ACCforum: Is a claimant covered in the event that they disregard doctors instructions and injure themselves? - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Is a claimant covered in the event that they disregard doctors instructions and injure themselves?

Poll: Does a claimant lose their ERC if they disobey the doctors instructions not to carry out certain work task activities and injure themselves further? (3 member(s) have cast votes)

Is the claimant entitled to continue with ERC as it is a no fault scheme?

  1. Yes (1 votes [33.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  2. No (2 votes [66.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

Is the ACC permitted to cancel the claim and entitlements that the claimant are seen disobeying the medical certificates on the basis that the ACC may rationalise that the medical certificates are wrong and perhaps even fraudulently obtained?

  1. Yes (2 votes [66.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  2. No (1 votes [33.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 11:13 AM

In the event that someone is injured while working gains cover and submits to the ACC medical certificates that described in incapacity to carry out certain work task activities but continues carrying out those work task activities or similar is the ACC entitled to cancel the claim and entitlements or is the ACC scheme a no fault scheme requiring the ACC to continue making ERC payments and other entitlements but perhaps in accordance with the ACCs duty to maintain safety of the claimant advise the claimant that they should not disregard the medical certificates in risk additional harm in accordance with the warning of the Doctor?

Alternatively as the ACC permitted to cancel the claim and entitlements because they are permitted to determine that the person is no longer incapacitated and/or the doctors medical certificates are incorrect because they demonstrate the physical ability to carry out those work task activities mentioned on the medical certificates?

In the above scenario does the ACC have any alternative duties / responses that may be worthy of consideration?
0

#2 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1988
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 28 June 2018 - 11:31 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 11:13 AM, said:

In the event that someone is injured while working gains cover and submits to the ACC medical certificates that described in incapacity to carry out certain work task activities but continues carrying out those work task activities or similar is the ACC entitled to cancel the claim and entitlements or is the ACC scheme a no fault scheme requiring the ACC to continue making ERC payments and other entitlements but perhaps in accordance with the ACCs duty to maintain safety of the claimant advise the claimant that they should not disregard the medical certificates in risk additional harm in accordance with the warning of the Doctor?

Alternatively as the ACC permitted to cancel the claim and entitlements because they are permitted to determine that the person is no longer incapacitated and/or the doctors medical certificates are incorrect because they demonstrate the physical ability to carry out those work task activities mentioned on the medical certificates?

In the above scenario does the ACC have any alternative duties / responses that may be worthy of consideration?

So your saying it’s ok to act in a criminal manner to obtain entitlements and you want a no fault on criminal action.
Your such a treat to read for the days comedy show in here thomas :lol:
3

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 12:21 PM

View PostHemi, on 28 June 2018 - 11:31 AM, said:

So your saying it’s ok to act in a criminal manner to obtain entitlements and you want a no fault on criminal action.
Your such a treat to read for the days comedy show in here thomas Posted Image


I am not provided an opinion but
I have posed questions
0

#4 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1988
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:38 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

I am not provided an opinion but
I have posed questions

Cool you have my posed reply then to your not really questions but a leading to similar circumstances s your many threads of Thomas contain. Accident /cover /worked /caught cover revoked/ jail and no acc.
3

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 June 2018 - 11:43 AM

Do any serious minded people have a genuine opinion about this issue that involves a very significant percentage of all claimants?

I do is that quite a lot of people have expressed the opinion that they may freely do voluntary work while they are injured and waiting for either medical or vocational rehabilitation. Historically the ACC has determined that such people have demonstrated a capacity to work even though they were not generating any earnings and cancelled their compensation forthwith. Others such as huggy results and ACC looking for an excuse to cancel the claim or otherwise get totally confused and think that they must look for some additional information to support a line of reasoning that is found not to have any basis in law.

We quite often see the ACC staff and even members of the site totally disregarding the medical information and generally forming opinions based on issues that are not actually medical issues in claiming a person is entitled or not entitled to compensation.

0

#6 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1988
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 29 June 2018 - 12:29 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 June 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

Do any serious minded people have a genuine opinion about this issue that involves a very significant percentage of all claimants?

