[MINI]

anonymousey, 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 />

Anonamousey

The only problem being that if he thought all the documentation relating the 1974 injury he may has mislead the court by not mentioning his right injuried hand then. As it may have harmed his cover and erc if he had of gone into publication with it, as that is what would have happened if he tried to tie it in with the new right hand injury. Just opinion. as I have the broken right hand as well and a lot of Google type documentation as to what didn't mend on it. I am still using it broken as I have to look after myself and be independent and don't have a talking workhorse. But with a broken left humerous and left broken hand in the one year 2015, it is pretty hard to say you could forget that the hand was in plaster for eight weeks and being my dominant hand it is used for everything I do. I suppose one day they will come up with something other than pain killers for it, and then I may be in the same territory as your Treatment Injury fellow.

Talking of treatment injury does any know, if you have a I/A you already get paid for and the two breaks come under lump sum, do they have to get added together to get the Whole person Impairement?? Just wondering where I would find it.

Mini

[anonymousey]

MINI, on 29 June 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

Anonamousey

The only problem being that if he thought all the documentation relating the 1974 injury he may has mislead the court by not mentioning his right injuried hand then. As it may have harmed his cover and erc if he had of gone into publication with it, as that is what would have happened if he tried to tie it in with the new right hand injury.

As far as I can tell Mini there must be some medical records remaining concerning the 1974 hand injury which is how I discovered that the joint and his wrist & arm functioning was in fact defective prior to when he claimed he used it for those alleged demanding Trigon 16 hour marathon computer mouse sessions etc

However in saying this Mini, I know the body learns to compensate and use muscles and ligaments in alternative ways so this is likely very similar to your circumstances as well as myself ie we have permanent disabilities and manage them as best able etc

IMHO the problem for Alan is that I believe it would be virtually impossible for any surgeon to restore his wrists back to a defective state if this is what he was imagining he could demand with his wordgames and insistence on some idiosyncratic reconstruction etc Since then though Alan has spoken of yet another potential surgery to rebreak his right arm and thereby correct the defects that were ignored for nearly 50 years etc Of course like Hemi noted in his comments above, Alan has also had some $40,000 operation which has also still not supposedly returned him to his purported capacity with a defective wrist etc etc

MINI, on 29 June 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

Just opinion. as I have the broken right hand as well and a lot of Google type documentation as to what didn't mend on it. I am still using it broken as I have to look after myself and be independent and don't have a talking workhorse. But with a broken left humerous and left broken hand in the one year 2015, it is pretty hard to say you could forget that the hand was in plaster for eight weeks and being my dominant hand it is used for everything I do. I suppose one day they will come up with something other than pain killers for it, and then I may be in the same territory as your Treatment Injury fellow.

I agree Mini

Also like you I too did not have the same expensive assistance which I have seen him brag about either with his voice activated software back then etc However this may be because I purchased my own and went online into cyberspace a few years before he did ie mostly in an effort to keep my brain active etc

One of the things I do currently think Alan may have some difficulty overcoming ... would relate to issues within his extensive court litigation ...

For example, in the Review Decision I am using as a reference above, Alan has claimed the 16 hour sessions are no longer possible and these appear to be necessary for his alleged primary economic activity. The 30 minute sessions are unclear as to their context eg can he achieve 8 sessions a day instead of one uninterrupted marathon etc There is also specialist opinion that his wrist has full range of movement. This specialist though is also acknowledging that Alan claims he needs far more intense or sophisticated fine motor control for the computer mouse manipulations. At this time I have still never seen any independent or objective verification of such an occupation requiring any body part for such a length of time under anything remotely like the muscle or ligament tension that Alan claimed.

This is fine and is a separate issue Mini as that matter is between ACC and Alan and his specialists and their respective opinions and investigations etc My observation and POV is mostly that I find it contradictory and impossible to reconcile with his other claims such as the one that he could not use a toothbrush; or others much like where it seems he travelled overseas with his bad breath or teeth, &or then undertook risky activities such as controlling heavy machinery or craft etc I also have spoken of my concerns in regards to all the road traffic accidents but Alan rejects any responsibility and has always blamed someone else in those dialogues unfortunately.

