ACCforum: Alans childhood wrist injury 1974 vs Roger McKernan - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Alans childhood wrist injury 1974 vs Roger McKernan LOPE issues &or later medical treatments

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 27 June 2018 - 11:27 AM

I am not sure if you have been aware of any ACC developments or media coverage beyond your own personal tunnel Alan, so I am posting this recent MSM story for you in case you have missed it ...

You may recall some of the statements from you contained within the thread that discusses your so called *binding decision* which you interpret quite differently to all of the ACC courts and medical experts who have publically reported upon your injuries ...

Quote

Review No : 46/92/1988
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.


As you may recall I highlighted to you that I mulled over the fact of you having ongoing wrist deformities from childhood and concluded they would have IMHO immediately handicapped any wishful thinking from you. I also suggested it was utterly impossible that you would or even could obtain reconstructive surgery to restore your wrist back to its deformed status prior to the alleged yachting accident &or any eccentric computing behaviours etc. I also decided there was no time machine or magic existing which could even try to return your wrist back to an imagined fracture free childhood status ie this would still be impossible for surgeons even today let alone decades ago etc

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 ... <<snipped>>



I have posted the entire MSM article below FYI Alan, but there is other coverage online etc

Have you considered the impact of this policy being implemented with regards to claimants such as yourself?


As the court reports clearly confirm that your wrist was injured in 1974 and a deformity remained this would cover the medical considerations but I am not sure about the income issue? From the many years of forum dialogue I have noted that you have rarely discussed this matter so perhaps clarifying now may be helpful? For example, my first injury occurred in 1978 and I was granted weekly compensation and believe there is also a courtcase available where my employer being sanctioned by the Department of Labour too ie if my ACC files are lost I could possibly source relevant data again from different agencies etc


So do you have any LOPE evidence from 1974 or were you too young perhaps?

Quote


ACC refuses to increase payments to burns victim


EVAN HARDING
Last updated 18:04, June 26 2018


ACC is refusing to increase its weekly compensation payments to a burns victim who is off work after having surgery.

Roger McKernan has described the ACC decision as "pretty shit".
McKernan was just 13 when he received horrific burns to his face, neck and hands in a go-karting accident in Invercargill in 2002.
The 29-year-old still carries the scars of the accident and has endured about 50 scar release and reconstruction surgeries since.
A family man who now works as an asphalt maker in Christchurch, he had time off work in 2014 to recover from a surgery related to his burns, and received 80 per cent of his income from ACC.
He was expecting the same after his latest five hour "scar release" surgery last month.
However, after the surgery, he got a shock to learn from ACC he would not be paid 80 per cent of his wages, which would have been about $850 a week, but would instead get a much reduced loss of potential earnings payment of $427 a week after tax.
He wanted 80 per cent of his earnings like other injured workers on ACC received, he said.
ACC agreed to have another look at his claim to see if there were any options it had overlooked that would allow it to provide him with weekly compensation based on his current earnings.
However, ACC spokesman James Funnell said this week the original decision would stand.
"Our re-consideration of Mr McKernan's situation has confirmed the original decision to pay him weekly compensation based on Loss of Potential Earnings (LOPE) while he recovers from surgery."
McKernan's recent surgery was to further treat the injuries he received in 2002, before he had entered the workforce, Funnell said.
"As a result all weekly compensation payments he receives relating to that injury are based on Loss of Potential Earnings."
McKernan could seek a formal independent review of ACCs decision, Funnell said.
McKernan said his surgeon wanted him to stay off work until the middle of August but he would instead return to work in about a fortnight.
"I can't live on $400 a week.
"I have to go back to light duties to provide for my family."
He was seeking legal advice and had approached Ilam MP Gerry Brownlee for help, he said.
He said ACC was correct that he was a non wage earner when the accident happened in 2002, but all his operations since had been a consequence of the previous operation.
​"Skin grafts and scars are always going to contract, and they need releasing so that's the consequence ... I am always going to need another operation from the one I just had."
McKernan said he also received an independence allowance from ACC due to his burns injuries, but those payments had nothing to do with the weekly compensation issue he was fighting.
Funnell said ACC had so far paid McKernan $65,139 in ongoing independence allowance payments, which could be paid out in quarterly payments or every five years as a single payment.
McKernan was last paid $20,621 in December 2014 to cover him until December 2019, Funnell said.
ACC would contact McKernan next October to ask whether he wanted to receive a further single payment, or revert to quarterly payments.
Funnell confirmed the independence allowance payments were a separate issue to what McKernan was currently fighting.
"The independence allowance payments are in recognition of his ongoing impairment and are based on the level of his impairment, as clinically assessed, and which he is entitled to regardless of whether he can work and how much he earns."
The issue of McKernan's weekly compensation, which he is currently fighting, only applies to periods where he is unable to work while he receives further treatment for his injuries, Funnell said.
- The Southland Times
https://www.stuff.co...to-burns-victim



ps my apologies for minimal forum appearances
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 June 2018 - 01:28 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 27 June 2018 - 11:27 AM, said:

I am not sure if you have been aware of any ACC developments or media coverage beyond your own personal tunnel Alan, so I am posting this recent MSM story for you in case you have missed it ...

You may recall some of the statements from you contained within the thread that discusses your so called *binding decision* which you interpret quite differently to all of the ACC courts and medical experts who have publically reported upon your injuries ...



As you may recall I highlighted to you that I mulled over the fact of you having ongoing wrist deformities from childhood and concluded they would have IMHO immediately handicapped any wishful thinking from you. I also suggested it was utterly impossible that you would or even could obtain reconstructive surgery to restore your wrist back to its deformed status prior to the alleged yachting accident &or any eccentric computing behaviours etc. I also decided there was no time machine or magic existing which could even try to return your wrist back to an imagined fracture free childhood status ie this would still be impossible for surgeons even today let alone decades ago etc


I have posted the entire MSM article below FYI Alan, but there is other coverage online etc

Have you considered the impact of this policy being implemented with regards to claimants such as yourself?