I do is that quite a lot of people have expressed the opinion that they may freely do voluntary work while they are injured and waiting for either medical or vocational rehabilitation. Historically the ACC has determined that such people have demonstrated a capacity to work even though they were not generating any earnings and cancelled their compensation forthwith. Others such as huggy results and ACC looking for an excuse to cancel the claim or otherwise get totally confused and think that they must look for some additional information to support a line of reasoning that is found not to have any basis in law.

We quite often see the ACC staff and even members of the site totally disregarding the medical information and generally forming opinions based on issues that are not actually medical issues in claiming a person is entitled or not entitled to compensation.



your opinions thomas are not serious or genuine

you say freely able to do voluntary work
you know thats not true as you were advised that amidst youR fraud trial by the courts and questioned apon that issue
you tried to say you never knew and it was on the back of forms you never sighted
YET Thomas
as the good judge stated-you as thomas were very well up with knowledgeable fully informed on the aspects of the acc acts/ system and its requirements>>of YOU<Posted Image/>
how could you not be the amount of technical data you tossed at the acc along the way as to what you stated how it was and then to the courts with the addition then of some lame ass excuses you never knew and acc were idiots.
nothing freely at all there nor any thing you may do whilst on receipt of acc entitlements

YOU TELL THEM WHAT YOUR DOING
YOU NEVER
YOU WERE CAUGHT
AND OFF TO JAIL
all your palavering out here attempting support for what was and still is a leading of others to criminal activity
should be ashamed of yourself but then appears you have no self respect let alone self admittance of your criminal wrongness
0

#7 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 29 June 2018 - 12:35 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 June 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

Do any serious minded people have a genuine opinion about this issue that involves a very significant percentage of all claimants?

I do is that quite a lot of people have expressed the opinion that they may freely do voluntary work while they are injured and waiting for either medical or vocational rehabilitation. Historically the ACC has determined that such people have demonstrated a capacity to work even though they were not generating any earnings and cancelled their compensation forthwith. Others such as huggy results and ACC looking for an excuse to cancel the claim or otherwise get totally confused and think that they must look for some additional information to support a line of reasoning that is found not to have any basis in law.

We quite often see the ACC staff and even members of the site totally disregarding the medical information and generally forming opinions based on issues that are not actually medical issues in claiming a person is entitled or not entitled to compensation.


I am probably going to regret responding to you Alan but IMHO trying to confuse your case with that of many other claimants with such vague or manipulative language by you ... is likely going to end up with more strife & wordgames sadly ...

For example, I believe that many claimants who may have been doing some voluntary work several decades ago would ALL have been in full disclosure with ACC and their casemanagers ie not withholding their occupational history and associated factors. If there were any oversights or misunderstandings, then these would have progressed through expert attentions &or conflict resolution processes to ensure any errors or injustice was finally revealed etc


For example I know many claimants would also have had both Section 78 and Section 79 assessments so this means a medical assessment on their disability or incapacities would also be on file. As you know due to your demands for probably near impossible surgery IMHO - you failed to advance to this step Alan. This could be significant as factors would be considered in regards to rehabilitation plans and any overlapping voluntary work interfaces etc


So IMHO your survey is probably doomed on several fronts Alan

1. Medical certificates are/were verified via additional independent specialist assessments.ie Section 79

2. Occupational factors and voluntary work factors are explored or reviewed by ACC ie rehabilitation plans

3. Income abatements are also clearly managed by ACC as well and verified via IRD as required. Ditto expense reimbursements would likely be linked to additional evidence sources such as peers or receipts etc

4. I would be surprised to find any claimants disregarding medical advice Alan as per your insinuations above.


However I was also surprised to discover that you undertook extremely demanding and reckless activities while awaiting abdominal surgery Alan...

You appear to be trying to argue that claimants who deliberately IGNORE their doctors and OSH experts should be *no fault* claims ... and then expand this concept to their entire claim management process perhaps?

My POV is that this thread of yours is bringing up parallels to the *rights of criminals* superceding the *human rights of their victims* and whether or not leopards can change their spots so to speak etc IMHO if ACC are scrutinising claims which indicate reckless behaviour; selfharm manipulations &or personality disorders; or criminal activity ... then this is also another responsible approach to help ensure resources are fairly and sustainably managed IMHO ... and of course innocents are not harmed by the adverse actions of badguys etc etc


Lastly I think you may need to clarify your idiosyncratic or immature understandings of *medical opinions* Alan as it seems that your are very blinkered in this regard IMHO. For example whilst your own courtcases demonstrate a large number of specialists have been involved in your case, there are also significant details being reported by the Judges who have access to such files which clearly demonstrate they are specifically relaying *your story* or *your opinion* too Alan...