I raise this only because Alan is currently a non-earner so if he is driving without medical approval due to either his ongoing inadequate wrist function [qv splints?] ... OR his other claims of incapacity for multiple reasons ... then IMHO he may be on very thin ice again! I also now wonder is this may play a part in his motivation for opening another thread as he is seeking reinforcements for these types of behaviours perhaps? Hard to tell though as I find his abuse and insults so tiresome so it only reminds me of his courtroom antics where he did sweet FA and just held IMHO some ridiculous expectations of how other people function &or his ignorance regarding evidence and critical reasoning from the Judges unfortunately...

I do know that Alan continually rewrites his stories ad nauseum in here and no matter which fact or issue or point of law being explored - the contradictory or illogical convoluted palaver erupts ... in here there is zip anyone can do except call it out for what it is ... the NZ courtrooms however are IMHO a different kettle of fish imho ie his own statements under oath may bite him back when regurgitated ... and his times of alleging ignorance or cognitive impairments will also not wash in that environment IMHO..

Bottomline though is I think you might be in situation similar to myself Mini. We were both fulltime workers when our first accidents occurred. IMHO the key to the McKernan issue is the fact that he was not in full time employment when his first accident occurred. Alan will not clarify his income status.

From what I can see ACC are now enforcing compensation restrictions back to this time for McKernan, and thereby ignoring any loss of wages due to ongoing treatment needs or reinjury of the same structures perhaps?

I havent yet looked into all of the *reinjury* processes under the ACC umbrella as I think this is a confusing pit to begin with Mini... mainly as at one point I think they were issuing new claim numbers for new accidents or incidents involving the same body structures etc This may be how some claimants may slide a little bit through some of the quagmire perhaps? It would also be relevant to the Section 79 assessments or the IA which you are going through IMHO. This multiple numbering style of olde may also be one of the reasons why ACC is addressing the *income* factors before any *medical debates* over injury sustained etc

For example, the weakness in Alans case could possibly be that he was a nonearner in 1974 when he fell out of the tree. I mistakenly percieved his lack of records and significant memories from back then as an indicator of youth and immaturity etc I have no explanation for why any surgery was not pursued to correct the defects of his wrist BEFORE he entered into a purported occupation that is so heavily reliant on a properly functioning wrist as well as a responsibly managed work environment eg RSI risks eliminated etc

As I mentioned above, I am interested in this issue due to a 22 year old who sustained injury around the same age as McKernan. Their efforts to enter the workforce have all failed so they are currently on WINZ sickness benefits etc McKernan has thankfully achieved the earner status which is why he is so shocked at the income differences and it is having such a huge impact on his lifestyle if he needs to recuperate from surgery times but this is being disregarded and his LOPE income is only being compensated etc

I am also not sure yet how this ACC approach would manage other child victims from abuse or even P babies Mini as well as the wider coverage being sought in other circumstances I have seen reported in the media recently ...

MINI, on 29 June 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

Talking of treatment injury does any know, if you have a I/A you already get paid for and the two breaks come under lump sum, do they have to get added together to get the Whole person Impairement?? Just wondering where I would find it.

Mini

Sorry I am not too sure about this Mini

[doppelganger]

Alans compensation in 1989 was under this section if it was an old injury or a re-occurrance.

AMDD S7 of 1885 No 66 to read
(8) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, in any case where a person suffers
personal injury by accident during the period for which his cover is deemed under section 69 of this
Act to continue to be an earner, and his relevant earnings are determined under this section, the
amount of his relevant earnings shall be so determined and subsection (6) of this section shall apply
as if the accident had happened on the day immediately preceding the first day of that period.

In other words his earnings was made from his earnings from Trigon.

