of the claimant to his principal economic activity. I note on the other hand Dr Rees does not guarantee success.

I also note from the evidence that the doctors accept that Mr Thomas did injure his wrist in 1974 and he told me that was in about October 1974. He said all the records of that injury have been lost. There is no reason why one should not accept that earlier accident took place but, in any event, it is quite clear that both the elbow and the aggravation of the wrist injury were the result of the accident in December 1989.

It is plain from the file that the Corporation has grown very suspicious of Mr Thomas and, to put the best light on a convoluted history, that communication breakdowns have arisen.

However I do not believe that things have changed so much on the basis of the evidence that I was given, as far as computer work is concerned, between the time of the approval for Mr Tonkin to do the surgery in April 1991 and March 1992 when Mr Rees applied, that approval should not be withheld.

Decision : Accordingly the application for review is successful subject to the regulatory cash limits. It relates only to the letter of 24 April 1992, in respect of Mr Rees’ application. I understand that Ms Carhart is going approach the Corporation with a proposal about the difference between the amount that can be paid as per the Schedules towards the operation and associated costs and the total amount payable. The difference seems to be about $1500.00 perhaps more and I recommend that, if it is possible to do so, Miss Carhart’s requests be agreed to so that the operation can be carried out, paid for in full, and mr Thomas restored to a state where he can return to his main line of work.

I award legal costs of $500.00 and travel costs to the hearing of $20.00

R M CARTER
REVIEW OFFICER


Signed
Date of Decision 15 July 1992




Attached File  4621988_surgery.doc (931.5K)
Number of downloads: 7
0

#2 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 19 April 2018 - 05:58 PM

I have uploaded this decision to help us both with unravelling lots of the confusion and contradictions Alan

I stumbled across this document buried in the forum archives earlier this week and immediately recognised this as the *binding decison* which we have discussed many times over the years etc In the past, I know I found it impossible to discuss issues meaningfully with you without having a copy of this material; so hopefully now dialogue can progress more positively :)

As you have frequently referenced this decision, I am hoping that you will agree on the contents as being correct Alan; but IF you do have some argument with what Review Officer RM Carter wrote in his determination ... can you please identify this material and supply supporting material etc

As this decision is from the period before your convictions, I find it helpful with timeline and reports.

So the first main question which I have relates to your 1974 accident or ^fractured wrist^ which occurred in October of this year possibly when you may have fallen out of a tree.

I note that it was claimed the medical records have been lost. Have these been found yet?

Can you also clarify if there was an actual ACC claim for this injury and your age approximately Alan.

Have you considered that if you were a teenager, then might these medical notes have been filed with your parents at the treating hospital perhaps?
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 April 2018 - 07:37 PM

The 1974 injury has no relevance whatsoever to do with the 1989 injury. Further you have only reference one of the review hearings resulting from the five decision is the ACC made between October 1991 and June 1992.

Your technique of harvesting information to suit yourself does not provide you with the necessary intellectual facilities to address unresolved issues. As this is beyond your capacity there is little point in having any discussion with you. The example of you using the 1974 injury inappropriately has already been addressed previously and resolved so your raising it again is demonstrating a nefarious intent. A person of your state of mind does not have a capacity to provide any meaningful help and thus far in your career on this site has been limited to hate speech to the point that I'm considering legal action against you so as that you might be properly controlled given that you cannot control yourself.
0

#4 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 19 April 2018 - 08:41 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

The 1974 injury has no relevance whatsoever to do with the 1989 injury.


Who decided this Alan?

Why would you even say such a thing Alan?

Do you have a document under ACC letterhead which states this determination?

AFAIK there are still all of the necessary documents or material relating to my first ever ACC claim in 1978 Alan, and I include both accident data, &or medical and employment evidence etc

I also think you are being clearly disingenuous as it is clear that there is a much more extensive history relating to your 1989 wrist injury ... and any capacity for work etc

Also while I noted that there is/are statements about lost accident information notes, it appears there was still some sort of Xray material and a 1974 medical report viz-a-viz,

"The fracture of the lower end of the radius had united in a position of slightly backward tilting of the articular surface and there was evidence of an ununited fracture of the ulna styloid."


The reason I raise this is because for years I now feel that IMHO you have been misrepresenting the nature of your wrist injury [particularly to myself ] when we or other members have tried to discuss these matters ...

For example Alan, I now see that the childhood injury never healed correctly.....


:wacko:



I can also see that even BEFORE you underwent any surgical procedure ... that NONE of the surgeons would guarantee success Alan ...and there are many more observations which I will address in other postings Alan


View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

Further you have only reference one of the review hearings resulting from the five decision is the ACC made between October 1991 and June 1992.


I am specifically referencing the alleged *Binding Decision* which you have specifically held paramount for years as dictating everything which you disputed with me!! This not only included your abuse of myself Alan, but I have witnessed similar insults against many other members concerning your alleged ACC entitlements eg IMHO you are wrong that this Reviewer granted gold standard unlimited medical interventions!

NB I have also tried to discuss this issue with you when it has appeared in other judgements because I could never understand how you regarded any lower-tier decisionmakers' determination ... as incedibly somehow being superior to all the numerous Court Judges and Medical Specialists who have reported on this matter :wacko:

As this Review decision is clearly identifying letters or reports from a specific period of time, I have found this brief catalogue created by the Review Officer a bit helpful in clarifying where some of the huge misunderstandings and contradictions originated ... and these were evident long before you were finally taken to court and then imprisoned Alan...


If you do have four other review hearings from this time period Alan, then it may be easier for you to read them out loud to your computer ... and then attach the original document to the thread too ...