As you should know too, there are or would also always be various differences in medical opinions and diagnoses or prognosis for claimants Alan worldwide and this is typically seen in many courtcases with opposing opinions being critically reasoned etc Unfortunately I find your chronic tendency to demand first tier individual assessments as dictatorial commandments will also be mostly doomed due to its lack of logic and responsibility Alan. For example, I believe individual reviewers can be superceded by Judges or other senior decisionmakers &or individual general practitioners in primary health care will refer cases to specialised colleagues as required etc
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 June 2018 - 12:39 PM

View PostHemi, on 29 June 2018 - 12:29 PM, said:

your opinions thomas are not serious or genuine

you say freely able to do voluntary work
you know thats not true as you were advised that amidst youR fraud trial by the courts and questioned apon that issue
you tried to say you never knew and it was on the back of forms you never sighted
YET Thomas
as the good judge stated-you as thomas were very well up with knowledgeable fully informed on the aspects of the acc acts/ system and its requirements>>of YOU<Posted Image/>
how could you not be the amount of technical data you tossed at the acc along the way as to what you stated how it was and then to the courts with the addition then of some lame ass excuses you never knew and acc were idiots.
nothing freely at all there nor any thing you may do whilst on receipt of acc entitlements

YOU TELL THEM WHAT YOUR DOING
YOU NEVER
YOU WERE CAUGHT
AND OFF TO JAIL
all your palavering out here attempting support for what was and still is a leading of others to criminal activity
should be ashamed of yourself but then appears you have no self respect let alone self admittance of your criminal wrongness


REPORTED
Off topic

0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 June 2018 - 12:44 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 29 June 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

I am probably going to regret responding to you Alan but IMHO trying to confuse your case with that of many other claimants with such vague or manipulative language by you ... is likely going to end up with more strife & wordgames sadly ...

For example, I believe that many claimants who may have been doing some voluntary work several decades ago would ALL have been in full disclosure with ACC and their casemanagers ie not withholding their occupational history and associated factors. If there were any oversights or misunderstandings, then these would have progressed through expert attentions &or conflict resolution processes to ensure any errors or injustice was finally revealed etc


For example I know many claimants would also have had both Section 78 and Section 79 assessments so this means a medical assessment on their disability or incapacities would also be on file. As you know due to your demands for probably near impossible surgery IMHO - you failed to advance to this step Alan. This could be significant as factors would be considered in regards to rehabilitation plans and any overlapping voluntary work interfaces etc


So IMHO your survey is probably doomed on several fronts Alan

1. Medical certificates are/were verified via additional independent specialist assessments.ie Section 79

2. Occupational factors and voluntary work factors are explored or reviewed by ACC ie rehabilitation plans

3. Income abatements are also clearly managed by ACC as well and verified via IRD as required. Ditto expense reimbursements would likely be linked to additional evidence sources such as peers or receipts etc

4. I would be surprised to find any claimants disregarding medical advice Alan as per your insinuations above.


However I was also surprised to discover that you undertook extremely demanding and reckless activities while awaiting abdominal surgery Alan...

You appear to be trying to argue that claimants who deliberately IGNORE their doctors and OSH experts should be *no fault* claims ... and then expand this concept to their entire claim management process perhaps?

My POV is that this thread of yours is bringing up parallels to the *rights of criminals* superceding the *human rights of their victims* and whether or not leopards can change their spots so to speak etc IMHO if ACC are scrutinising claims which indicate reckless behaviour; selfharm manipulations &or personality disorders; or criminal activity ... then this is also another responsible approach to help ensure resources are fairly and sustainably managed IMHO ... and of course innocents are not harmed by the adverse actions of badguys etc etc


Lastly I think you may need to clarify your idiosyncratic or immature understandings of *medical opinions* Alan as it seems that your are very blinkered in this regard IMHO. For example whilst your own courtcases demonstrate a large number of specialists have been involved in your case, there are also significant details being reported by the Judges who have access to such files which clearly demonstrate they are specifically relaying *your story* or *your opinion* too Alan...