I think that Mr thomas only worked for Trigon for a few weeks and not for 52 weeks.

[anonymousey]

doppelganger, on 29 June 2018 - 09:17 PM, said:

Alans compensation in 1989 was under this section if it was an old injury or a re-occurrance.

AMDD S7 of 1885 No 66 to read
(8) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, in any case where a person suffers
personal injury by accident during the period for which his cover is deemed under section 69 of this
Act to continue to be an earner, and his relevant earnings are determined under this section, the
amount of his relevant earnings shall be so determined and subsection (6) of this section shall apply
as if the accident had happened on the day immediately preceding the first day of that period.

In other words his earnings was made from his earnings from Trigon.

I think that Mr thomas only worked for Trigon for a few weeks and not for 52 weeks.

Thank you doppelganger

Do you have a link perhaps ... think I need to process more about how ACC is utilising the *Loss of Potential Earnings* process and that monetary figure for Roger McKernan ... instead of providing the 80% compensation of his current wages etc

At the moment I am just not sure how LOPE was described in the 1972 Act and all the legislation changes afterwards etc

I am still also not sure that Alan was in fulltime employment when he fell from the tree and would have originally injured his wrist when fracturing his right arm etc He is not answering this question so goodness knows

I did note the main impression recorded in the Review Decision No : 46/92/1988 by several specialists could be viewed as "that the wrist injury related to his original wrist injury in 1974 and had been aggravated by the injury in December 1989" ..or another quote by Rees where he opines for Alan [i]" He describes the wrist as being grossly unstable as a result of the two accidents."

Unfortunately doppelganger this information is gleaned from only one first tier decision written many years ago etc. I have scanned other subsequent court decisions which rejected Alans interpretations of these decisionmakers determinations ... but as its so convoluted and such a nightmare to unravel I rarely bother much nowadays sorry. Plus I have still never seen the second Review Decision relating to a letter from ACC ceasing ERC to Alan four days later in 1992 which ALan considers as being significant somehow; as well as never being able to read any of the transcripts or evidence which relates to all of his court decisions etc etc

[doppelganger]

the section is section 53 Relative earnings.

As for loss of potential earnings.

Alan only applied for the wrist injury when he could not find employment as a engineer or consultant/ project manager. One has to wonder as to an injury where a hand could not be used why did he not get some treatment for an injury that serious.

[anonymousey]

doppelganger, on 30 June 2018 - 07:05 PM, said:

the section is section 53 Relative earnings.

As for loss of potential earnings.

Alan only applied for the wrist injury when he could not find employment as a engineer or consultant/ project manager. One has to wonder as to an injury where a hand could not be used why did he not get some treatment for an injury that serious.

Thank you doppelganger

IMHO Alan is being particularly evasive and likely deceitful with regards to both accidents and claimed wrist injuries &or his entitlements to earnings related compensation or rehabilitation for either of them ...

However as there is no timeline and no corroborated medical or employment facts which I can peruse ... its basically a case of deciding if I can be bothered going round and round his crazy mulberry bushes until I get dizzy and sick from the abuse etc

[Hemi]

Thomas hernia operation was done dusted and end if erc
Oh bugger
Let’s have a yacht accident in the middle of nowhere and claim for that to look as tho it was during his hernia time and carry on ripping off the acc
Bugger
Thomas got caught and went to jail
His yacht accident details won’t stand up in a full examination of the event
Eh Thomas caught you out there big time didn’t I now.where were you over there somewhere bulldhit you were

[anonymousey]

Hemi, on 01 July 2018 - 03:09 AM, said:

Thomas hernia operation was done dusted and end if erc
Oh bugger
Let’s have a yacht accident in the middle of nowhere and claim for that to look as tho it was during his hernia time and carry on ripping off the acc
Bugger
Thomas got caught and went to jail
His yacht accident details won’t stand up in a full examination of the event
Eh Thomas caught you out there big time didn’t I now.where were you over there somewhere bulldhit you were

I found it very interesting to read the Hernia Section within the 1972 Act Hemi. I do not know the timelines for Alan but it is very clear even back then that ACC were being instructed to limit post-surgery compensation payments. Plus it looks like they had very clear criteria factors operating to fulfill claim acceptance eg "... in the case of a self-employed person, immediately after the occurrence of the strain or other accident, or ceased work at the time of the strain or other accident, and reported his condition to his employer or to a registered medical practitioner, as the case may be, within 72 hours thereafter...".

