ACCforum: Clairmaint allowed to do own Treatment Injury - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Clairmaint allowed to do own Treatment Injury Would not need GP's filling in paperwork as specialist already don

#1 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7362
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 13 May 2018 - 11:30 AM

As the Title and Topic describe there has been mentioned this year in this thread that a certain section allows a person to do there own 'Treatment Injury' application.

Could someone please help me find the section for this right.

Cheers

Mini
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8505
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 May 2018 - 03:45 PM

 MINI, on 13 May 2018 - 11:30 AM, said:

As the Title and Topic describe there has been mentioned this year in this thread that a certain section allows a person to do there own 'Treatment Injury' application.

Could someone please help me find the section for this right.

Cheers

Mini


What does it mean "section allows a person to do their own treatment injury application"? I cannot understand what you are trying to state or ask.
0

#3 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7362
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 14 May 2018 - 09:49 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 13 May 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

What does it mean "section allows a person to do their own treatment injury application"? I cannot understand what you are trying to state or ask.


Thomas

It means you don't have to get GP's forms filled in as have much higher than that from specialist. Therefore there is a section that allows a claimant to go ahead with their own application for cover without GP's form to say it "Treatment Injury" ie showing the specialists records instead.

I think it was in one of your tete e tete's with Grant. When one of the other members bought it up.

Mini
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8505
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 May 2018 - 11:15 AM

The legislation surrounding the lodgement of a claim has been relatively consistent throughout the entire period of the ACC legislation. The has been no changes concerning the way in which the ACC has been instructed by the legislation. Any inconsistencies we see my with the ACC thus implying the legislation and been caught out and required to be making corrections and their processes that accordance with instructions from the judiciary.



48 Treatment provider lodging claim on behalf of person


A treatment provider lodging a claim under section 48 on behalf of a person must lodge the claim promptly with the Corporation after the person has authorised its being lodged.




49 Person to lodge claim for cover and entitlement


A person who wishes to claim under this Act must lodge a claim with the Corporation for—


(a)cover for his or her personal injury; or

(b)cover, and a specified entitlement, for his or her personal injury; or

©a specified entitlement for his or her personal injury, once the Corporation has accepted the person has cover for the personal injury.




52 Manner of making claim
(1)A person must lodge a claim with the Corporation in a manner specified by the Corporation.

(2)The Corporation must specify a manner that it is reasonable to expect the person to comply with.

(3)The Corporation may impose reasonable requirements on the person, such as, for example, requiring the person to lodge a written claim.


0

#5 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7362
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 May 2018 - 09:27 AM

Section 52/3 looks interesting considering that is exactly what my c/m didn't tell me (to put application in writing), in 1998 after I asked her orally if I was entitled to w/c. When I left work because of Physical injury and mental injury.

They didn't have it in the 1992 Act, not that I would have known, cause I had previously no reason to do anything except ask the C/M.

In fact my version of the Act JANUARY 2018 says : Effect of superannuation: 52 Relationship between weekly compensation and NZ superannuation &3 saySubclauses (4) and (5) apply to a claimant who first becomes entitled to weekly compensation 12 months or more, but less that 24 monthths, before reaching NZ suppuration qualification age.

ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE READING FROM THE RIGHT ACT THOMAS??

MINI
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8505
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 May 2018 - 11:23 AM

View PostMINI, on 15 May 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:

Section 52/3 looks interesting considering that is exactly what my c/m didn't tell me (to put application in writing), in 1998 after I asked her orally if I was entitled to w/c. When I left work because of Physical injury and mental injury.

They didn't have it in the 1992 Act, not that I would have known, cause I had previously no reason to do anything except ask the C/M.

In fact my version of the Act JANUARY 2018 says : Effect of superannuation: 52 Relationship between weekly compensation and NZ superannuation &3 saySubclauses (4) and (5) apply to a claimant who first becomes entitled to weekly compensation 12 months or more, but less that 24 monthths, before reaching NZ suppuration qualification age.

ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE READING FROM THE RIGHT ACT THOMAS??

MINI


Mini this portion of the legislation has been pretty much the same since the beginning.

In accordance with the legislated criteria ACC has always required the information that forms the basis of the claim to be from a medical professional that has the appropriate qualification and registration which is usually the treatment provider. At a time when the ACC was administering the 1992 act it most certainly required a medical professional to fill out the claim application which we would know as the ACC 45 form. As the ACC required this form you will find that there is no other option either then or now but to comply.

I think what is happening to you is happened to many including myself whereby we presented ourselves to the ACC without injuries asking at the counter how we should go about it and were rejected at this very point without the person speaking to us ever telling us how we should go about lodging a claim. This way the ACC rejects I far the majority potential claimants. Even my doctor was instructed by the ACC that while I was waiting for surgery for the first claim I could not lodge another claim with the second injury which is the reason why there is a gap between the abdominal injury claim and the official lodgement of the hands and upper limb injuries. The documentation shows that I originally attempted to lodge a claim in January 2 weeks after my original injury and that the ACC messed me about until September of that year after several attempts in contact with the ACC. This of course would have saved the ACC tens of thousands of dollars in earnings compensation that could not be claimed because the ACC generated this artificial delay. I suspect that you may have been subject to a similar type of malarkey scheme.