As you should know too, there are or would also always be various differences in medical opinions and diagnoses or prognosis for claimants Alan worldwide and this is typically seen in many courtcases with opposing opinions being critically reasoned etc Unfortunately I find your chronic tendency to demand first tier individual assessments as dictatorial commandments will also be mostly doomed due to its lack of logic and responsibility Alan. For example, I believe individual reviewers can be superceded by Judges or other senior decisionmakers &or individual general practitioners in primary health care will refer cases to specialised colleagues as required etc


Reported
Posting is quite clearly designed to be abusive in a manner consistent with other extreme forms of abuse.
Your continued compulsive obsessive frenzied attack against me seems to be overtaking your capacity to think and reason in regards to the issues presented and as such you are off topic.

0

#10 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1988
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 29 June 2018 - 01:14 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 June 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

REPORTED
Off topic




View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 June 2018 - 12:44 PM, said:

Reported
Posting is quite clearly designed to be abusive in a manner consistent with other extreme forms of abuse.
Your continued compulsive obsessive frenzied attack against me seems to be overtaking your capacity to think and reason in regards to the issues presented and as such you are off topic.



thomas again
caught out cant handle what he started dosent like anything other than what he requires things to be so he goes off again like a wee spoilt brat where his sandpit has been upset and complains to HIMSELF :lol:/>

YOU LOOK EXACTLY LIKE YOU SHOW YOURSELF TO BE THOMAS.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON ALL SUBJECTS SO IF YOU DONT LIKE IT BUGGER OFF.
0

#11 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 29 June 2018 - 01:22 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 June 2018 - 12:44 PM, said:

Reported
Posting is quite clearly designed to be abusive in a manner consistent with other extreme forms of abuse.
Your continued compulsive obsessive frenzied attack against me seems to be overtaking your capacity to think and reason in regards to the issues presented and as such you are off topic.


Yup I figured that you would not like my comments regarding your immature ideology &or transparent tactics to manipulate readers Alan ...but the facts remain eg you never got a Section 79 assessment to corroborate the ACC entitlement legislative requirements or even to expand upon variable GP medical certifications etc...

In addition to the multiple professionals specifically recording that their *medical opinion* is based upon your stories Alan, this is further complicated by the fact that your courtcases are full of expert medical opinion eg your wrist was described as having full range of movements for light work. There was no opposing medical opinion I noted. Or the one concerning your ability to undertake a 40 hour week again with no opposing expert opinions recorded in the relevant court judgements at that time ....

I do realise you insist this would, or should, all be covered by the GP certificates which apparently permitted 2 hours working per day Alan.ie you were allowed 4 sessions of mouse work per day etc I have correlated this to the additional statements from you under oath such as able to undertake design work with use of the mouse for 30 minute sessions OR the regular OSH education or tools to assist with lifting weights over 20 kilograms Alan etc This is also because I would never see OSH or any employer agree to an extreme working week of 16 hour days at a machine without breaks such as you insinuated Trigon required etc


At the moment I am not sure if you are trying to argue that any ACC suspicious claims should NOT be scrutinised by experts Alan?

Or if voluntary work that deliberately defies medical certification must always be acceptable?

Or if unpaid voluntary work that is linked to past occupational activities &or new occupational activities ... with actual significant correlated monetary transactions must be diregarded perhaps?

Or blah blah ...

IMHO the flaw in your efforts to insinuate other claimants or members behaved as you did and which led to your fraud convictions is doomed on multiple fronts unfortunately Alan ie you never achieved permanent disability status via any Section 79 back then prior to undertaking various work activities in multiple circumstances [unpaid or otherwise or voluntary etc]
2

#12 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 29 June 2018 - 01:35 PM

View PostHemi, on 29 June 2018 - 01:14 PM, said:

thomas again
caught out cant handle what he started dosent like anything other than what he requires things to be so he goes off again like a wee spoilt brat where his sandpit has been upset and complains to HIMSELF :lol:

YOU LOOK EXACTLY LIKE YOU SHOW YOURSELF TO BE THOMAS.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON ALL SUBJECTS SO IF YOU DONT LIKE IT BUGGER OFF.