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

Your technique of harvesting information to suit yourself does not provide you with the necessary intellectual facilities to address unresolved issues. As this is beyond your capacity there is little point in having any discussion with you. The example of you using the 1974 injury inappropriately has already been addressed previously and resolved so your raising it again is demonstrating a nefarious intent. A person of your state of mind does not have a capacity to provide any meaningful help and thus far in your career on this site has been limited to hate speech to the point that I'm considering legal action against you so as that you might be properly controlled given that you cannot control yourself.


Another reminder that your insults and abuse and threats are pointless Alan :angry:

FYI this is the first time I have written about any 1974 injury as such ... so can you please identify links within this forum the discussions where you have properly clarified this matter for any other members!

At the moment, the only comments that I can find which you have written ... basically relate to your rhetoric responding to other members concerning completely separate but similar issues where you comment generically &or unfavourably mostly etc I have just uploaded a random selection of your past blagging fyi :wacko:


<<" Most states also prohibit refusing employment for having previously filed a workers' compensation claim. However, employers can consult commercial databases of claims data and it would seem nearly impossible to prove that an employer discriminated against a job applicant because of his or her claims history. To abate discrimination of this type, some states have created a "subsequent injury trust fund" which will reimburse insurers for benefits paid to workers who suffer aggravation or recurrence of a compensable injury.">>

<< " ... could only claim that it was an aggravation of the primary injury .... the district court judge would probably consider that the claim had not been conceived legitimately and is simply opportunistic...">>


<< "It seems to me that the ACC have rather badly jumbled all of the facts around and then cherry picked facts to their liking without regard for other information on your files. This may have been done accidentally by way of incompetence and lack of training/supervision or dishonestly. Regardless the situation is of the ACCs making and not yours with the meaning that ACC must fix this problem by getting your files of proper order with all decisions that need to have been made in a timely fashion made. Any decisions not yet made must still be made even though there has been a significant passage of time.">>

<<"Provisionally my review and observations are to the effect that if you were already injured and those injuries were claimed by the ACC and you are unable to return to those occupations but was on trial for a new occupation then there is absolutely no possibility you are not covered. Your cover comes from your first injuries. Under the 1982 legislation the ACC have no entitlement to have any regard for a new occupation such as you appear to have been involved in on a one-month trial.">>


<<" Before 1997 there was not test to make a disentitlement desicion to a new occupation so s51 was not enforceable.

There was no rehab funding into a new occupation under the 1982 Act therefore no work trials allowed either.
ACC just hoped you would start into a new job and not asses s59 or s60 and not tell you your rights.">>
0

#5 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2465
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 19 April 2018 - 09:48 PM

On your last sentence there were rehabilitation officers in place
Most normal people unless they were so damaged there was no hope did go the right thing and try to get a life back together where acc would assure in that.
Thomas thinks the world owes him a favour to do nothing st all but be paid handsomely for it.
Lazy sod in my opinion and overrates his conditions.
Thomas had a rehab officer ,she was the one that caught him deceiving her.
0

#6 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 19 April 2018 - 10:19 PM

This next posting is to try and get some decent clarification on another issue where I have seen Alan constantly blame ACC for being miserly concerning his surgery and outraged at not being granted some gold standard reconstruction procedure unfortunately etc

For example, Alan has previously stated,

<<" In 1992 it would have cost $4000 all up for soft-tissue reconstructive surgery but the ACC were not happy that the surgeon would not give a hundred percent guarantee that I could return to work.">>

and then also,

<<"All this started because the ACC wanted to save $1500 on a cheaper surgery after a reviewer had directed them to fund the more expensive surgery. ">>


Yet the Carter review decision above clearly approves a specific surgical procedure which Alan sought from a private hospital, whilst knowing there was no guarantee of 100% success...

It is also clear from Review Officer R M Carter's decision that ACC were bound by specific Regulations as to the cost of the procedure involved ie simply Alan wanted more $$ than the law permitted.

It is also clear from the decision above, that the difference in costs between the ACC Regulations and final private Surgery Invoice was definitively notified to Alan before any surgery commenced....

There are even incredibly two different possible payment plans for this $1500 outside of the maximum which ACC could grant as well....

Firstly Carter notes, "Mr Thomas said he had the money to pay the extra that ACC would not cover and it was a question of the hospital booking when Mr Tonkin could operate."

Secondly there is this Carter statement relating to Alan's counsel, and I quote again, " Ms Carhart is going approach the Corporation with a proposal about the difference between the amount that can be paid as per the Schedules towards the operation and associated costs and the total amount payable . " unquote.

I do not know if this proposal was ever achieved with so many attempts to get surgery sorted out properly with Alan Thomas [ 10 January 1991 & 23 April 1991 & March 1991 & 18 June 1991 with Brownlees [elbow] & Tonkin [elbow + wrist] ] ...and then even more with Rees with and his application on 10 March 1992 .... which is the actual entitlement that was finally approved.


I have also noted from this Carter Review Decision that there is no mention of reconstructive surgery full stop and even Alans counsel, Miss Carhart only refers to ^corrective surgery^ for Alan...


I did find a very telling posting from 2008 where Alan states,

<< "I have never been a wealthy person and he was no possibility of my utilising residual capacity in any activity solely based on the New Zealand environment. The cause of my incapacity it necessitated by taking advantage of overseas opportunities which could accommodate my incapacity. I invested my very small savings from my ACC into exploring those opportunities. The fact that I am entertained by captains of industry and leading professionals in other parts of the world only speaks to my expertise that they sought to benefit from and has absolutely nothing to do with personal wealth. If I could have afforded the prescribed surgery myself I would have paid for it.">>


Alan even recommends this course of action to another member,

<<" Consider the merits of an artificial wrist joint for your son. If ACC do not pay for it consider paying for it yourself and claim the money back of the ACC later">>


But ... IMHO all this evidence or story all falls apart with yet other tellings from Alan, where for example, this presentation which will manipulate readers into a different conclusion exists.