As the court reports clearly confirm that your wrist was injured in 1974 and a deformity remained this would cover the medical considerations but I am not sure about the income issue? From the many years of forum dialogue I have noted that you have rarely discussed this matter so perhaps clarifying now may be helpful? For example, my first injury occurred in 1978 and I was granted weekly compensation and believe there is also a courtcase available where my employer being sanctioned by the Department of Labour too ie if my ACC files are lost I could possibly source relevant data again from different agencies etc


So do you have any LOPE evidence from 1974 or were you too young perhaps?




ps my apologies for minimal forum appearances


Firstly I was not a child as at 1974 when I had a different injury to my arm and wrist. The injury in 1989 is considered to be in a different part of my body. The defect that remains from the 1974 injury is completely repairable. It merely requires the radius to be broken and reset in the correct position. Nothing complicated about that.


With regards to the 2 decision of the reviewers in 1992 the decision was to the effect that ACC should pay for reconstructive surgery to return me to my preinjury occupation. ACC disobeyed that instruction in the news not to pay for any surgery as directed by the reviewer. Instead the ACC asked the surgeon to carry out a salvage procedure that would make it impossible for me to return to my preinjury occupation work tasks. To me this means that they made a decision after the review hearing decision to the effect that I was permanently incapacitated with the result that they considered they were not obliged to return me to my preinjury occupation and therefore I would have been effectively retired under the ACC scheme and paid 80% of my projected earnings the rest of my life as opposed to 80% of historical earnings. Even so this payment is above the maximum payable under the ACC scheme so ACC argues that does not make any difference what the decision was and so excuse themselves from ever making it.However in 1995 the ACC made a decision to rehabilitate me into a new occupation in defiance of any decision of permanent incapacity and and disobedience of the 1992 review hearing decision to fund reconstructive surgery. My doctor had arranged for a surgeon to carry out the reconstructive surgery earlier that year subsequent to the discovery that the ACC had not fund the reconstructive surgery and totally different surgery occurred that had not even operated on the ulnar-styloyd-process at all. Further the surgery carried out involved something entirely different which is officially recognised as being an experimental procedure. Neither the ACC nor the surgeon had my consent to carry out an experimental surgery and there was only consent for the surgeon to carry out the reconstructive surgery. The surgery that actually took place had no possibility of being successful as confirmed by the research carried out a few years later on 12 pigs. Every single surgery on those pigs failed and they were put down. The following year after that surgery the hospital carried out in explorative procedure to find out what the session had actually done and during that process they caused a stroke which of course severely increased by incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation and generated such deficiencies that I could not even work in any occupation at all. All of the above is the proven medical facts provided by the relevant medical experts. None of this is my own opinion and as such I have never given anybody my opinion.


It has not gone without notice that both the ACC and yourself have a tendency towards this regarding the medical profession in favour of all manner of different assumptions thinking that your own expertise is greater than that of those who have studied and gained experience in their field of expertise.


As far as earnings compensation that the ACC are liable to pay there is only one available mode of payment by the ACC which is calculated based on my projected earnings over the previous year prior to first being injured in June 1989 while working which caused me to first work on light duties and then stop work in October prior to being injured again in December 1989. The additional wrist injury caused by the surgeon was in September 1992 would substantially increase the dysfunction of my wrist of which are claim number had been submitted will stop it seems that I have also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by that surgeons conduct in the conduct of the ACC both of which was in relation to the legal activities in conjunction with ordinary assault by the surgeon with the ACC being a party to that assault. The stroke causing additional injury and incapacity to earn in 1993 Has been given its own claim number notwithstanding the fact that ACC wrote to me first telling me that they considered the brain injury to be as a consequence of the wrist injury. I disagreed and the claim application for cover was submitted but as the ACC have not issued a decision the claim application automatically defaulted to a decision in my favour.

In April/May 1997 and additional ligaments in my wrist was ruptured as a result of working beyond my capacity. The work that I was undertaking was producing business plans as instructed by the ACC. The claim was submitted after my doctor obtained x-rays proving the injury October 1997 of which ACC was asked to pay for those x-rays. ACC have never Acknowledged that additional claim or application for x-ray funding as they believed they had cancelled my claim entirely in August 1997 and therefore was not entitled to any medical treatment of any sort. In 2003 the ACC had a change of heart and acknowledged that they were still duty-bound to pay for all medical costs relating to the injury despite the fact that they claim to have canceled the cover. I asked them to formalise this decision to pay medical costs is they had revoked the August 1997 decision. ACC simply failed to respond. Confirmation seeking clarification of this anomaly has not yet been addressed although there have been three review hearing decisions In my favour requiring the ACC to now determine the degree of disability I suffer from that injury which of course will certainly undermine the integrity of the ACC decision to cancel the claim and all entitlements August 1997.


The Roger McKernan issue concerning potential earnings as opposed to historical earnings is dependent upon whether the ACC made a decision of permanent or temporary incapacity under the pre-1992 legislation. As his claim comes under the post-1992 legislation and subsequent legislations the issue of permanent incapacity does not enter into any issue is the concept of a return to work in a new occupation became part of legislation. It appears that a similar have considered that his injuries are only temporary and that he will recover his capacity to earn in his projected line of earnings completely in a new occupation. Historical direction does not enter into the equation. In addition the original compensation calculations for earnings compensation while the injury occurred prior to them ever working full-time of which is injuries prevented from working continuously and uninterrupted because of his injuries he is considered not to have recovered and as such still be registered for earnings compensation and be paid abatement of earnings based on any subsequent earnings capacity in the new occupation unless the ACC has in some way assisted him with vocational rehabilitation into a new occupation to enhances capacity to earn.
0

#3 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 27 June 2018 - 03:40 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 27 June 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:

Firstly I was not a child is at 1974 when I had a different injury to my arm and wrist. The injury in 1989 is considered to be in a different part of my body.



So are you claiming that your right wrist was not involved in both injuries? The court decisions are referring to your right wrist as being injured in both alleged accidents ie tree fall & yachting misadventure.