I agree Hemi :)

While I also am saddened because I know that this forum has been tainted by many toxic activities from him over the years which underscores our interpersonal conflict unfortunately - thus I also already know I will never condone efforts to criminalise other claimants or members with any of these overt or covert efforts by him to find technical loopholes to be used wrongly in his crusades etc

IMHO this is typical of Alan risky self entitled arrogant and malignant attitudes which may cause harm to innocents purely by his extremist thinking and efforts to manipulate readers or other newbies etc For example, I would expect that very few contemporary claimants would be familiar with the Section 79 lump sum assessment processes back then Hemi; or indeed other tools utilised by ACC casemanagers which he attempted to interpret or control or manipulate which then IMHO all backfired on him eg rehabilitation plans
2

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 June 2018 - 01:48 PM

View PostHemi, on 29 June 2018 - 01:14 PM, said:

thomas again
caught out cant handle what he started dosent like anything other than what he requires things to be so he goes off again like a wee spoilt brat where his sandpit has been upset and complains to HIMSELF Posted Image/>

YOU LOOK EXACTLY LIKE YOU SHOW YOURSELF TO BE THOMAS.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON ALL SUBJECTS SO IF YOU DONT LIKE IT BUGGER OFF.


Reported
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 June 2018 - 01:49 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 29 June 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

I agree Hemi Posted Image

While I also am saddened because I know that this forum has been tainted by many toxic activities from him over the years which underscores our interpersonal conflict unfortunately - thus I also already know I will never condone efforts to criminalise other claimants or members with any of these overt or covert efforts by him to find technical loopholes to be used wrongly in his crusades etc

IMHO this is typical of Alan risky self entitled arrogant and malignant attitudes which may cause harm to innocents purely by his extremist thinking and efforts to manipulate readers or other newbies etc For example, I would expect that very few contemporary claimants would be familiar with the Section 79 lump sum assessment processes back then Hemi; or indeed other tools utilised by ACC casemanagers which he attempted to interpret or control or manipulate which then IMHO all backfired on him eg rehabilitation plans


Reported
tainted by toxic Interpretation Relating to your compulsive obsessive disorder as opposed to the subject at hand which is exclusively a point of law without reference to any individual.

-1

#15 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 29 June 2018 - 02:06 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 June 2018 - 01:49 PM, said:

Reported
tainted by toxic Interpretation Relating to your compulsive obsessive disorder as opposed to the subject at hand which is exclusively a point of law without reference to any individual.


You have NOT clarified any point of law Alan - in fact you are simply manipulating information factors.

The fact that I may be able to shine a light on confusion, misunderstandings or potential deceptions is basic critical reasoning tools or faculties Alan ie reminding you that all claimants will likely have their own logic, education, or experiences to draw upon when sharing their personal opinions. The fact that I disagree with you should be welcomed if you have any genuine or honest interest in these issues and exploration of potential points of law Alan ...

I have clearly stated that ACC had a specific pathway then [current one may have some differences] which would examine a persons' capabilities or incapacities and this step was AFTER any GP medical certification Alan.

You are clearly ignoring or disregarding this pathway Alan. Until you can face this issue and consider it objectively, then IMHO you are wasting everybodys time here by trying to find any traction or feedback on another ACC process that you never completed etc

IMHO if you are going to discuss an issue such as this, then I suggest you write with particular care PLUS that you avoid all the efforts in your opening paragraph to criminalise claimants &or discourage potential volunteers
1

#16 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7694
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 30 June 2018 - 11:43 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

I am not provided an opinion but
I have posed questions


They are stated in a certain document that you sign before going onto ACC erc , in your case. I have told you about this obligation you have to the ACC many times. You just disregrade anything I have to say, as though it doesn't exist. It has three or four pointed statements in it. Now go and find it. It does exist as I have one and my operations were done in 1996/1997. So that gives you the era they were available to anyone who had ACC given to them in and around those times.

I believe you had a wrist operation in that era, so go have a look. How many years has it been that you have actually known the answer to your questions and haven't found the document.

Under the three or four points, it says something like: You could lose your weekly compensation (or erc) in your case, if you do not follow these instructions. Or words in that manner.