<< "Before I was injured by a third party being at fault I was somebody having status and wealth. The ACC legislation prevented me from suing those responsible so as to make them personally culpable for my losses. That culpability was transferred to the ACC scheme which failed to perform in any way or form even when directed by the judiciary with the most basic payment for the surgery required. From there it got worse. https://accforum.org...ndpost&p=164521 ">>


ATM I am not sure if Alan is writing about suing the tree or the ocean yet but I certainly can not reconcile two completely different stories concerning his purported status and wealth yet :wacko:

I also noted that the Carter Review Decision was taken under OATH so as the submissions and evidence is not available for any additional information, I am still preferring this commentary to any revisionist balarney where there are clearly different facts being upchucked erratically &or which Alan is refusing to verify properly :wacko:
0

#7 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 19 April 2018 - 10:24 PM

View PostHemi, on 19 April 2018 - 09:48 PM, said:

On your last sentence there were rehabilitation officers in place
Most normal people unless they were so damaged there was no hope did go the right thing and try to get a life back together where acc would assure in that.
Thomas thinks the world owes him a favour to do nothing st all but be paid handsomely for it.
Lazy sod in my opinion and overrates his conditions.
Thomas had a rehab officer ,she was the one that caught him deceiving her.



Thanks Hemi :)

I am still gobsmacked at this Carter decision ... and the huge variances between what is being officially stated in a document of material taken under oath etc. Completely different to the version that Alan spent many years trying to dictate to me via his interpretations of its contents... alongside some the other outrageous stories that Alan IMHO is always trying to finagle :wacko:
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 April 2018 - 11:35 PM

I wonder if the ACC staff connected to my files are as incompetent when reading the English language or maintaining files and suchlike?

The issues are very simple, the 1974 injury is to a different part of my body and has no connection to the 1989 injury. I was working from 80 – 120 hours per week prior to the first injury working part-time for try gone and continuing in my own business with of course my own business always exceeding 60 hours per week. After the yachting injury there was no capacity whatsoever in my preinjury occupation and very little that I could do in any other occupation. I had various business ideas of which other people became partners and that the work. The 1992 review hearings confirmed that investing in companies while others did the work is not in any way or form any of the ACCs business and does not need to be discussed at the review hearing. If the ACC thought that working could be perceived as an end of incapacity will then the legislation requires them to carry out the prescribed assessment procedures. They did not so the review hearings were in my favour and those favourable decisions are binding upon all parties from that day forward unless the ACC successfully appealed which they did not. The ACC paid out 100% of the section 79 entitlement which demonstrates the extent of the injuries. The files show that the ACC were not happy with the reviewer's decision in the note to the file states that the ACC will get me again later.

In 1997 the ACC again accuse me of working despite no material situation is changing. Essentially the ACC had me watched after suspending my compensation for not working on vocational rehabilitation despite the fact that I was not under the 1992 legislation in the ACC could not in any way or form demand vocational rehabilitation at all. Further even if I were run of the 1992 legislation surgery comes first and the ACC had not agreed to fund the surgery as per the prescribed review hearing decision which also pointed out that there was an ultimatum within the legislation which if the ACC does not pay for the surgery and if the surgery is not successful then of course the only consequence as to the ACCs overturned section 59 decision, temporary incapacity of which the reviewer then indicated that my circumstances would then be permanent. That a section 60.

As stated the ACC disregarded the binding effects of the review hearing decision, refused to fund surgery and then cancelled the entire claim this time asserting section 73 (1) claiming that I was working after it was demonstrated that I had complied with section 73 (2) which required me to work on my rehabilitation plans. The ACC had a range the fraud unit to have me watched carrying out this work and then relied upon that information to cancel the claim despite that procedure have no basis in law. The ACC then refused to disclose any work information whatsoever. This is of course because there wasn't any work information as I had not worked other than as per the instructions of the case manager.

Now it seems that the ACC is commissioning large numbers of people such as Douglas weal who has led a team of people to attack me during the course of my appeal which included making a false allegation of planning to blow up the ACC of which the ACC then arrange the timing that my computer and therefore submissions and exhibits would be removed from my possession were again I would not be able to present my case.

So given notice absolute beyond reasonable doubt irrefutable facts don't come at me with all your mumbo-jumbo nonsense malarkey while also accusing me of being a liar.

Those who attack an invalid who has been set upon by a multibillion-dollar organisation other scum of the earth. The subject is now closed To those who clearly have no intention of being helpful but rather are seeking to uphold and justify the ACC decisions or to maintain the status quo while having regard for the ACCs acknowledgement that they have got it wrong but simply now delaying going through the process of calculating compensation and suchlike.
0

#9 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 20 April 2018 - 12:38 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

I wonder if the ACC staff connected to my files are as incompetent when reading the English language or maintaining files and suchlike?

The issues are very simple, the 1974 injury is to a different part of my body and has no connection to the 1989 injury.


So are you now claiming that the evidence given under oath to this Reviewer Carter, and particularly the right wrist xray detailed by Mr O R Nicholson, Orthopaedic Surgeon was all wrong Alan?

Do you have any evidence from any of the scores of medical reports and court judgements to correct the fact that it has been stated wrongly by you apparently while under oath ...that you suffered a fracture to your right wrist in 1974 ... due to falling out of a tree apparently per your story Alan :rolleyes:

FGS ... if you are going to try and rewrite your claim history Alan, IMHO it would be much better to provide proffering a few facts instead of resorting to these nasty insults etc

Do you worry that in addition to one surgeon who examined an Xray ...there may be other medical specialists examining the wrong Xrays on all of the wrong body parts for you etc etc

Why on earth do you NOT identify these supposed errors at the material times? That is, let Review Officer Carter know that this specific 1974 injury is or was not connected to the 1989 injury etc

Why on earth even bring it up ... surely you were not this confused and confused back then Alan?

