ACCforum: Capacity to work or earn? That is the question. - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Capacity to work or earn? That is the question. What does the legislation say?

Poll: Capacity to work or earn? That is the question. (1 member(s) have cast votes)

Does the legislation covers us for a capacity to Work? or Earn

  1. Yes (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. No (1 votes [100.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 100.00%

  3. Medical treatment to return to work (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Does the legislation cover us for a capacity to earn?

  1. Yes (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. No (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Medical treatments to maintain our former Skill level to achieve our former earnings level (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Vocational rehabilitation by way of education retraining and experience to achieve the same earnings capacity at former skill level (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10192
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 October 2018 - 11:05 AM

There seems to be considerable confusion with regards to the proper interpretation of the ACC legislation.

All too often the ACC focus their attention on whether or not we are qualified, skilled and experienced to work without regard to having a capacity to earn.

Is there a clear and definitive portion of legislation and case law that addresses this issue?


What is the legislated criteria of the assessment procedure to provide information to the ACC?

What is the decision that the legislation requires the ACC to make?
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10192
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 October 2018 - 12:58 PM

All insurance policies clearly define what is insured.
If we are unable to carry out the work task activities relied upon for earnings we are paid earnings compensation until we recover from injuries and regain the capacity to carry out the same work task activities.

What happens in the event that we suffer a catastrophic injury of which there is no recovery? Obviously we are covered for our capacity to earn and in the event that we cannot earn we are paid earnings compensation.

If we were covered for a capacity to work we would be provided someone to do that work for us.


Perhaps we should look at what the legislation actually says so was we think of the terms of our policy under the ACC scheme with greater clarity.

0

#3 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 31 October 2018 - 09:56 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 26 October 2018 - 11:05 AM, said:

There seems to be considerable confusion with regards to the proper interpretation of the ACC legislation.

All too often the ACC focus their attention on whether or not we are qualified, skilled and experienced to work without regard to having a capacity to earn.

Is there a clear and definitive portion of legislation and case law that addresses this issue?


What is the legislated criteria of the assessment procedure to provide information to the ACC?

What is the decision that the legislation requires the ACC to make?


Alan Thomas Posted Image


RE : " ... proper interpretation of the ACC legislation."

hhhmmm as it is the lawmakers and Judges who render the proper interpretations of the ACC legislation ... perhaps you should always remember your personal opinions are simply that [one persons thoughts] ... and they may or may not be correct etc



RE : " ... without regard to having a capacity to earn."

I suggest that you remove these words Alan.

This is because earning capacity can be dependent on many factors which are not insured eg a claimants employment history &or strife, or workplace needs as some occupations evolve or becoming extinct etc. Another simple illustration would other health conditions preventing a person from working &or even bankruptcy factors which could show previous earning failures which are unrelated to an injury etc


As for all the other questions you are asking Alan, I strongly suggest that you begin to DEFINE the words or ideas that you wish to discuss ... and then connect them to the pertinent Legislation you think applies etc


WORK = ??
WORKING = ??

EARN = ??
EARNING = ??

INCOME = ??


CRITERIA = ??

CAPACITY TO WORK = ??
CAPACITY TO EARN = ??

Once you have done this then hopefully I may be on the same page and not trupping a neverending rabbit hole :wacko:

For example you wrote, " If we were covered for a capacity to work we would be provided someone to do that work for us.".

Basically I have no idea if this some sort of manager or slave reference or even if you would consider the role of aids & tools which can all assist a person to work Alan?
1

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10192
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 November 2018 - 09:42 AM

It seems that I am going to have to simplify the issues so as to remove any doubt and confusion.

ACC appeared to be placing a lot of emphasis on a person's capacity to work rather than the capacity to earn and then dumb down the capacity to work by jittering the occupation type without regard to the legislated criteria that requires the ACC to rehabilitate back to the former occupation by way of medical treatment and only when that fails fund education, work experience so as to achieve an occupation of the same skill level.

However it is quite clear that the ACC legislation provides cover for a capacity to earn by way of completing relevant work task activities of which the medical profession have determined are safe to accomplish.

0

#5 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2363
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 01 November 2018 - 09:51 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 01 November 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

It seems that I am going to have to simplify the issues so as to remove any doubt and confusion.

ACC appeared to be placing a lot of emphasis on a person's capacity to work rather than the capacity to earn and then dumb down the capacity to work by jittering the occupation type without regard to the legislated criteria that requires the ACC to rehabilitate back to the former occupation by way of medical treatment and only when that fails fund education, work experience so as to achieve an occupation of the same skill level.