I am also finding it difficult to imagine that for the past 30 years or so that this issue concerning your right wrist was not promptly and definitively clarified and verified Alan. ie it appears that you, plus your doctors, plus ACC have always referenced the exact same part of your body ie your right wrist.

Obviously for the sake of clarity I am not including any elbow or shoulder complaints from you because these seem to be way too nebulous ie purported tennis elbow or steroid improvements &or indirect issues with shoulder etc

View PostAlan Thomas, on 27 June 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:

The defect that remains from the 1974 injury is completely repairable. It merely requires the radius to be broken and reset in the correct position. Nothing complicated about that.


HHhhmmmm then why on earth was this so simple uncomplicated repair actually not done nearly 50 years ago Alan.

Of course this still does not address the fact that a defective wrist was being used in an extreme or reckless computing activity from when you finally obtained some skills or employment as an adult Alan. I think you might find surgeons will never guarantee any repair or resetting operation would let you place such heavy tension within your wrist or using a mouse for those purported 16 hours a day design marathons etc


View PostAlan Thomas, on 27 June 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:


With regards to the 2 decision of the reviewers in 1992 the decision was to the effect that ACC should pay for reconstructive surgery to return me to my preinjury occupation. ACC disobeyed that instruction in the news not to pay for any surgery as directed by the reviewer.


This is certainly NOT what the Review No : 46/92/1988 decision states that I have earlier uploaded for you Alan.

As you are referencing a mystery review decision from the same time Alan I can not comment but I do draw your attention to the fact that subsequent court cases all dismiss your interpretations from the Reviewers or that lower tier tribunal Alan. ie there is not any binding decision because they were all superceded etc

I would also be very surprised that ANY surgeon in the world would offer such a result to any of their patients Alan. I have also never come across any such surgery claims within any legal courtcases reported in NZ or elsewhere Alan. ie I would think it to be an impossibility for reconstructive surgery to turn back the clock as such ...



View PostAlan Thomas, on 27 June 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:

Instead the ACC asked the surgeon to carry out a salvage procedure that would make it impossible for me to return to my preinjury occupation work tasks. To me this means that they made a decision after the review hearing decision to the effect that I was permanently incapacitated with the result that they considered they were not obliged to return me to my preinjury occupation and therefore I would have been effectively retired under the ACC scheme and paid 80% of my projected earnings the rest of my life as opposed to 80% of historical earnings. Even so this payment is above the maximum payable under the ACC scheme so ACC argues that does not make any difference what the decision was and so excuse themselves from ever making it.However in 1995 the ACC made a decision to rehabilitate me into a new occupation in defiance of any decision of permanent incapacity and and disobedience of the 1992 review hearing decision to fund reconstructive surgery. My doctor had arranged for a surgeon to carry out the reconstructive surgery earlier that year subsequent to the discovery that the ACC had not fund the reconstructive surgery and totally different surgery occurred that had not even operated on the ulnar-styloyd-process at all. Further the surgery carried out involved something entirely different which is officially recognised as being an experimental procedure. Neither the ACC nor the surgeon had my consent to carry out an experimental surgery and there was only consent for the surgeon to carry out the reconstructive surgery. The surgery that actually took place had no possibility of being successful as confirmed by the research carried out a few years later on 12 pigs. Every single surgery on those pigs failed and they were put down. The following year after that surgery the hospital carried out in explorative procedure to find out what the session had actually done and during that process they caused a stroke which of course severely increased by incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation and generated such deficiencies that I could not even work in any occupation at all. All of the above is the proven medical facts provided by the relevant medical experts. None of this is my own opinion and as such I have never given anybody my opinion.



I can not comment on any of your rhetoric and blagging Alan. Again I must refer you to the NZ Courts and highlight that none of those cases corroborate your claims and in fact some of the medical experts are stating that they are merely relaying *your opinions* and stories etc


It has not gone without notice that both the ACC and yourself have a tendency towards this regarding the medical profession in favour of all manner of different assumptions thinking that your own expertise is greater than that of those who have studied and gained experience in their field of expertise.

I have struck through your pointless petty insults Alan.

The question I raised in this thread was in regards to your right wrist being injured TWICE and to explore any parallels to ACC currently managing other claimants with childhood injuries.

There is clear evidence of medical records detailing an injury and a defective body part which was being disregarded by you, your doctors & ACC for decades.

The media report is in regards to ACC now managing claimants with such a history in a specific fashion.

Until you define there is no concrete link between any claims of injury upon the same right wrist - I think you might be skating on very very thin ice Alan....

If you could try to discuss this issue objectively Alan, there may be potential factors that can be explored to help you or indeed other claimants ie stop being abusive and selfish and instead think of the bigger pictures etc

View PostAlan Thomas, on 27 June 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:

As far as earnings compensation that the ACC are liable to pay there is only one available mode of payment by the ACC which is calculated based on my projected earnings over the previous year prior to first being injured in June 1989 while working which caused me to first work on light duties and then stop work in October prior to being injured again in December 1989. The additional wrist injury caused by the surgeon was in September 1992 would substantially increase the dysfunction of my wrist of which are claim number had been submitted will stop it seems that I have also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by that surgeons conduct in the conduct of the ACC both of which was in relation to the legal activities in conjunction with ordinary assault by the surgeon with the ACC being a party to that assault. The stroke causing additional injury and incapacity to earn in 1993 Has been given its own claim number notwithstanding the fact that ACC wrote to me first telling me that they considered the brain injury to be as a consequence of the wrist injury. I disagreed and the claim application for cover was submitted but as the ACC have not issued a decision the claim application automatically defaulted to a decision in my favour.