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:


I was working from 80 – 120 hours per week prior to the first injury working part-time for try gone and continuing in my own business with of course my own business always exceeding 60 hours per week.


HHhhmmm as I have not yet mentioned the various contradictions with regards to your supposed ^working^ hours before the 1989 wrist injury and the stories since splattered all over this forum Alan ... so I strongly suggest that you re-read this Carter decision ... and if necessary please explain why on earth then were you NOT proffering such alleged evidence under oath at this critical time etc

Obviously Review Officer Carter indicates your employment issues and earnings related compensation dispute at this time are not before him ... BUT ... he does reference a few anomalies ...PLUS you have not supplied any supposed documented decision from during this specific timeline for me to read Alan :rolleyes:


View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:


After the yachting injury there was no capacity whatsoever in my preinjury occupation and very little that I could do in any other occupation. I had various business ideas of which other people became partners and that the work. The 1992 review hearings confirmed that investing in companies while others did the work is not in any way or form any of the ACCs business and does not need to be discussed at the review hearing. If the ACC thought that working could be perceived as an end of incapacity will then the legislation requires them to carry out the prescribed assessment procedures. They did not so the review hearings were in my favour and those favourable decisions are binding upon all parties from that day forward unless the ACC successfully appealed which they did not. The ACC paid out 100% of the section 79 entitlement which demonstrates the extent of the injuries. The files show that the ACC were not happy with the reviewer's decision in the note to the file states that the ACC will get me again later.


Blah blah blah useless noise because as always .... there is zero evidence to support any of your interpretations of these other mystery 4 invisible review hearings Alan ...

In fact you continually rehash all this nonsense every time you upchuck stuff unfortunately ... but as its late nearly pumpkin hour I will leave the argybargy about Mr Carters decision on your *main line of work* and his comments about you "returning to his principal economic activity" ... versus the reinterpretation wordgame you are playing on your purported preinjury occupation etc

FYI I am also not sure why you are regurgitating about obtaining 100% of the 1982 section 79 entitlement Alan. I also obtained 100% first time at this entitlement Alan. In fact you are the only person I know who was first assessed at a lower amount and then had to go to review. Was this one of the mysterious 1992 Review Hearings perhaps?

The reason I have responded on this issue is purely because I do not condone your efforts to manipulate or deceive readers concerning obsolete legislation Alan. :angry:

If you are unable to read out these additional mystery Review Decisions which you are claiming to be binding Alan, if you upload them I will ensure a digital copy is provided to you at zero cost.



View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:


In 1997 the ACC again accuse me of working despite no material situation is changing. Essentially the ACC had me watched after suspending my compensation for not working on vocational rehabilitation despite the fact that I was not under the 1992 legislation in the ACC could not in any way or form demand vocational rehabilitation at all. Further even if I were run of the 1992 legislation surgery comes first and the ACC had not agreed to fund the surgery as per the prescribed review hearing decision which also pointed out that there was an ultimatum within the legislation which if the ACC does not pay for the surgery and if the surgery is not successful then of course the only consequence as to the ACCs overturned section 59 decision, temporary incapacity of which the reviewer then indicated that my circumstances would then be permanent. That a section 60.


Yup sadly just more blagging which is tiresome ... and of course you completely tell a different story in our archives on a number of these factors which you are obviously trying to finagle again Alan

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:


As stated the ACC disregarded the binding effects of the review hearing decision, refused to fund surgery and then cancelled the entire claim this time asserting section 73 (1) claiming that I was working after it was demonstrated that I had complied with section 73 (2) which required me to work on my rehabilitation plans. The ACC had a range the fraud unit to have me watched carrying out this work and then relied upon that information to cancel the claim despite that procedure have no basis in law. The ACC then refused to disclose any work information whatsoever. This is of course because there wasn't any work information as I had not worked other than as per the instructions of the case manager.


WTF ...are you now completely losing the plot Alan :wacko:

FGS have you actually read your Carter decision in relation to the surgery monies granted?

Also again you are ignoring the substance of this thread and this Carter decision by your deliberate efforts to go offtopic and blither on about issues not under specific discussion Alan ...

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

Now it seems that the ACC is commissioning large numbers of people such as Douglas weal who has led a team of people to attack me during the course of my appeal which included making a false allegation of planning to blow up the ACC of which the ACC then arrange the timing that my computer and therefore submissions and exhibits would be removed from my possession were again I would not be able to present my case.

So given notice absolute beyond reasonable doubt irrefutable facts don't come at me with all your mumbo-jumbo nonsense malarkey while also accusing me of being a liar.

Those who attack an invalid who has been set upon by a multibillion-dollar organisation other scum of the earth. The subject is now closed To those who clearly have no intention of being helpful but rather are seeking to uphold and justify the ACC decisions or to maintain the status quo while having regard for the ACCs acknowledgement that they have got it wrong but simply now delaying going through the process of calculating compensation and suchlike.


Goodness gracious Alan ...sorry I am not particularly interested in enabling any of your ongoing abuse tonight Alan ... but are you now claiming that your personal copy of these 4 mystery 1992 Review Decisions were removed from your possession??

Surely to goodness you are able to get a second copy?

I am also utterly gobsmacked that someone never once suggested to you to always always always keep backups of your computers and therefore your submissions would have always always always still been available to you Alan :wacko:

I am just utterly astonished that such simple basic home & computer management strategies were not firmly entrenched in your thoughts & actions Alan ... and this should have happened long before this forum even launched let alone all the rest of your palaver relating to your second convictions for violence etc etc

Certainly as it seems I may have been on the internet some time BEFORE your reckless 1989 yachting incident Alan, this was common knowledge at the time ... I am shocked that you did not have any backups &or of course even a hard copy of this so called evidence secured with a friend or a legal advocacy firm too nearly 20 years later etc etc

One thing that is notable Alan is that you seem to have a few moments shouting about LOST documents as being the problem for you in multiple settings eg lost 1974 files ... lost business files ... and now lost submissions ...