Mini
0

#17 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7694
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 30 June 2018 - 12:07 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 29 June 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

I am probably going to regret responding to you Alan but IMHO trying to confuse your case with that of many other claimants with such vague or manipulative language by you ... is likely going to end up with more strife & wordgames sadly ...

For example, I believe that many claimants who may have been doing some voluntary work several decades ago would ALL have been in full disclosure with ACC and their casemanagers ie not withholding their occupational history and associated factors. If there were any oversights or misunderstandings, then these would have progressed through expert attentions &or conflict resolution processes to ensure any errors or injustice was finally revealed etc


For example I know many claimants would also have had both Section 78 and Section 79 assessments so this means a medical assessment on their disability or incapacities would also be on file. As you know due to your demands for probably near impossible surgery IMHO - you failed to advance to this step Alan. This could be significant as factors would be considered in regards to rehabilitation plans and any overlapping voluntary work interfaces etc


So IMHO your survey is probably doomed on several fronts Alan

1. Medical certificates are/were verified via additional independent specialist assessments.ie Section 79

2. Occupational factors and voluntary work factors are explored or reviewed by ACC ie rehabilitation plans

3. Income abatements are also clearly managed by ACC as well and verified via IRD as required. Ditto expense reimbursements would likely be linked to additional evidence sources such as peers or receipts etc

4. I would be surprised to find any claimants disregarding medical advice Alan as per your insinuations above.


However I was also surprised to discover that you undertook extremely demanding and reckless activities while awaiting abdominal surgery Alan...

You appear to be trying to argue that claimants who deliberately IGNORE their doctors and OSH experts should be *no fault* claims ... and then expand this concept to their entire claim management process perhaps?

My POV is that this thread of yours is bringing up parallels to the *rights of criminals* superceding the *human rights of their victims* and whether or not leopards can change their spots so to speak etc IMHO if ACC are scrutinising claims which indicate reckless behaviour; selfharm manipulations &or personality disorders; or criminal activity ... then this is also another responsible approach to help ensure resources are fairly and sustainably managed IMHO ... and of course innocents are not harmed by the adverse actions of badguys etc etc


Lastly I think you may need to clarify your idiosyncratic or immature understandings of *medical opinions* Alan as it seems that your are very blinkered in this regard IMHO. For example whilst your own courtcases demonstrate a large number of specialists have been involved in your case, there are also significant details being reported by the Judges who have access to such files which clearly demonstrate they are specifically relaying *your story* or *your opinion* too Alan...

As you should know too, there are or would also always be various differences in medical opinions and diagnoses or prognosis for claimants Alan worldwide and this is typically seen in many courtcases with opposing opinions being critically reasoned etc Unfortunately I find your chronic tendency to demand first tier individual assessments as dictatorial commandments will also be mostly doomed due to its lack of logic and responsibility Alan. For example, I believe individual reviewers can be superceded by Judges or other senior decisionmakers &or individual general practitioners in primary health care will refer cases to specialised colleagues as required etc


Anonomousey, read my post to Alan re: the memo that is given to those going on ACC for operations and what they could lose the erc/w/c if they did not follow the rules via ACC. They use the exact section of the Act Alan lost his under and the need to keep acc informed if you put yourself into a dangerous situation, while you are rehabilitating from surgery.

He simply never goes to follow up good research material off this forum.

Fool!!

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 June 2018 - 12:13 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 29 June 2018 - 02:06 PM, said:

You have NOT clarified any point of law Alan - in fact you are simply manipulating information factors.

The fact that I may be able to shine a light on confusion, misunderstandings or potential deceptions is basic critical reasoning tools or faculties Alan ie reminding you that all claimants will likely have their own logic, education, or experiences to draw upon when sharing their personal opinions. The fact that I disagree with you should be welcomed if you have any genuine or honest interest in these issues and exploration of potential points of law Alan ...

I have clearly stated that ACC had a specific pathway then [current one may have some differences] which would examine a persons' capabilities or incapacities and this step was AFTER any GP medical certification Alan.