In April/May 1997 and additional ligaments in my wrist was ruptured as a result of working beyond my capacity. The work that I was undertaking was producing business plans as instructed by the ACC. The claim was submitted after my doctor obtained x-rays proving the injury October 1997 of which ACC was asked to pay for those x-rays. ACC have never Acknowledged that additional claim or application for x-ray funding as they believed they had cancelled my claim entirely in August 1997 and therefore was not entitled to any medical treatment of any sort. In 2003 the ACC had a change of heart and acknowledged that they were still duty-bound to pay for all medical costs relating to the injury despite the fact that they claim to have canceled the cover. I asked them to formalise this decision to pay medical costs is they had revoked the August 1997 decision. ACC simply failed to respond. Confirmation seeking clarification of this anomaly has not yet been addressed although there have been three review hearing decisions In my favour requiring the ACC to now determine the degree of disability I suffer from that injury which of course will certainly undermine the integrity of the ACC decision to cancel the claim and all entitlements August 1997.



The Roger McKernan issue concerning potential earnings as opposed to historical earnings is dependent upon whether the ACC made a decision of permanent or temporary incapacity under the pre-1992 legislation. As his claim comes under the post-1992 legislation and subsequent legislations the issue of permanent incapacity does not enter into any issue is the concept of a return to work in a new occupation became part of legislation. It appears that a similar have considered that his injuries are only temporary and that he will recover his capacity to earn in his projected line of earnings completely in a new occupation. Historical direction does not enter into the equation. In addition the original compensation calculations for earnings compensation while the injury occurred prior to them ever working full-time of which is injuries prevented from working continuously and uninterrupted because of his injuries he is considered not to have recovered and as such still be registered for earnings compensation and be paid abatement of earnings based on any subsequent earnings capacity in the new occupation unless the ACC has in some way assisted him with vocational rehabilitation into a new occupation to enhances capacity to earn.


Once again I have struck through all your offtopic rhetoric and blagging Alan.

I am not interested in any of your opinions relating to either your ACC claim that resulted in the fraud conviction or your personal interpretations of the ACC legislation in this thread ...

As you have avoided clarifying the 1974 earnings, does this mean there were zero earnings in fact?

At the start of this posting you claim you were not a child in 1974, so were you just some unemployed person climbing trees and falling out of them then?


Your last paragraph appears to be some convoluted spin which goes completely off track and out to space somewheres concerning the historical Section 60 Alan. I know that your courtcase was lost and I doubt there would be any relevance to Roger McKernan either.


RE your statement "In addition the original compensation calculations for earnings compensation while the injury occurred prior to them ever working full-time of which is injuries prevented from working continuously and uninterrupted because of his injuries he is considered not to have recovered and as such still be registered for earnings compensation and be paid abatement of earnings based on any subsequent earnings capacity in the new occupation unless the ACC has in some way assisted him with vocational rehabilitation into a new occupation to enhances capacity to earn."


If you read what you wrote again Alan, your idea that Abatements on Loss of Potential Earnings would probably be not applicable IMHO ... and in fact be a more severe management strategy than the ACC one ...

I noted too that you have also written that word *unless* which appears to me as suggesting that if Roger McKernan self rehabilitated himself into a new occupation then his income would reduce ie does not apply if ACC gave him any rehabilitation help
0

#4 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 27 June 2018 - 04:47 PM

Your projected earning you want from acc
Haha haaa
Projected earnings of a failed business and a bankrupt amout to fuk all
See you haven’t mentioned medical misadventure
Your whole claim is a misadventure but a factual account of how to go to jail.
0

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 27 June 2018 - 06:02 PM

The injury that happen in 1994 is a fracture to the right wrist this fracture had healed except for the un-united fracture tip of the unlnar styloid.

the injuries that is listed in the March 1997 medical report that is from a trauma event is
1. The Scapho-lunate is ruptured
2. the capilate lunate ligament is ruptured
3. The harnade Triquetral ligament is ruptured.

I do not have page 2 but Alan could publish this and also the report from ACc assessor to see if he was correct in his diagnose. Alan is mistaken that the injuries are from carrying out a business plan as trauma is needed to obtain those injuries as per the medical documentation.
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 June 2018 - 06:28 PM


anonymousey

What childhood injury are you referring to?That is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard given the fact that the ACC scheme did not even begin until I was well and truly an adult.As I have already collected you here in this matter why you continue making false statements in disregard of the facts?
If you can't accept facts and the reality but only continue to imagine what you are saying is correct then there is no possibility we can have a reasonable discussion.

0

#7 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 27 June 2018 - 10:33 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 27 June 2018 - 06:28 PM, said:

anonymousey

What childhood injury are you referring to?That is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard given the fact that the ACC scheme did not even begin until I was well and truly an adult.As I have already collected you here in this matter why you continue making false statements in disregard of the facts?
If you can't accept facts and the reality but only continue to imagine what you are saying is correct then there is no possibility we can have a reasonable discussion.


I am referring to the 1974 injury Alan. As it has been always described as falling out of a tree with zero information concerning employment in these court reports, I figured from the ages reported in the MSM article that you would likely have been only a teenager or under the age of majority. I was not being definitive because I know there are so many different ages within NZ for different labels Alan, such as a person being 25 years until their parents income is no longer assessed for benefit entitlements & adult rates with MSD or MOE claims, so I have merely adopted the most familiar term ie I would basically describe most teenagers or early 20s without tertiary qualifications or full time employment and most likely living at home as still within or closer to their childhood years rather than being an adult per se ie minimal independence achieved.


The key facts that you need to focus on here in order to stay on topic Alan is whether or not your 1974 injury and ACC claim was treated by ACC as falling within the normal *adult* processes or not ie the clear factors like being waged that are frequently used in most systems & countries etc

There appears to be some kiwis who have had injuries right up to being 18 or 21 years old - who are or were likely still students &or still living at home ie I would expect the majority of claims involving a Loss of Potential Earnings to involve either primary & secondary aged, or tertiary students.