So perhaps if you can not be trusted or responsible with such basic precautions Alan ...it may be prudent to take a digital backup copy of everything you have currently and giving to someone ...then when this is done you can try to focus on getting all of your reviews and judgements in chronological order perhaps?
1

#10 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2465
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 20 April 2018 - 07:55 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 19 April 2018 - 05:44 PM, said:


Review No : 46/92/1988


APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

by Alan Gordon Thomas
Held at Auckland : Date 3 July 1992
Before: R M Carter, Review Officer
Present : The Applicant, his companion Miss Cynthia Lui and his counsel Ms Jill Carhart

DECISION

Issue
: This application is for review of the Corporation’s decision contained in its letter of 24 April 1992 declining to pay for private hospital costs on the grounds that Mr Thomas was not prevented by his injuries from returning to his principal economic activity.

Background : On or about 27 December 1989, Mr Thomas was sailing a yacht on his own in Queen Charlotte Sound when he was pushed overboard by the sail. He was left hanging on to a rope with his right hand three miles out to sea in a storm. In a CI Advice of Injury Form signed on 7 September 1990, Mr Thomas said he strained an old injury in his right arm. At the time he couldn’t straighten it out. Now his elbow was painful and weak. A C14 First Medical Certificate signed by Dr JB Wilcox refers to recurrent tenosynovitis and epicondylitis.

The file on this matter is very large and it is not possible for me to traverse the whole of the background.
There is a form on file filled out by Dr Wilcox giving further information in which he stated that the patient recalled having wrenched his arm after falling overboard. He wrote that Mr Thomas was unable to extend his elbow fully the following day and subsequently developed pain in the right elbow. He had previously also had a right injury after falling out of a tree in 1974.

When seen on 13 March 1990, Mr Thomas had traumatic chronic epicondylitis consistent with the description given. Keyboarding aggravated the pain as did other voluntary wrist movement.




whilst thomas claims to be picked on got at the issues i arrived at debating with him long ago more so when published information contradicted what he had said as to his accident details i queried that issue
still continues as of today on all issues that thomas claims re the CREDIBILITY of what thomas claims as anonymousey points out often that the story changes to suit the mood or caught-outness in provision of misleading information by / of thomas.
Mr Thomas,having spen the night at the Portage Hotel in attendance at a party with according to him/publicy stated in here he was with some 3000 other people. then late in the early hours of the am morning time,walked over the hill to the yacht to spend the remainder of the night on it.then in the daylight arriving was told to move the yacht so the float plane could land and passengers embark safely on the jetty ,Thomas then SINGLE HANDEDLY SAILED AWAY =left a mooring/small jetty being at Torea Bay at the very most inner end of that bay near the Torea Road that comes down from the Portage Hotel and ends at the bays inlet/jetty area to end up shortly thereafter in what he stated was to be within in raging storm of some 40 or at times / claims 60 knotts,he went overboard somehow got back on again, and the yacht was grounded on a beach = SOMEWHERE =>over there is the best hes come up with to date].
Thomas as shown claims to have been three miles out to sea in a storm when he was knocked over by a sail and into the raging seas.
To put my mind at rest here and achieve at least one point of fact can anyone inform as to how far/where would he be as on the water within the Picton sounds waterways at this 3 miles point ,from the inlet /small jetty that Thomas tied up to when he sailed away out to sea
How far from that actual departure point /the inlet of the bays actual jetty= where would he have been situated nautically being then at 3 , miles and where is the line/ arc of navigation when three miles out to sea from the jetty?,
what location landmark alignment with the shore other land marks etc or the likes would he be near or actually at
whilst thomas claims acc accepted his information it is stated they took what he said and never checked the actual details as none were ever provided as the judge said very little was provided.
my opinion is that any credibility to thomas tales starts right there as to whether he is valid in his claims or he is not telling the truth

anyone a few minutes in time to at least ascertain ONE point for thomas in his claims as correct or not ,and care to look at this or is an expert on mileage distance in sea going mode that can put thomas long standing disagreements /arguments with me and the site in general on this to rest , = as to where three miles out to sea actually is from the Jetty itself.

#google location = Torea Bay Piction Harbour.the road up from Portage then down from the hiiltop to Torea Bay and the jetty marked / showing in the map.

hemi.
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:56 AM


anonymousey
Please explain why you have associated two entirely different injuries as being connected in some way?

1974 right radius fracture falling off the ladder injury.


1989 right ulnar-styloyd-process detachment with ligaments and soft tissue damage plus left and right elbow joint and shoulder damage.




Why are you basing degree of disability from the upper limit injury from the December accident when the start of my entitlement claim was from an abdominal injury in June?




Why do you focus my economic activities on one job title when my primary earnings was generated from self-employment activities of a very significant variety that had no job title even though the legislation requires assessments to be in relation to the capacity to earn was no reference to generalised titles?