However it is quite clear that the ACC legislation provides cover for a capacity to earn by way of completing relevant work task activities of which the medical profession have determined are safe to accomplish.



can you simply it some more then thomas\

it does look as if there is an agenda in place re the threads title content

what acc case management information are you using to place the content you have as acc and the legislation you refer to

you ask a lot of questions but use something as an example to write your words

so what case is relevant to your questions
could it be as it does appear to be a series of questions that relate to exactly your own case?
0

#6 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 01 November 2018 - 10:32 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 01 November 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

It seems that I am going to have to simplify the issues so as to remove any doubt and confusion.

ACC appeared to be placing a lot of emphasis on a person's capacity to work rather than the capacity to earn and then dumb down the capacity to work by jittering the occupation type without regard to the legislated criteria that requires the ACC to rehabilitate back to the former occupation by way of medical treatment and only when that fails fund education, work experience so as to achieve an occupation of the same skill level.

However it is quite clear that the ACC legislation provides cover for a capacity to earn by way of completing relevant work task activities of which the medical profession have determined are safe to accomplish.


Alan Thomas Posted Image


It will be fantastic to finally read material which is clearly and properly described and referenced as required Alan.

I will try another approach as it appears that you are still unable to discern or comprehend the issues which I am highlighting. I will keep this simple for you as Google is very helpful and of course the Legislation itself is also important.


So with due particularity if you could try, can you please answer both questions and identify the similarities or differences in definition &or purpose with your personal opinion Alan.


Do you think ACC legislation entitlement is named EARNING COMPENSATION?


OR do you think the ACC Legislation entitlement is detailed as EARNINGS COMPENSATION?




It would also be great for me to follow your argybargy if you could try to distinguish between your two confusing conflicting and contradictory ideas Alan

ie capacity to work VERSUS capacity to earn



Lastly I have no idea what you mean by *jittering the occupation type without regard to the legislated criteria* because in my POV there is international instruments available which should show that all the occupation types and work task activities are all determined by the associated professions. ie not legislators or ACC

Simply it is my POV that there is no such thing as legislated or prescribed criteria because occupations are dynamic and it is the connected professional experts who decide this Alan. There are also feedback loops within the legislation plus it is quite clear that within the Act Parts & Sections relating to various Regulation-making powers that *consulting* is an inherent process to the legislation. Caselaw would also be part of these ongoing occupational fields of knowledge etc
1

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10192
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 November 2018 - 12:07 PM

The legislation describes "earnings related compensation". That means the compensation is related to earnings which of course means that the ACC insurance policy compensates the loss of earnings and my only disengage itself when the capacity to earn returns.

In order that someone might be an earner they must utilise the capacity to carry out the means by which one earnings which is referred to in the legislation as employment which is made up of a capacity to carry out work tasks in a qualified experienced and skilful manner. The criteria to determine this qualified express and skilful manner as determined by the independent information provider, the occupational assessor who is required to be qualified in the relevant sphere of interest. The individual task activities are then passed on to the occupational medical assessor who determines whether or not, while having regard for the injuries, the claimant is safe to carry out those tasks. That is the process described in legislation.

Having said that we do note that large volumes of individuals are complaining that they do not possess an earnings capacity despite the fact that ACC have disentitled them of earnings compensation. As the legislation is perfect in it's prescribed criteria to determine a capacity to earn quite clearly the ACC are not obeying that legislation. There are allegations of misinformation, this information and weasel words.

Defending the ACC with weasel wordsas unsupportable in law or fact.
Claiming that the ACC have an unfettered discretion to interpret matters as they please is of course utter nonsense and would appear to be complicit with crimes historically and currently being perpetrated against the injured.

In my discussions with the former Minister of immigration times two confirms that although he had required the ACC to produce regulations for the purpose of determining an end of incapacity the ACC failed to do so thus necessitating the criteria to be placed within the legislation in the form of the work capacity assessment procedure which of course contains criteria in accordance with legislation containing criteria. To this day the ACC still fails to comply with those who have created legislation. Seems to me that the minister was correct in referring to the matter as being is difficult as it would be to herd cats

-1

#8 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 01 November 2018 - 01:09 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 01 November 2018 - 12:07 PM, said:

The legislation describes "earnings related compensation".