As you claim you were an adult in 1974 - was this claim for you then on calculated upon a wage instead of the unemployment benefit? I am trying to clarify specifically how your injury claim of this time would parallel Roger McKernan's circumstances etc As you have previously stated you only obtained basic secondary schooling and may have attended night classes several years later after being a school leaver, this immediately identifies that you may not have had UE back then ie no student allowances or bursaries. This basic data would also be useful to claimants who could be claiming LOPE entitlements etc

Obviously if you were in fact in full time employment when you fell out of the tree - then this income or wage would have been the critical factor for ACC to calculate the weekly compensation Alan.

As you claim you were an adult in 1974, then your IRD records or wage slips from this era could be used by ACC in similar ways to McKernan still ....

Do you remember the minimum adult hourly rate for employment in 1974 Alan?


You have claimed to the courts that your ACC records from this time were lost. ie "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."

Are you now also claiming that in addition to ACC apparently losing these claim records, that other basic evidence has also been lost too Alan?


I am trying to get you to stick to simple facts and explore avenues of evidence that can assist claimants who may face difficult questions relating to these times.


For example, with my first ACC claim, I still have some ACC records to validate the reference numbers. I also have reference detail for my employer and my wages [IRD & banking also verifies]. I would be potentially able to track some of the medical data or at least point ACC directly to the professionals involved. As mentioned earlier there would also be DOL courtcase that I could hunt out too etc

Thus even though I was a teenager Alan, there is an extensive network or material that I could tap into if I wished to ensure that my first ACC claim is being properly managed ...thus I am not in the same situation as Roger McKernan and hopefully I should be able to explain further on such differences back then etc

I mention this detail because your first ACC claim has always seemed so inadequately evidenced, and you are continually unable to provide logical or cogent material to the discussions, thus I had tagged it as being more typical of childhood dependency &or teenage immaturity etc

So now that you insist you were an adult Alan - do you recall the different employment factors which ACC compensated following your fall from a tree?
0

#8 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 27 June 2018 - 10:37 PM

View PostHemi, on 27 June 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

Your projected earning you want from acc
Haha haaa
Projected earnings of a failed business and a bankrupt amout to fuk all
See you haven’t mentioned medical misadventure
Your whole claim is a misadventure but a factual account of how to go to jail.




TY Hemi :) , and yep I also noted those comments on *projected earnings* but avoided that dialogue. Mainly because last time I tried to correlate to a timeline and court decisions it turned into an utter mess of contradicting palaver which was impossible to discuss meaningfully unfortunately ...
0

#9 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 27 June 2018 - 10:57 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 27 June 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

The injury that happen in 1994 is a fracture to the right wrist this fracture had healed except for the un-united fracture tip of the unlnar styloid.

the injuries that is listed in the March 1997 medical report that is from a trauma event is
1. The Scapho-lunate is ruptured
2. the capilate lunate ligament is ruptured
3. The harnade Triquetral ligament is ruptured.

I do not have page 2 but Alan could publish this and also the report from ACc assessor to see if he was correct in his diagnose. Alan is mistaken that the injuries are from carrying out a business plan as trauma is needed to obtain those injuries as per the medical documentation.



TY doppelganger :) ,

The only information I had was from the review decision which stated, "Mr Nicholson said [18 June 1991] 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."


This review also discusses other significant medical information but it appears to be several years BEFORE the 1997 report you are talking about perhaps? For example, the first medical certificate is months after the date of the claimed accident with the GP stating Alan recalls wrenching his right wrist etc

ie " In a CI Advice of Injury Form signed on 7 September 1990, Mr Thomas said he strained an old injury in his right arm ... 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. "

There is also the specialist [Rees 4 March 1991] reporting on the xray that Alans right wrist has " a normal range of movement for light work" .... so it appears way back then that one of the sticking points was these purported 16 hour mouse design marathons Alan claimed he did with the wrist muscles and ligaments being held under tension etc

TBH I have no idea why Alan did not pace himself over the working day yet ie if he was able to do 30 minutes of intricate mouse manipulation for 30 minutes uninterrupted then why he didnt take breaks and do something else for a period of time much like other young gamers or IT people will do with preventing RSI injuries etc :unsure:


ie "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."
0

#10 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:14 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 27 June 2018 - 10:33 PM, said:

I am referring to the 1974 injury Alan. As it has been always described as falling out of a tree with zero information concerning employment in these court reports, I figured from the ages reported in the MSM article that you would likely have been only a teenager or under the age of majority. I was not being definitive because I know there are so many different ages within NZ for different labels Alan, such as a person being 25 years until their parents income is no longer assessed for benefit entitlements & adult rates with MSD or MOE claims, so I have merely adopted the most familiar term ie I would basically describe most teenagers or early 20s without tertiary qualifications or full time employment and most likely living at home as still within or closer to their childhood years rather than being an adult per se ie minimal independence achieved.


The key facts that you need to focus on here in order to stay on topic Alan is whether or not your 1974 injury and ACC claim was treated by ACC as falling within the normal *adult* processes or not ie the clear factors like being waged that are frequently used in most systems & countries etc

There appears to be some kiwis who have had injuries right up to being 18 or 21 years old - who are or were likely still students &or still living at home ie I would expect the majority of claims involving a Loss of Potential Earnings to involve either primary & secondary aged, or tertiary students.

As you claim you were an adult in 1974 - was this claim for you then on calculated upon a wage instead of the unemployment benefit? I am trying to clarify specifically how your injury claim of this time would parallel Roger McKernan's circumstances etc As you have previously stated you only obtained basic secondary schooling and may have attended night classes several years later after being a school leaver, this immediately identifies that you may not have had UE back then ie no student allowances or bursaries. This basic data would also be useful to claimants who could be claiming LOPE entitlements etc

Obviously if you were in fact in full time employment when you fell out of the tree - then this income or wage would have been the critical factor for ACC to calculate the weekly compensation Alan.

As you claim you were an adult in 1974, then your IRD records or wage slips from this era could be used by ACC in similar ways to McKernan still ....

Do you remember the minimum adult hourly rate for employment in 1974 Alan?


You have claimed to the courts that your ACC records from this time were lost. ie "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."

Are you now also claiming that in addition to ACC apparently losing these claim records, that other basic evidence has also been lost too Alan?