0

#12 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2465
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 20 April 2018 - 12:51 PM

rm

View PostHemi, on 20 April 2018 - 07:55 AM, said:

whilst thomas claims to be picked on got at the issues i arrived at debating with him long ago more so when published information contradicted what he had said as to his accident details i queried that issue
still continues as of today on all issues that thomas claims re the CREDIBILITY of what thomas claims as anonymousey points out often that the story changes to suit the mood or caught-outness in provision of misleading information by / of thomas.
Mr Thomas,having spen the night at the Portage Hotel in attendance at a party with according to him/publicy stated in here he was with some 3000 other people. then late in the early hours of the am morning time,walked over the hill to the yacht to spend the remainder of the night on it.then in the daylight arriving was told to move the yacht so the float plane could land and passengers embark safely on the jetty ,Thomas then SINGLE HANDEDLY SAILED AWAY =left a mooring/small jetty being at Torea Bay at the very most inner end of that bay near the Torea Road that comes down from the Portage Hotel and ends at the bays inlet/jetty area to end up shortly thereafter in what he stated was to be within in raging storm of some 40 or at times / claims 60 knotts,he went overboard somehow got back on again, and the yacht was grounded on a beach = SOMEWHERE =>over there is the best hes come up with to date].
Thomas as shown claims to have been three miles out to sea in a storm when he was knocked over by a sail and into the raging seas.
To put my mind at rest here and achieve at least one point of fact can anyone inform as to how far/where would he be as on the water within the Picton sounds waterways at this 3 miles point ,from the inlet /small jetty that Thomas tied up to when he sailed away out to sea
How far from that actual departure point /the inlet of the bays actual jetty= where would he have been situated nautically being then at 3 , miles and where is the line/ arc of navigation when three miles out to sea from the jetty?,
what location landmark alignment with the shore other land marks etc or the likes would he be near or actually at
whilst thomas claims acc accepted his information it is stated they took what he said and never checked the actual details as none were ever provided as the judge said very little was provided.
my opinion is that any credibility to thomas tales starts right there as to whether he is valid in his claims or he is not telling the truth

anyone a few minutes in time to at least ascertain ONE point for thomas in his claims as correct or not ,and care to look at this or is an expert on mileage distance in sea going mode that can put thomas long standing disagreements /arguments with me and the site in general on this to rest , = as to where three miles out to sea actually is from the Jetty itself.

#google location = Torea Bay Piction Harbour.the road up from Portage then down from the hiiltop to Torea Bay and the jetty marked / showing in the map.

hemi.


Thomas is seemingly -well no not seemingly HE IS angry from the correspondence received in not long ago-He is quite upset at the above posting content and the questioning of his content= that is very questionable due to varying differences in his explanations over time.
why
because he cant answer it so more harassment threats directly arrive in to me
but apparently i and others are off to jail with thomas as the enforcer Posted Image/>
deary me thomas
and you claim to have psychologists analysing everyone in here and proclaiming back to you citing the technical term for me and everyone is ''a nutcase/s''
of course when -as apparently judged as sane by his own psychologists ,thomas as he does makes statements ,that are then OPPOSED by others who are knowing that thomas LIES on issues ,and are also using to respond to thomas with comments ,based on the court records ,thomas he then against the facts of the day and the courts / claims defamation then states that he will be doing the act of ensuring long term jail as his punishment and more jail for perjury against those he dosent like.

your the psychologists No 1 patient thomas.
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 April 2018 - 03:03 PM

View PostHemi, on 20 April 2018 - 12:51 PM, said:

rm

Thomas is seemingly -well no not seemingly HE IS angry from the correspondence received in not long ago-He is quite upset at the above posting content and the questioning of his content= that is very questionable due to varying differences in his explanations over time.
why
because he cant answer it so more harassment threats directly arrive in to me
but apparently i and others are off to jail with thomas as the enforcer Posted Image/>
deary me thomas
and you claim to have psychologists analysing everyone in here and proclaiming back to you citing the technical term for me and everyone is ''a nutcase/s''
of course when -as apparently judged as sane by his own psychologists ,thomas as he does makes statements ,that are then OPPOSED by others who are knowing that thomas LIES on issues ,and are also using to respond to thomas with comments ,based on the court records ,thomas he then against the facts of the day and the courts / claims defamation then states that he will be doing the act of ensuring long term jail as his punishment and more jail for perjury against those he dosent like.

your the psychologists No 1 patient thomas.


stupid people don't make me angry.

Only angry people think other people get angry as they get.

There you go again making an assumption next we'll have a speculation to do with the concept of anger.

Everything that I have ever said remains exactly static in the same without change. After all how could facts possibly change. What I have noticed however is every time I correct other people's mistakes and bring them back to the exact same set of facts they get upset that they are wrong but will not admit it and come up with an even you and more bizarre story than previously the same procedure taken place whereby I bring them back to the exact same set of facts again which in turn repeat the same process of them getting angry because they don't like being corrected. This situation has repeated itself ever since Douglas weal told everyone who I was and try to get rid of me by initiating the so-called tagteam of which later both mini and Douglas weal joined. It is difficult to know when David Butler joined because he has been using so many different names over the years.

Only those that were involved in making an accusation of plans to blow up the ACC staff investigating Douglas weal for fraud have had their postings analysed by a specialist. Kenneth Miller of course is way off the chart, a true loony tune with no apparent injury to cause it while on the other hand David Butler claims brain injury yet he is unable to explain the periods of time is quite lucid, the fact that has been pointed out to me that is quite inconsistent with the style of communications at other times with the prime example of the type of communications being in the style of the email sent to the ACC which has three different distinct styles within the one email. How could that happen I wonder?

I have challenged members of the site to identify in precise terms actual lies and even when I offer my sums of money such as $100 for a specific lie of their choosing they don't make good on the accusation of lying. This of course is a clear indicator that they themselves are lying by accusing me of being alive just like Douglas weal accusing me of planning to blow up the ACC when it is the ACC staff there investigating a number of fraud that he fantasises about. Tick tock tick tock. I wonder how long they have got before the alleged plot goes ahead?
0

#14 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2465
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 20 April 2018 - 05:06 PM

How far is3 miles to sea and where was that
You’ve missed a part. 🦆🦆🦆🦆🦆
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 April 2018 - 05:32 PM

View PostHemi, on 20 April 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

How far is3 miles to sea and where was that
You’ve missed a part. 🦆🦆🦆🦆🦆


off topic
0

#16 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2465
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 20 April 2018 - 06:10 PM

Not to getting your alleged erc back it’s not. 🦆🦆
Can’t explain that you have no claim
Always the pertinent ones that throw you eh Tom as.
Misleading recall that word. ??
0

#17 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2465
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 20 April 2018 - 06:25 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 20 April 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

stupid people don't make me angry.