Alan Thomas Posted Image


AGREED. The legislation uses the word which I would use therefore it follows that your concepts of any *earning compensation* being covered by ACC is a flawed idea.

That means the compensation is related to earnings which of course means that the ACC insurance policy compensates the loss of earnings and my only disengage itself when the capacity to earn returns.

AGAIN I suggested that you stop confusing yourself and go away and look at the definitions of *earnings* Alan.

In order that someone might be an earner they must utilise the capacity to carry out the means by which one earnings ...

FGS would you also demand that ACC covers some *capacity to income* too??

... which is referred to in the legislation as employment which is made up of a capacity to carry out work tasks in a qualified experienced and skilful manner. The criteria to determine this qualified express and skilful manner as determined by the independent information provider, the occupational assessor who is required to be qualified in the relevant sphere of interest. The individual task activities are then passed on to the occupational medical assessor who determines whether or not, while having regard for the injuries, the claimant is safe to carry out those tasks. That is the process described in legislation.

This is also relevant to the *capacity to work* 64 million dollar questions which you are trying to muddle up Alan.

Having said that we do note that large volumes of individuals are complaining that they do not possess an earnings capacity despite the fact that ACC have disentitled them of earnings compensation.


Agreed however please do not stray offtopic with unsupported palaver and static Alan.

The fact is that any *earnings capacity* may be non-existent for several reasons eg the person has a criminal history and cannot find an employer or paying customers etc


As the legislation is perfect in it's prescribed criteria to determine a capacity to earn quite clearly the ACC are not obeying that legislation. There are allegations of misinformation, this information and weasel words.

As I have now written over many different threads Alan, it is pointless arguing this topic because IMHO it seems you have all this imaginary nonexistent legislation sadly

Quote

369 Cessation of weekly compensation under any former Act because of capacity for work(1)Sections 100 to 113 apply to a claimant whose compensation is continued by section 365.
(2)An assessment of capacity to work that was commenced under a former Act and not completed before the commencement of this Act may be completed under the former Act and have effect as if it were an assessment of vocational independence under this Act.
Compare: 1998 No 114 s 433
Section 369(2): substituted, on 11 May 2005, by section 58 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act (No 2) 2005 (2005 No 45).


Defending the ACC with weasel wordsas unsupportable in law or fact.
Claiming that the ACC have an unfettered discretion to interpret matters as they please is of course utter nonsense and would appear to be complicit with crimes historically and currently being perpetrated against the injured.


This is why I consider that you are what you are Alan :rolleyes:

IMHO the purpose of this forum was doomed from the beginning due to your involvement sadly ...

In my discussions with the former Minister of immigration times two confirms that although he had required the ACC to produce regulations for the purpose of determining an end of incapacity the ACC failed to do so thus necessitating the criteria to be placed within the legislation in the form of the work capacity assessment procedure which of course contains criteria in accordance with legislation containing criteria. To this day the ACC still fails to comply with those who have created legislation. Seems to me that the minister was correct in referring to the matter as being is difficult as it would be to herd cats


Yup this is noisy static which simply is irrelevant Alan. Issue also previously addressed ie likely many Ministers have made many comments concerning ACC matters to many of their constituents Alan. Furthermore what he may have said and what you think he said or meant can all be completely different problems in your story sadly ... & times three that problem imho :wacko:

As an aside I did find the following article online

WORK CAPACITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE FAIR AND REASONABLE, SAYS MINISTER

It is dated 30 August 1997 so written last century, but one sentence which may interest you is,

"The WCAP has been trialed by a group of claimants, and almost three-quarters of the trial group agreed it was a fair and reasonable procedure. It has been reviewed by independent assessors and there have been two rounds of public consultation."


I am not sure of your dates with the fraud conviction last century Alan, but there is also another sentiment highlighted by the Minister

"New Zealanders using their common sense will understand that the question of whether people genuinely need to be on ACC, or whether they are capable of supporting themselves, must be tackled. It is a matter of balancing fairness against personal responsibility. "

0

#9 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2363
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 01 November 2018 - 02:48 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 01 November 2018 - 12:07 PM, said:

The legislation describes "earnings related compensation". That means the compensation is related to earnings which of course means that the ACC insurance policy compensates the loss of earnings and my only disengage itself when the capacity to earn returns.