I am trying to get you to stick to simple facts and explore avenues of evidence that can assist claimants who may face difficult questions relating to these times.


For example, with my first ACC claim, I still have some ACC records to validate the reference numbers. I also have reference detail for my employer and my wages [IRD & banking also verifies]. I would be potentially able to track some of the medical data or at least point ACC directly to the professionals involved. As mentioned earlier there would also be DOL courtcase that I could hunt out too etc

Thus even though I was a teenager Alan, there is an extensive network or material that I could tap into if I wished to ensure that my first ACC claim is being properly managed ...thus I am not in the same situation as Roger McKernan and hopefully I should be able to explain further on such differences back then etc

I mention this detail because your first ACC claim has always seemed so inadequately evidenced, and you are continually unable to provide logical or cogent material to the discussions, thus I had tagged it as being more typical of childhood dependency &or teenage immaturity etc

So now that you insist you were an adult Alan - do you recall the different employment factors which ACC compensated following your fall from a tree?


thomas would have been 19 years old in 1974 when he fell from a tree.
same year as acc came into existence April Fools day -1st April which rather comically same day as his now infamous detailed declaration to the acc on 1st =April Fools day 1996 claiming he could not work which resulted in his conviction and off to jail for use of documents for pecuniary gain via use of acc medical certificates

existence of the foreboding omens of failure of thomas and acc claims in 1974 April fools day
thomas/ fraud issue April fools day 1996 and his Takapuna bomb plot was discovered and foiled just prior to April fools day 2009-
whens the next April Fools day exercise thomas
whatever will you come with now as everything else has FAILED
Your look like a dumb ass of no intelligence at all and rely on badly but sadly thought out jokes all the time
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:05 AM


anonymousey

It seems that you are trying to lead a bunch of loonies including David Butler and doppelgänger
The ACC legislation is entirely dependent upon the medical facts and as you have put yourself forward as a medical expert is other loonies have followed suit.
The facts are that I suffer from a number of injuries resulting from accident events that prevented me from earning in my preinjury occupation with the result that ACC legislation provides me an entitlement of earnings compensation as was confirmed by review hearing decision. All review hearing decisions remain binding upon all parties unless successfully appealed. The word at all is all inclusive which includes subsequent judges who must submit to the authority of that decision that has not been appealed.
You don't have a right to an opinion about medical information as you are not medically qualified to have an opinion. Therefore you must submit yourself and your thinking to those who are appropriately qualified and experienced to have a right to an opinion after relying upon various medical diagnostic equipment and clinical examination. Therefore everything that you and your cohort are saying must be disregarded and as such this conversation is now at an end.

0

#12 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:14 AM

View PostHemi, on 28 June 2018 - 09:14 AM, said:

thomas would have been 19 years old in 1974 when he fell from a tree.
same year as acc came into existence April Fools day -1st April which rather comically same day as his now infamous detailed declaration to the acc on 1st =April Fools day 1996 claiming he could not work which resulted in his conviction and off to jail for use of documents for pecuniary gain via use of acc medical certificates

existence of the foreboding omens of failure of thomas and acc claims in 1974 April fools day -whens the next April Fools day exercise thomas Posted Image/>
whatever will you come with now as everything else has FAILED
Your look like a dumb ass of no intelligence at all and rely on badly but sadly thought out jokes all the time


Thank you Hemi :)

I am not sure but I think ACC may be managing various students from earlier times similar to Roger McKernan perhaps? I also do not know if this issue has been under the radar for a long time or not because as I say above, my experience with ACC in the 70s was fairly standard etc

So basically until Alan himself starts engaging meaningfully with the issues being raised in this thread, all I can do is write generically in case it may help other claimants.

Currently after scanning the NZLLI judgements for Alan I realise there may be some wrinkles with trying to paint a useful picture to explore but its all becoming exhausting and convoluted again sadly ...

So until Alan confirms that he was in full time employment or not when he fell out of a tree, he may still be in a similar boat as Roger McKernan ie he has two injuries to the same body part from different accidents and he had not yet established any regular adult autonomy etc. I have noted above that Alan is claiming his second 1989 injury is described as being different but in the world of medical diagnosis however I would say this is an attempt by him to make something that is simple into another very complex idiosyncrasy and disregards the medical systems of the times etc Basically it looks to me like he is trying to claim his wrist ligaments that were strained when he fell overboard were NEVER involved or compromised in the earlier fracturing event of the same wrist & arm when he fell out of a tree etc

One other thing which I find so difficult when trying to discuss parallels with experiences from back then is the possible incongruencies and inconsistencies unfortunately. For example as I was employed in the 1970s, if this policy effecting Roger McKernan is being more visibly implemented by ACC then I would expect that taxation and levy records from these times should become accessible to all kiwis. Currently the kiwi IRD system only has a kind of recent statement system which has limited information compared to many other much bigger databases etc.

Another example would be that I am aware of another young person who suffered injuries only a few years ago and is on a waiting list for surgery currently. AFAIK there has never been any LOPE undertaken and it is just likely their medical expenses being covered as they are on WINZ benefits due to employment efforts failing due to their disability etc etc

I have got some alarm bells ringing with my concerns over this ACC behaviour with Roger McKernan but as every thread I have ever started in this forum has always been jacked by Alan Thomas ...I figured I may as well explore his issues simultaneously if I can :wacko:
0

#13 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:31 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 10:05 AM, said:

anonymousey

It seems that you are trying to lead a bunch of loonies including David Butler and doppelgänger
The ACC legislation is entirely dependent upon the medical facts and as you have put yourself forward as a medical expert is other loonies have followed suit.
The facts are that I suffer from a number of injuries resulting from accident events that prevented me from earning in my preinjury occupation with the result that ACC legislation provides me an entitlement of earnings compensation as was confirmed by review hearing decision. All review hearing decisions remain binding upon all parties unless successfully appealed. The word at all is all inclusive which includes subsequent judges who must submit to the authority of that decision that has not been appealed.
You don't have a right to an opinion about medical information as you are not medically qualified to have an opinion. Therefore you must submit yourself and your thinking to those who are appropriately qualified and experienced to have a right to an opinion after relying upon various medical diagnostic equipment and clinical examination. Therefore everything that you and your cohort are saying must be disregarded and as such this conversation is now at an end.