With regards to your other references to section 52 I am mystified as to what you are reading is that does not seem to be quoting the current legislation. Are you perhaps making reference to the schedule numbering system which further describes various criteria?
0

#7 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7362
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 16 May 2018 - 08:41 AM

Thomas

I have found many sections in my Jan 2018 copy of the 2001 ACC ACT.

This is because I am looking for the section that was used for Treatment Injury. I found Section 34 as well as those having been used already. I think I will just use section 52.

The fact that my GP seems as though he has never done a 'Treatment injury' one before, the misdiagnosis that is the cause of the personal accident/injury is now exactly that. And the further investigations for a diagnosis are expensive and with the best surgeons and specialists, I do not see why ACC should accept a GP's words over the specialists.

After five different specialists it looks like the diagnosis is around the corner, which is OK by me. It will need years of treatment to put me back in the situation I was which was walking without pain.

They say it takes nine months to get an accept or decline for cover. Of course I will be going straight ahead without their answer, as I have already waited 22 years, and getting worse by the months that go by.

Mini
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8505
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 May 2018 - 11:16 AM

Mini I have posted section 52 which is quite clearly different to what you are referencing. I have asked you to identify which act you are actually looking at in order that the readers may understand what is being discussed.

In the main a general practitioner will summarise what all of the various specialists have stated when submitting applications for cover and other information to the ACC on your behalf. In complex situations such as yours in general practitioner is never going to rely upon their own understanding and more practically always reference more definitive diagnosis and prognosis supported by specialists.

ACC may only delay for up to 9 months in circumstances whereby they have already made a decision that your claim is a complex case. Do you have a copy of that decision? If you do not have a copy of that decision and ACC have not made a decision that your cases complex the legislation automatically renders a decision of cover in the form of a deemed decision in your favour. further the ACC would have also had to seek your permission if they thought further investigation was necessary that would take up to 9 months. Are you aware of the ACC complying with these sections of the act? If the ACC have not complied simply ask for confirmation of your deemed decision for cover.
0

#9 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 16 May 2018 - 05:14 PM

as of your past injury status , mini, were your put . in a light duty role , and hence remined in your current occupation , as such as in then whom determined you were fit or unfit to remain in that such employement,correct tommy if such
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7362
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 17 May 2018 - 04:25 PM

View Posttommy, on 16 May 2018 - 05:14 PM, said:

as of your past injury status , mini, were your put . in a light duty role , and hence remined in your current occupation , as such as in then whom determined you were fit or unfit to remain in that such employement,correct tommy if such


Tommy
When you are back at work on light duties, you are never fit to remain working like that. Your specialist can take you back off anytime they like. But we didn't know I was supposed to have 'weekly compensation' automatically when I left. They knew I had 'mental' problems because of their treatment of me, but that didn't stop them torturing me with words and actions, that were obviously aimed to hurt me.

The boss don't like a worker to be at the hospital swim pool for rehab three days a week and there is no way he wants the worker back in their old position. In fact they don't want them there at all and all they can do is make life so miserable for the person that they cannot stay there because of mental issues and lack of trust. AND your physical injury which is only any use for light duties.

Surely you have read of this happening often with accredited employers. It is still happening now.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7362
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 17 May 2018 - 04:43 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 May 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

Mini I have posted section 52 which is quite clearly different to what you are referencing. I have asked you to identify which act you are actually looking at in order that the readers may understand what is being discussed.

In the main a general practitioner will summarise what all of the various specialists have stated when submitting applications for cover and other information to the ACC on your behalf. In complex situations such as yours in general practitioner is never going to rely upon their own understanding and more practically always reference more definitive diagnosis and prognosis supported by specialists.

ACC may only delay for up to 9 months in circumstances whereby they have already made a decision that your claim is a complex case. Do you have a copy of that decision? If you do not have a copy of that decision and ACC have not made a decision that your cases complex the legislation automatically renders a decision of cover in the form of a deemed decision in your favour. further the ACC would have also had to seek your permission if they thought further investigation was necessary that would take up to 9 months. Are you aware of the ACC complying with these sections of the act? If the ACC have not complied simply ask for confirmation of your deemed decision for cover.




Thomas there is a bit more to it that that. Nothng is ever simple with them as you know.

By the way it was section 48 that I was looking for to a apply for cover and entitlement. Now I have found it I can put it in. At the moment all I am doing is gathering information for cover and entitlements. Should be in by the end of this mouth.

Mini
0

#12 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 17 May 2018 - 05:11 PM

View PostMINI, on 17 May 2018 - 04:25 PM, said:

Tommy
When you are back at work on light duties, you are never fit to remain working like that. Your specialist can take you back off anytime they like. But we didn't know I was supposed to have 'weekly compensation' automatically when I left. They knew I had 'mental' problems because of their treatment of me, but that didn't stop them torturing me with words and actions, that were obviously aimed to hurt me.