You are clearly ignoring or disregarding this pathway Alan. Until you can face this issue and consider it objectively, then IMHO you are wasting everybodys time here by trying to find any traction or feedback on another ACC process that you never completed etc

IMHO if you are going to discuss an issue such as this, then I suggest you write with particular care PLUS that you avoid all the efforts in your opening paragraph to criminalise claimants &or discourage potential volunteers


You are claiming that I disagree with you despite the have not provided in opinion concerning what the legislation say about the issue I have raised. What you have done is disregarded the subject matter of the thread and launched upon yet another attack against me and that I do disagree with.
If you focus your mind on the issues and topic of this thread, answer the yes or no? And then perhaps give your reason for your viewpoint in reference to the particular and relevant sections of legislation. The issue is quite simple really which seeks to buy whether the legislation requires the ACC to rely upon independent and qualified medical information or whether they can make decisions based on what they call "common sense" in the disagree with the medical information in favour of something else. I see that many people are influenced in this way by their postings and so this thread was made to act as a catalyst for the issues in order to clarify The points of law and make the necessary adjustments to a thing if necessary. This is not a thread about me.

0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 June 2018 - 12:21 PM

View PostMINI, on 30 June 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

They are stated in a certain document that you sign before going onto ACC erc , in your case. I have told you about this obligation you have to the ACC many times. You just disregrade anything I have to say, as though it doesn't exist. It has three or four pointed statements in it. Now go and find it. It does exist as I have one and my operations were done in 1996/1997. So that gives you the era they were available to anyone who had ACC given to them in and around those times.

I believe you had a wrist operation in that era, so go have a look. How many years has it been that you have actually known the answer to your questions and haven't found the document.

Under the three or four points, it says something like: You could lose your weekly compensation (or erc) in your case, if you do not follow these instructions. Or words in that manner.

Mini


Mini are you suggesting that a claimant knows more about the nature and degree of their injuries and capacities and can therefore offer an opinion to the ACC as to their capacity or not to return to work? I had always thought that we need to ask the doctor and it is the doctors clinical examination after perhaps even looking at various high-tech imaging and suchlike or references to other specialists advice who writes the report and provide all information to the ACC to the exclusion of ourselves and as such our opinion one way or the other means absolutely nothing.
My mode of operation has always been to offer my arm or handle whatever it is to the doctor for the examination and not to express any opinion even to my own doctor. The doctor produces what amounts to a scientific document And I have the expectation that the ACC rely upon such information for all decisions unless they obtain an alternative medical reports from a superior medical professional which in my case they have not. With that in mind it is my belief that I treatment providers of the only information that the ACC have got to work with to the exclusion of everything else including the opinions of their own staff or members of the community.
The ACC's viewpoint appears to be that they can rely upon third parties such as friends family and neighbours or private investigators for information to challenge the medical profession. The ACC have claimed this to be common sense and have been unable to make any reference to any of legislation to support their mode of operation.
ACC are entitled to have information concerning the validity of the claim and require a claimant to submit themselves to their independence assessors and quite rightly may suspend entitlements until the claimant complies. I don't know of any portion of legislation where the opinion of the claimant is ever sought. Maybe I'm missing something.



0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9664
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 June 2018 - 12:24 PM

View PostMINI, on 30 June 2018 - 12:07 PM, said:

Anonomousey, read my post to Alan re: the memo that is given to those going on ACC for operations and what they could lose the erc/w/c if they did not follow the rules via ACC. They use the exact section of the Act Alan lost his under and the need to keep acc informed if you put yourself into a dangerous situation, while you are rehabilitating from surgery.

He simply never goes to follow up good research material off this forum.

Fool!!

Mini


The section of the act the ACC relied upon in their decision to cancel my claim and entitlements is nothing more than a section of the act that provides ACC with the authority to make a decision based on information in its possession. The courts have always found that this information referred to in that particular section is the information originating by way of the information gathering processes described in the other relevant portion of legislation such as the section dealing with the need to surgery, the need for earnings compensation or the need for medical information describing the degree of incapacity or disability. Nowhere can I see that the ACC is permitted to rely upon the claimant's own opinions about the world around them, friends family or neighbour's opinions and certainly not any indication that the ACC themselves may produce any kind of information by way of their own opinions based on their common sense. This seems to have been outlawed by the courts as having no standing in the context of the legislation yet still we see the ACC pursuing their role behaviour and total disregard of the court. So on what basis is the ACC having what you call "rules" when we have the legislation? Are these "rules" different from the legislation or added to it or what?
0

Share this topic:


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

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users