FFS Alan - you have provided zero facts in regards to your own circumstances relevant to this thread and the issues faced by Roger McKernan. ie your 1974 employment status &or any wrist injury similarities between events


AFAIK all of your purported medical injuries and claimed accident events have been questioned by medical experts due to the extensive courtroom litigation which you have created ...and even your fraud conviction excludes your medical circumstances etc In the past we have also already covered possible reckless and self harm elements to your claims Alan so I always find it extremely difficult to canvas any regular issues as most claimants I interact with do NOT have such questions swirling around them eg their accidents were witnessed etc

FYI, I have also never seen any *preinjury occupation* detail evidenced on this forum Alan, and in fact I have seen the opposite claims from your gob that you have specifically withheld such basic data from ACC. Ditto with basic income factors

I have already highlighted that your lower tier reviewer decisions were superceded by Higher Courts Alan so it cannot get more simpler than this ie your interpretations of these matters were dismissed because they were all examined and the ACC position specifically on those decisions and any surgery was examined as part of their successfull appeals.

As this is a thread I have started I am quite happy to continue as I see fit with other members to address relevant issues without ANY OF YOUR NOISY STATIC and INSULTS Alan :angry:


Back on topic
0

#14 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 28 June 2018 - 11:25 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 28 June 2018 - 10:14 AM, said:

Thank you Hemi :)/>/>

I am not sure but I think ACC may be managing various students from earlier times similar to Roger McKernan perhaps? I also do not know if this issue has been under the radar for a long time or not because as I say above, my experience with ACC in the 70s was fairly standard etc

So basically until Alan himself starts engaging meaningfully with the issues being raised in this thread, all I can do is write generically in case it may help other claimants.

Currently after scanning the NZLLI judgements for Alan I realise there may be some wrinkles with trying to paint a useful picture to explore but its all becoming exhausting and convoluted again sadly ...

So until Alan confirms that he was in full time employment or not when he fell out of a tree, he may still be in a similar boat as Roger McKernan ie he has two injuries to the same body part from different accidents and he had not yet established any regular adult autonomy etc. I have noted above that Alan is claiming his second 1989 injury is described as being different but in the world of medical diagnosis however I would say this is an attempt by him to make something that is simple into another very complex idiosyncrasy and disregards the medical systems of the times etc Basically it looks to me like he is trying to claim his wrist ligaments that were strained when he fell overboard were NEVER involved or compromised in the earlier fracturing event of the same wrist & arm when he fell out of a tree etc

One other thing which I find so difficult when trying to discuss parallels with experiences from back then is the possible incongruencies and inconsistencies unfortunately. For example as I was employed in the 1970s, if this policy effecting Roger McKernan is being more visibly implemented by ACC then I would expect that taxation and levy records from these times should become accessible to all kiwis. Currently the kiwi IRD system only has a kind of recent statement system which has limited information compared to many other much bigger databases etc.

Another example would be that I am aware of another young person who suffered injuries only a few years ago and is on a waiting list for surgery currently. AFAIK there has never been any LOPE undertaken and it is just likely their medical expenses being covered as they are on WINZ benefits due to employment efforts failing due to their disability etc etc

I have got some alarm bells ringing with my concerns over this ACC behaviour with Roger McKernan but as every thread I have ever started in this forum has always been jacked by Alan Thomas ...I figured I may as well explore his issues simultaneously if I can :wacko:/>/>

There is documentation showing Thomas 1989 failure to captain the yacht compently as being a wrist re injury of an old wrist injury.
Alas I’m far away from office files etc to post it.
0

#15 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 01:57 PM

View PostHemi, on 28 June 2018 - 11:25 AM, said:

There is documentation showing Thomas 1989 failure to captain the yacht compently as being a wrist re injury of an old wrist injury.
Alas I’m far away from office files etc to post it.


Good as gold Hemi :)

I have noted Alan stating above,

" The facts are that I suffer from a number of injuries resulting from accident events that prevented me from earning... "



So my POV on Alans case is that if he still tries to find technical loopholes to push another claim, it may also be a similar situation to the unusual one which he has already done Hemi ie reinjuring himself due to reckless activities whilst already on ERC - or his hernia to wrist claim etc

The way I read his situation from the only information that he has touched on during our difficult dialogues, or my scans of his court decisions, is basically as follows :-

1. 1974 wrist injury. No records. Repairs insufficient and left with residual defects. If no workers compensation due to status then = Roger McKernan claim circumstances with LOPE perhaps?


2. 1989 hernia injury. Records available. Workers compensation for unspecified occupation & income. Claimed yachting accident. Repair completed. Possible zero medical references to wrist or right arm at time? Possible questions also concerning bankruptcy, failed businesses, &or civil protection orders?


3. 1989 wrist injury. On ERC already. Records with delayed claim post hernia. Workers compensation for unspecified occupation & income issued. Strife with ACC present. Private Hospital Surgery completed as per Review decision. Uncertain if Alan paid his contribution portion. Wrist injury issues reexamined in multiple medical assessments & court proceedings. Alan has multiple complaints concerning his wrist surgery. Linked to conviction.

This is the event which I see has parallels to Roger McKernan ie for Alan his ERC was paid out on income during period of time with treatment and rehabilitation of wrist injury following second traumatic event etc


4, 5, 6, 7 injury claims may all be declined as employment status criterions were not met possibly ...



The other issue which I think assists Roger McKernan but might be problematic for Alan is that it is clear McKernan has been in the workforce meaningfully asan adult - so that if he has another accident as an adult = then his ERC rates should be based on full wages at time eg if he breaks legs with MVA then this is unrelated to burns & LOPE status etc.