NB I havent bothered to track any of this legislation material in subsequent amendments Hemi ...mostly because these days I find Alans evasion of simple facts and toxic wordgames aggravating etc etc

However, yup I did notice in the 1972 Act that again there were some sections which Alan would have technically had to satisfy in order to obtain earnings related compensation as a self employed 19 year old. I am treating the event described as *falling out of a tree* as a non-work accident therefore some sections do not apply to him ... but the others will all have been relevant to his claims IMHO. Of course whether or not ACC actually invoked any scrutiny then or not is half the struggle here Hemi especially when IMHO he is so deliberately sabotaging meaningful discussions &or helpful enlightenment of issues for other claimants & readers etc

This is one reason why I write nowadays for readers instead of caring about his facts being relevant ie he will always dispute and contradict them etc

So technically if I am remembering my own claim experience with ACC as a teenager under the 1972 Act, and then including additional issues if I explore Alan as a self-employed ?? something doing whatever ... obviously there are various differences IMHO. I will explore variances as he refuses to agree or corroborate simple facts etc


Anonymousey 1978 Claim

• Teenager who had already left school with UE & Bursaries.
  
• Employed fulltime to earn $$ ie Away from home & was preparing for tertiary study
  
• Injured lower back on the job. Witnessed. Equipment failure
  
• ACC Levies included with PAYE.
  
• ERC compensation provided for several months.
  
• Employers OSH performance inadequate qv DOL courtcase
  
• Returned to work in alternative occupation.
  
• Medical treatment fairly standard for 2+ years etc.
  
• Injury resolved mostly.

Alan Thomas 1974 claim

• Teenager who had already left school with only School Certificate.
  
• Claims he undertook Nightclasses. Uncertain if he graduated from any apprentice due to being under 20 years.
  
• Claims he was self-employed fulltime.
  
• Past statements about working for father-in-law so uncertain if employee status relevant here too.
  
  
  qv 57. Qualification for continuous cover
  (a) He is a self-employed person, as defined in section 2 (1) of this Act;
  "Self-employed person"(a) Means a person (other than a person to whom paragraph (c} of this definition applies) who, otherwise than as an employee and whether alone or together with another person or other persons, carries on a business in New Zealand (whether or not that business is also carried on outside New Zealand) ; and (b} Includes a person (other than a person to whom paragraph (c} of this definition applies) who, having a vested beneficial share or interest in income arising from a business carried on in New Zealand (whether or not that business is also carried on outside New Zealand), applies his personal exertions, otherwise than as an employee, in the carrying on of that business in New Zealand, notwithstanding that the business may be carried on by or subject to the control of an administrator or a trustee or any other person acting in a representative or fiduciary capacity, and notwithstanding that he himself may be such an administrator, trustee, or other person; but ( c} Does not include a person who carries on a business merely as an administrator or trustee or in any other representative or fiduciary capacity, and who does not apply his personal exertions in the carrying on o'f that business otherwise than in his capacity as administrator or trustee or in any such other representative or fiduciary capacity: Provided that, in relation to the giving of notices under this Act to a self-employed person, references to a self-employed person include the administrator of the self-employed person and the Assignee within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1967 of the estate of the self-employed person:
  
  
  
• Injured right arm likely off the job. Accident details unknown eg if larking about etc
  