The boss don't like a worker to be at the hospital swim pool for rehab three days a week and there is no way he wants the worker back in their old position. In fact they don't want them there at all and all they can do is make life so miserable for the person that they cannot stay there because of mental issues and lack of trust. AND your physical injury which is only any use for light duties.

Surely you have read of this happening often with accredited employers. It is still happening now.

Mini

as aboves . mini , was the employer and others ,ie , an acc accredited observer in place to monitor your light duty activities
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8505
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 17 May 2018 - 05:49 PM

View PostMINI, on 17 May 2018 - 04:43 PM, said:

Thomas there is a bit more to it that that. Nothng is ever simple with them as you know.

By the way it was section 46 that I was looking for to a apply for cover and entitlement. Now I have found it I can put it in. At the moment all I am doing is gathering information for cover and entitlements. Should be in by the end of this mouth.

Mini


Mini I would hate to think that the ACC is creating an artificially complex situation for you when the legislation does not call for anything other than what I have described.

I still cannot grasp which section you are actually looking at because what you have quoted does not resemble what the current legislation states. This leads me to believe that you are looking at something else. Perhaps you could be so kind as to clarify so as other readers do not become confused.
0

#14 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7362
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 18 May 2018 - 09:45 AM

View Posttommy, on 17 May 2018 - 05:11 PM, said:

as aboves . mini , was the employer and others ,ie , an acc accredited observer in place to monitor your light duty activities


Yes, but that didn't stop them bullying me. What are you trying to prove this far down the track.


Mini
0

#15 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7362
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 18 May 2018 - 09:54 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 17 May 2018 - 05:49 PM, said:

Mini I would hate to think that the ACC is creating an artificially complex situation for you when the legislation does not call for anything other than what I have described.

I still cannot grasp which section you are actually looking at because what you have quoted does not resemble what the current legislation states. This leads me to believe that you are looking at something else. Perhaps you could be so kind as to clarify so as other readers do not become confused.


Section 48 of the 2001 ACC Act Reprint as at the 1st January 2018.

Mini
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8505
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:30 AM

View PostMINI, on 18 May 2018 - 09:54 AM, said:

Section 48 of the 2001 ACC Act Reprint as at the 1st January 2018.

Mini


Mini you have quoted section 52/3 which did not relate to the actual legislation. I asked for clarification and now you are quoting section 48 which also does not tie in with what you have quoted. But you should look at your original posting in order that this thread gets put back on the tracks.
0

#17 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2208
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 18 May 2018 - 12:03 PM

I have pasted the section for you that you referenced Mini :)


Apologies I have not been posting in here lately Mini ... I have been caught up with other things ... and then when I do finally manage a free moment to come here for a read .... it just is sometimes exhausting to wade through all incessant blagging and lies being upchucked ad nauseum :wacko:

Quote

48
Person to lodge claim for cover and entitlement


A person who wishes to claim under this Act must lodge a claim with the Corporation for—
(a)
cover for his or her personal injury; or
(b}
cover, and a specified entitlement, for his or her personal injury; or
(c}
a specified entitlement for his or her personal injury, once the Corporation has accepted the person has cover for the personal injury.
Compare: 1998 No 114 s 54

http://www.legislati....html#DLM100973

1

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8505
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 May 2018 - 01:11 PM

View PostMINI, on 15 May 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:

Section 52/3 looks interesting considering that is exactly what my c/m didn't tell me (to put application in writing), in 1998 after I asked her orally if I was entitled to w/c. When I left work because of Physical injury and mental injury.

They didn't have it in the 1992 Act, not that I would have known, cause I had previously no reason to do anything except ask the C/M.

In fact my version of the Act JANUARY 2018 says : Effect of superannuation: 52 Relationship between weekly compensation and NZ superannuation &3 saySubclauses (4) and (5) apply to a claimant who first becomes entitled to weekly compensation 12 months or more, but less that 24 monthths, before reaching NZ suppuration qualification age.

ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE READING FROM THE RIGHT ACT THOMAS??

MINI


?
0

#19 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 18 May 2018 - 04:56 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 18 May 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

I have pasted the section for you that you referenced Mini :)/>


Apologies I have not been posting in here lately Mini ... I have been caught up with other things ... and then when I do finally manage a free moment to come here for a read .... it just is sometimes exhausting to wade through all incessant blagging and lies being upchucked ad nauseum :wacko:/>

anonymousey , is referring to a claim , as in being injured. and then acc is accepting that claim . which then suggests if as in your case , mini . a light duty involvement was implemented , and untill such your injury status could be reassesed , correct tommy otherwise
0

#20 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7362
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 18 May 2018 - 05:03 PM

View Posttommy, on 18 May 2018 - 04:56 PM, said:

anonymousey , is referring to a claim , as in being injured. and then acc is accepting that claim . which then suggests if as in your case , mini . a light duty involvement was implemented , and untill such your injury status could be reassesed , correct tommy otherwise


God Tommy

Who would want to take on any more than they have too My shoulders have been done, I have had two my upper limb break since working and that has made enough mess to get thru assessment. I think my shoulders can stay as they were when first assessed. Not having people pull me left right and centre now.

The Treatment Injury as little to do with assessors etc, it is more paperwork than anything, collecting it for cover.

Mini
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