Also from what I can see with Alans situation is that while he has still kept his occupation and income disguised from ACC so even if he did meet the employment status criterions with subsequent accidents Hemi - his difficulty might be evidencing them at the time so this would be akin to another recent chap who was having trouble proving his wages from a very long time ago etc Sorry I cannot rememember name of top of my head but it was in MSM media too and I think there was a national call for his workmates to get in touch to verify his occupation & wages several decades ago etc Also in Alans situation my thinking would also briefly explore the fact that so much medical assessment has been undertaken already that he may be hard pushed to demonstrate that any NEW injury event has transpired etc
0

#16 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 28 June 2018 - 02:40 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 28 June 2018 - 01:57 PM, said:

Good as gold Hemi Posted Image

I have noted Alan stating above,

" The facts are that I suffer from a number of injuries resulting from accident events that prevented me from earning... "



So my POV on Alans case is that if he still tries to find technical loopholes to push another claim, it may also be a similar situation to the unusual one which he has already done Hemi ie reinjuring himself due to reckless activities whilst already on ERC - or his hernia to wrist claim etc

The way I read his situation from the only information that he has touched on during our difficult dialogues, or my scans of his court decisions, is basically as follows :-

1. 1974 wrist injury. No records. Repairs insufficient and left with residual defects. If no workers compensation due to status then = Roger McKernan claim circumstances with LOPE perhaps?


2. 1989 hernia injury. Records available. Workers compensation for unspecified occupation & income. Claimed yachting accident. Repair completed. Possible zero medical references to wrist or right arm at time? Possible questions also concerning bankruptcy, failed businesses, &or civil protection orders?


3. 1989 wrist injury. On ERC already. Records with delayed claim post hernia. Workers compensation for unspecified occupation & income issued. Strife with ACC present. Private Hospital Surgery completed as per Review decision. Uncertain if Alan paid his contribution portion. Wrist injury issues reexamined in multiple medical assessments & court proceedings. Alan has multiple complaints concerning his wrist surgery. Linked to conviction.

This is the event which I see has parallels to Roger McKernan ie for Alan his ERC was paid out on income during period of time with treatment and rehabilitation of wrist injury following second traumatic event etc


4, 5, 6, 7 injury claims may all be declined as employment status criterions were not met possibly ...



The other issue which I think assists Roger McKernan but might be problematic for Alan is that it is clear McKernan has been in the workforce meaningfully asan adult - so that if he has another accident as an adult = then his ERC rates should be based on full wages at time eg if he breaks legs with MVA then this is unrelated to burns & LOPE status etc.

Also from what I can see with Alans situation is that while he has still kept his occupation and income disguised from ACC so even if he did meet the employment status criterions with subsequent accidents Hemi - his difficulty might be evidencing them at the time so this would be akin to another recent chap who was having trouble proving his wages from a very long time ago etc Sorry I cannot rememember name of top of my head but it was in MSM media too and I think there was a national call for his workmates to get in touch to verify his occupation & wages several decades ago etc Also in Alans situation my thinking would also briefly explore the fact that so much medical assessment has been undertaken already that he may be hard pushed to demonstrate that any NEW injury event has transpired etc


yes thomas and his claim info is like the proverbial bag of Liquorice ALLSORTS
TOMO is the original ACC All Sort of claims as long as he can get some loot out of it.

somewhere in his bag of lollies is his not so long ago fancy wrist repair operation when he was overseas to which he has stated quite successfully carried out-sure he mentioned some $40,000,00.
so whats wrong with tomas

hes an outright radical nutter pissed off because he cant get the loot and sits at home making out hes an invalid
id suggest tomas watch tv1 next week program called ''I Am'' and see how invalids actually get on with life to a meaningful existence and not as a 30 year veteran of our acc System and being a con artist UNSUCCESSFUL AS WE CAN ALL SEE-BLUDGER LOSER and like hes expecting everything for nothing coated with his bullshit
at least your won some medals of some conviction along the way eh tomas that noone else has ever achieved.
lets see
kicked out of the acc system
fraud
JAIL
Got caught with plans to be the mad ass bomber
free drugs to blow your mind with daily
apparently allowed to drive whilst high up on drugs and its always the other drivers fault when he crashs into them.
and the special ONE OFF acc corp award is ,Thomas has the highest rating for calling everyone else liars and blaming everyone else but HIMSELF
think you missed out on free bus tickets to the shops and a cleaner tho
concentrate some more and you may just win those as well ;)/>
0

#17 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 28 June 2018 - 05:24 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 27 June 2018 - 06:28 PM, said:

anonymousey

What childhood injury are you referring to?That is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard given the fact that the ACC scheme did not even begin until I was well and truly an adult.As I have already collected you here in this matter why you continue making false statements in disregard of the facts?
If you can't accept facts and the reality but only continue to imagine what you are saying is correct then there is no possibility we can have a reasonable discussion.


ACC started in 1974 did it not?? I am sure it did.

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 28 June 2018 - 05:45 PM

has alan , , had any back dated , claims awarded to the person , to date from the corporation , ie acc , nz :lol:
0

#19 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:40 PM

View PostMINI, on 28 June 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

ACC started in 1974 did it not?? I am sure it did.

Mini

April fools day😊
He jumped in early on the acc system.
0

#20 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 29 June 2018 - 12:28 PM

View PostMINI, on 28 June 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

ACC started in 1974 did it not?? I am sure it did.
Mini


Yes it did Mini :)

I am fairly certain from Alans offensive strategy being deployed here is just his typical evasion from being faced with some very simple questions ...that he would be in a similar position to Roger McKernan ie he was NOT in full time adult employment when he injured his right wrist for the first time etc.

I say this because I am exploring if his situation was similar to myself or not - and yes I was younger with my first ACC claim than Alan was. I have also come to this conclusion basically because I would have expected a much more mature response from Alan if he had any interest in helping other claimants with any concerns or interest exploring of this issue etc.... so my POV now is that his insults and avoidance are suggesting to me he is likely on some very thin ice himself perhaps?
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