• Uncertain if all the ACC Levies were paid
  qv
  
  78. Statements by self-employed persons-( 1) Subject to section 74 of this Act, every person who is a self-employed person on the operative date and also on the day immediately preceding the operative date and who has within the 12 months immediately preceding the operative date, completed a financial year during which he has been a self-employed person(a) Shall, on or within 2 months after the operative date, deliver a statement of his earnings as a self-employed person during that financial year, and,(i) If he has been a self-employed person throughout that financial year and that financial year was of a period of 12 months, shall pay a levy on those earnings or on the prescribed amount, whichever is the greater; or (ii) If he has been a self-employed person for less than 12 months during that financial year, or if that financial year was of a period of less than 12 months, shall pay a levy on those earnings increased in the proportion that 365 bears to the number of days in that financial year during which he was a selfemployed person or on the prescribed amount, whichever is the greater: (b} Shall, on or within 2 months after each 1st day of October after the operative date on wHich he continues to be a self-employed person, deliver a statement of his earnings as a self-employed person during the financial year last ended before that 1st day of October, and shall pay a levy on those earnings or on the prescribed amount whichever is the greater. (2) Subject to section 74 of this Act, every person who is a self-employed person on the operative date and also on the day immediately preceding the operative date and who has not, within the 12 months immediately preceding the operative date, completed a financial year during which he has been a self-employed person(a) Shall, on or within 2 months after the operative date, deliver a statement in a form approved by the Commission, and pay an interim levy, being the amount of a levy calculated on the prescribed amount
  
  &
  
  105. Working shareholders of companies-( 1) Where a person provides services for a company in which he is a shareholder (whether or not he is also a director of the company), so far as all or any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c} of this subsection are not clarified, whether by agreement or otherwise, the Commission may determine: (a) How much of the amount that he receives from the company represents reasonable remuneration for the services which he renders to the company otherwise than as a director, and shall be deemed to be earnings as an employee for the purposes of this Act: (b} If he is a director of the company, how much of the amount that he receives from the company represents reasonable remuneration for his services as a director, and shall be deemed to be director's fees for the purposes of this Act: ( c} That the balance of the amount that he receives from the company shall be deemed to be a dividend for the purposes of this Act. (2) Any determination made by the Commission under subsection (1) of this section in relation to amounts that have been received by the person from the company shall (subject to Part VII of this Act) be binding on the company and person.
  
  
  
• Uncertain if ERC compensation may have been provided. No records it seems. IRD & Bank statements may assist
  
• OSH performance duties irrelevant. Questions may be relevant regarding claimants alleged expertise & experience & risktaking acts
  
• Claims he returned to work in same occupation. Future business failures and insolvency known to have evolved. Unclear if these issues related to ACC claim or other unrelated factors eg divorce etc
  
• Medical treatment issues not disclosed by Alan but some records exist within NZLII court judgements.
  
• Untreated or disregarded injury factors noted ie deformity.
  
  
  
  & blah blah

[anonymousey]

Just a quick heads up that I have also been discussing additional issues in other threads as best able

For example, to be more accurate concerning the injury and reinjury pathway which is Alans foundation for his current strife with ACC ...there are numerous variables involved


The framework that I have been superficially exploring seems to be ...

Right Arm Injury 1974 as 19yo

& employment status = ???
& NZ Qualifications Resume ??
& Levy Payments = ???
ACC Claim Reference # Lost records??
ERC = $ ??per week

Special Note of Physical defects which were disregarded by Alan

Hernia Strain 19?? as an Adult?

& employment status = ????
& Levy Payments = ?
ACC Claim Reference #
ERC = $ ?? per week

19?? Divorce with alleged Protection Orders

?? Loss of House & possible bankruptcy
?? WINZ beneficiary

Hernia Strain 1989 at Trigon as an Adult

& employment status = ????
& Levy Payments = ? [ query limited personal payments ]
ACC Claim Reference #
ERC = $ ?? per week