Only angry people think other people get angry as they get.

There you go again making an assumption next we'll have a speculation to do with the concept of anger.

Everything that I have ever said remains exactly static in the same without change. After all how could facts possibly change. What I have noticed however is every time I correct other people's mistakes and bring them back to the exact same set of facts they get upset that they are wrong but will not admit it and come up with an even you and more bizarre story than previously the same procedure taken place whereby I bring them back to the exact same set of facts again which in turn repeat the same process of them getting angry because they don't like being corrected. This situation has repeated itself ever since Douglas weal told everyone who I was and try to get rid of me by initiating the so-called tagteam of which later both mini and Douglas weal joined. It is difficult to know when David Butler joined because he has been using so many different names over the years.

Only those that were involved in making an accusation of plans to blow up the ACC staff investigating Douglas weal for fraud have had their postings analysed by a specialist. Kenneth Miller of course is way off the chart, a true loony tune with no apparent injury to cause it while on the other hand David Butler claims brain injury yet he is unable to explain the periods of time is quite lucid,
why that is nothing to do with you

the fact that has been pointed out to me that is quite inconsistent with the style of communications at other times
nothing unusual about that at all
with the prime example of the type of communications being in the style of the email sent to the ACC which has three different distinct styles within the one email. How could that happen I wonder?quite easily thomas

I have challenged members of the site to identify in precise terms actual lies and even when I offer my sums of money such as $100 for a specific lie of their choosing they don't make good on the accusation of lying. This of course is a clear indicator that they themselves are lying by accusing me of being alive just like Douglas weal accusing me of planning to blow up the ACC when it is the ACC staff there investigating a number of fraud that he fantasises about. Tick tock tick tock. I wonder how long they have got before the alleged plot goes ahead?

As your at such a loss of experience or knowledge then Why don’t you arrange to go out on a day out trip with the brain injury society social outings
You may well learn something thomas
Prob not as you decide on your own interpretations if things but maybe you could be educated
If you could shut your mouth long Enough.
Another venue to try could be an MS society gathering.
0

#18 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 21 April 2018 - 09:52 PM

As its school holidays and I have a few different activities, I will only be able to pop in and out to the forum ... so with saying that Alan ... I would ask you to try to stick to ONE issue at a time in our dialogue please :wacko:

If it is possible to maintain this simple structure, we can continue to try clarifying individual facts or unravelling any confusion and disputes. I personally think this would be valuable to you and others ie an alternate strategy to progress your disputes and ability to think of better solutions for your situation etc


So the first issue here would be the WRIST ... and this is not particularly focussed on the claim or entitlement aspects associated Alan ... but instead a way to uncover and correct any specific misunderstandings connected as best able....




View PostAlan Thomas, on 20 April 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

anonymousey

Please explain why you have associated two entirely different injuries as being connected in some way?

1974 right radius fracture falling off the ladder injury.


1989 right ulnar-styloyd-process detachment with ligaments and soft tissue damage plus left and right elbow joint and shoulder damage.



In answer to your question, I see both injuries as being significantly connected Alan. I am not sure what explanations that you were given with your childhood injury Alan ... but certainly I am very surprised that you still appear to be carrying a number of unrealistic expectations .... &or continually exhibiting a significant lack of knowledge regarding your own physical condition etc

This cognitive distortion has lasted far too long and caused so much damage IMHO that if you hope to have any chance of getting your wrist sorted out ...you may need to start listening to your doctors ...and stop blaming others for something which was out of reach and probably only your wishful thinking etc etc

Remember there was actually a report within this decision that is concerning your right wrist xray as detailed by Mr O R Nicholson, Orthopaedic Surgeon

"Mr Nicholson said the right wrist was fractured in 1974. The fracture of the lower end of the radius had united in a position of slightly backward tilting of the articular surface and there was evidence of an ununited fracture of the ulna styloid."


So as you like to pronounce yourself as being a man of science or mathematics or even a basic black & white thinker Alan ... surely you can read this Xray information too ...

Your statement of "1974 right radius fracture falling off the ladder injury" is clearly described by Nicholson as occurring to the lower end of the bone and this fracture appears to have healed abnormally leaving you with a ^tilting^ deformity. Then there is the fracture to the ulna styloid too but this is fairly common and insignificant and in most cases usually heals by itself, but for you it appears that your bones again poorly healed hence the ^un-united break of the ulna styloid^ which would increase this childhood deformity problem further again Alan.

What this means in simple terms is that as a child or teenager the consequences of this injury you sustained is that it did not heal properly ... and therefore you were left with a deformity specifically relating to this tree fall Alan.

I am not sure if you were still under the care of your parents and so did not understand these simple facts or not Alan in 1974 ... but sadly this is probably very commonplace with childhood injuries ...and such a deformity will often remain hidden until another incident and additional investigations etc

Then you come to a reinjury of your right arm again 15 years later with the yachting incident ...

RE : "1989 right ulnar-styloyd-process detachment with ligaments and soft tissue damage"

Thankfully this was apparently only a strain and not another fracture of the ulna-styloid process Alan

As you are a googler Alan, you should know there are lots of links available today which may not have been around when the doctors were treating you in either 1974 or in 1989 Alan eg https://www.epainass...tyloid-fracture


The point that you perhaps have never appreciated and which likely explains your anger and unrealistic expectations is that your right wrist was DEFORMED long before you had any surgery with Rees in 1992. In fact by the time Rees opened the wrist joint to assess the level of disorganisation, all of your ligaments would have been well and truly maladjusted to nearly 20 years of deformity Alan ....