Wrist Strain 1989 whilst sailing in storm as an Adult

& employment status = ???? contract at Trigon uncertain
** Already on ERC for HERNIA
** Also on WAITING LIST for HERNIA SURGERY whilst sailing solo etc
& Levy Payments = ? [limited personal payments on account ]
ACC Claim Reference # DISENTITLED qv Fraud Convictions
ERC = $ ?? per week [ average income but alleges he was wealthy etc ]

So there is a ton of missing information which I am unlikely to unravel ... but there are multiple complex issues appearing IMHO

If the topic of this thread tells me anything about how far back ACC will track when it comes to compensation payments for injured people and their claims being accepted or declined then I think more and more of these cases may come to light OR they are still under the radar at the moment etc While I already know any possibility of properly determining Earner Status & ACC Levy Qualification with original wrist injury and original hernia injury under the relevant ACC legislation in force at those times for Alan will likely never be possible ... my concern is actually not for his lost crusades but instead other young people and new claimants etc

I am mostly thinking of other folks who injure themselves and then reinjure themselves years later facing difficulty etc If there are cases such as McKernan and others which are a sign of coming times, then older records may will possibly become much more interesting to future ACC casemanagers if they seek to limit entitlements ... and such unexpected hardship issues may become more common to many families IMHO if ACC start digging into this evidence [ &or claimants do not have any countering material ] when being faced with reaggravations of injuries perhaps?

One significant change which I still believe is critical for injured claimants... would be an enhanced IRD information database so that records of income and levy payments are kept for a persons lifetime etc

Overseas National Insurance contributions for millions if not billions of people are already archived in the UK and this history for an individual is already being used by the kiwi Work & Income agency for when they deduct pensions etc


BBL

[greg]

There is an ACC Document available " The Pre 1982 Claim and Tax year summary Report provides information on Claimant, claim
and year-end payment summary information for a claimant and/ or claim that was opened and closed during the period 1974 to 1981."

Hope this may assist some Claimants getting this type of info.

[anonymousey]

Some good news to update ... but remember this is only a discretionary payment from ACC to one person ...so lots of other claimants may still encounter these same problems sadly

Quote

ACC changes decision on burn victim's payments

RACHAEL KELLY
Last updated 16:50, July 13 2018

Burns victim Roger McKernan has had some good news out of what he calls a "shitty situation".

ACC has admitted it made an error in giving him inconsistent information after his two most recent surgeries, and has agreed to make a discretionary payment to him.

McKernan, who now lives in Christchurch and has a young family, was 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.

McKernan 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 in May, but he got a shock to learn from ACC he would not be paid 80 per cent of his wages but would instead get a much reduced loss of potential earnings payment after tax.

ACC is now going to pay him the difference.

While he's pleased at the outcome, it was too little, too late, he said.

"It's like losing an arm and then three years later being told 'oh here's a fake one for you'.

"I'm already back at work on light duties but the payment will make a difference because I can catch up on bills now that I was behind on."

An ACC spokesperson said the organisation had made a discretionary payment to McKernan in recognition that more than one occasion it set the wrong expectation about how much weekly compensation he would receive.

"The amount we have paid him equates to the difference between what we indicated he would receive (the standard weekly compensation rate of 80 per cent of his earnings), and what we actually, and correctly, paid him (Loss of Potential Earnings, or LOPE, which is 80 per cent of the minimum wage).

"We have also explained to Mr McKernan that should he have any further incapacity relating to his claim, he will be paid at the LOPE rate."

When asked if the payment would set a precedent for other ACC claims, or whether other clients has received wrong information, the spokesperson said the decision applies solely to ACC's handling of McKernan's case.
- Stuff

https://www.stuff.co...ictims-payments

ps greg ...I looked for the document you referenced but havent been able to spot it online yet ... mind you I will try again asap & when not so overloaded with other stuff ...

[greg]

ps greg ...I looked for the document you referenced but havent been able to spot it online yet ... mind you I will try again asap & when not so overloaded with other stuff ...
[/quote]

I got them from a senior case manager as I was also given the run around.

You may need to a written request before ACC admit such documents exist.?