IMHO there was never ever any possibility that Rees surgery would have ever been able to give you 100% restoration ... and you were probably very lucky that he was able to do what he did to assist in correcting what he could with your firmly established childhood deformity etc etc

How these facts relate to your current postings is that I believe you must stop defaming the surgeons involved with your treatment as an adult over the years Alan.

I also believe that the financial costs of the surgery that was undertaken to help you were presented to you BEFORE you went into theatre and that you have been misleading me for years about this issue with our discussions in this forum etc I also highly doubt that any private hospital would have insisted you paid in advance etc Likewise basic business practise is that if perchance you were invoiced for $1500.00 approx after the operation and then clearly could not pay due to your poverty ... then this would have likely been written off as a bad debt for you Alan ie there was zero connection to any Rees clinical decisionmaking inside the theatre etc
0

#19 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 22 April 2018 - 01:32 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

I wonder if the ACC staff connected to my files are as incompetent when reading the English language or maintaining files and suchlike?

The issues are very simple, the 1974 injury is to a different part of my body and has no connection to the 1989 injury. I was working from 80 – 120 hours per week prior to the first injury working part-time for try gone and continuing in my own business with of course my own business always exceeding 60 hours per week. After the yachting injury there was no capacity whatsoever in my preinjury occupation and very little that I could do in any other occupation. I had various business ideas of which other people became partners and that the work. The 1992 review hearings confirmed that investing in companies while others did the work is not in any way or form any of the ACCs business and does not need to be discussed at the review hearing. If the ACC thought that working could be perceived as an end of incapacity will then the legislation requires them to carry out the prescribed assessment procedures. They did not so the review hearings were in my favour and those favourable decisions are binding upon all parties from that day forward unless the ACC successfully appealed which they did not. The ACC paid out 100% of the section 79 entitlement which demonstrates the extent of the injuries. The files show that the ACC were not happy with the reviewer's decision in the note to the file states that the ACC will get me again later.

In 1997 the ACC again accuse me of working despite no material situation is changing. Essentially the ACC had me watched after suspending my compensation for not working on vocational rehabilitation despite the fact that I was not under the 1992 legislation in the ACC could not in any way or form demand vocational rehabilitation at all. Further even if I were run of the 1992 legislation surgery comes first and the ACC had not agreed to fund the surgery as per the prescribed review hearing decision which also pointed out that there was an ultimatum within the legislation which if the ACC does not pay for the surgery and if the surgery is not successful then of course the only consequence as to the ACCs overturned section 59 decision, temporary incapacity of which the reviewer then indicated that my circumstances would then be permanent. That a section 60.

As stated the ACC disregarded the binding effects of the review hearing decision, refused to fund surgery and then cancelled the entire claim this time asserting section 73 (1) claiming that I was working after it was demonstrated that I had complied with section 73 (2) which required me to work on my rehabilitation plans. The ACC had a range the fraud unit to have me watched carrying out this work and then relied upon that information to cancel the claim despite that procedure have no basis in law. The ACC then refused to disclose any work information whatsoever. This is of course because there wasn't any work information as I had not worked other than as per the instructions of the case manager.

Now it seems that the ACC is commissioning large numbers of people such as Douglas weal who has led a team of people to attack me during the course of my appeal which included making a false allegation of planning to blow up the ACC of which the ACC then arrange the timing that my computer and therefore submissions and exhibits would be removed from my possession were again I would not be able to present my case.

So given notice absolute beyond reasonable doubt irrefutable facts don't come at me with all your mumbo-jumbo nonsense malarkey while also accusing me of being a liar.

Those who attack an invalid who has been set upon by a multibillion-dollar organisation other scum of the earth. The subject is now closed To those who clearly have no intention of being helpful but rather are seeking to uphold and justify the ACC decisions or to maintain the status quo while having regard for the ACCs acknowledgement that they have got it wrong but simply now delaying going through the process of calculating compensation and suchlike.


Thomas

I will attack your words of tripe as long as I am here. You state often that Butler/Hemi and I are part of some sort of tagteam, whatever it represents. You say that ACC commission the members Douglas Weal and any tagteam to attack him.

You are walking on quicksand when you state people have conspired to harm you. If all you have as far as I am concerned, is that you think I should have gone to the police as soon as I was told that the email had already gone to sue north of the ACC, without any paperwork to back it up. Then you have said I have withheld information that they were already getting thru ACC. That is a fact. And even though I have never made a conscious decision of talking to the police about you one way or the other, it probably would have been different if I held some type of evidence.

Would you still be thanking me for going to the police and complaining about you doing something of which I Knew nothing, if in face ACC had decided not to take the information to the police to charge you.

I don't thing so. You would have verbally be tearing me to bits. ie What business was it of mine etc etc.

You are a very stupid man and you float very close to a dangerous position of being in my face. And I don't like smelling bad breathe.

Mini
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 April 2018 - 04:48 PM

anonymousey

For the purposes of ACC legislation and as regards to the finite medical issues these two accidents and injuries are not related and do not affect each other's entitlements. There is little point in you trying to imagine all manner of different scenarios and then fixate on one of your viewpoints as if your viewpoint as any weight and scientific fact or ACC legislation. This is not the way toward determining reality and has a probability that you will only cloud the issues. Do understand that ACC staff are more educated than yourself and are employable at least in the ACC arena and have a greater understanding of these matters than yourself.

1974 right radius fracture falling off the ladder injury.

1989 right ulnar-styloyd-process detachment with ligaments and soft tissue damage plus left and right elbow joint and shoulder damage.
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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