Iation. Seems to me that the minister was correct in referring to the matter as being is difficult as it would be to herd cats



the legislation forbids the use of medical certificates for fraudulent use as using documents for intent to defraud.

as the legislation picked up on the case thomas v acc and a subsequent trial was held with thomas being found guilty of fraud, then how can you expect thomas to have any benefits from the acc when they were taken by fraudulent means.
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10192
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 November 2018 - 03:54 PM

To know whether the ACC cover is for a capacity to work or a capacity to earn we need to be looking at the language of the ACC legislation. I am seeing that we are covered to earn and that the concept of working is to enable us to earn. This raises a number of downstream issues whereby the ACC Corporation staff are making decisions contrary to the legislation.
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10192
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 November 2018 - 03:55 PM

David Butler you are off topic so have been reported. This thread is not about me.
0

#12 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2363
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 01 November 2018 - 06:09 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 01 November 2018 - 03:55 PM, said:

David Butler you are off topic so have been reported. This thread is not about me.


the title of the thread is =capacity tp work or earn-that is the question

so as there needs some sort of information debated on that subject then why not can one use a case where that exact subject was in question very legally at that
the issue with that thomas v acc was thomas capacity to work or earn and that was judged apon in a court of law
surely an example as that is appropriate to the threads title thomas

you mat also show a case where a claimant was of a capacity but unable to earn or work that has gone thru the courts to have a differing view on the issue as to acc legislation capacity ability to work or earn or do nothing
0

#13 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 01 November 2018 - 07:25 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 01 November 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

To know whether the ACC cover is for a capacity to work or a capacity to earn we need to be looking at the language of the ACC legislation. I am seeing that we are covered to earn and that the concept of working is to enable us to earn. This raises a number of downstream issues whereby the ACC Corporation staff are making decisions contrary to the legislation.


You are only processing cherrypicked selected parts of the legislation Alan...

I have already explicitly detailed the section which describes *a capacity to work*


There is no legislation which describes *a capacity to earn* because this would be foolish as people do not earn for many reasons unrelated to injury Alan ....

The legislation and caselaw database will be addressing many of these factors in very fine detail Alan ... and ACC will always be testing many circumstances within courtrooms in order to achieve their goals on numerous fronts Alan etc

I do understand your language choices and can see some of the concepts and ideas which you are trying to articulate ...

But imho the problem is that it seems you may be unable to comprehend the entire legislation framework involved &or all correlated nonACC legislation and other statutory instruments etc


For example, to take your purported situation under todays legislation, your eligibility to receive any earnings compensation would likely be tested under processes and facts disclosed to ACC during the scrutiny of your Income and Levy obligations and of course their formula computations etc

231 Mixed earnings as employee and self-employed person
(1)This section applies to persons who, in a tax year, have both earnings as an employee and earnings as a self-employed person.
(2)If such a person’s earnings as an employee for the tax year exceed the specified maximum in relation to the earner levy, the person is not obliged to pay the levy on the person’s earnings as a self-employed person for the tax year.
(3)If the person’s earnings as an employee for the tax year do not exceed the specified maximum, the levy payable is to be calculated on the basis of an amount equal to the lesser of—
(a)the specified maximum for the earner levy reduced by the person’s earnings as an employee for the tax year; and
(b}the person’s earnings as a self-employed person for the tax year.



I mention this section specifically as it is the initial hurdle for claimants who wish to seek earnings compensation Alan. If they do not meet this basic requirement or if other factors become relevant to the ACC scheme then it is likely they will fail to recieve weekly compensation Alan.



Questions which relate to accidents, injury treatment, eligibility for various entitlements, income abatements and scores of other issues are all interconnected for ACC and claimants .... and basically there are numerous sections in existence which may or may not facilitate the payment of specific prescribed $$ to a person making a claim ...

As this topic is splattered across several threads and now a swampy minefield of sinking sand and rabbit holes Alan, I will post up a few more technical words found in NZ Legislation which may be relevant to your case.

Obviously as your initial ACC claim was made last century and your story telling has shown a convoluted mess of conflicting information and contradictory facts - I can only generalise at this time :wacko:


233 Levies payable to Corporation by self-employed person who ceases to derive earnings as such
(1) Every self-employed person who, during a tax year, ceases to derive earnings as a self-employed person must—
(a)deliver to the Commissioner a statement of the person’s earnings as a self-employed person for the tax year concerned, within the applicable time within which a return for that tax year is required to be furnished to the Commissioner under the Tax Administration Act 1994; and
(b}pay to the Corporation, on or before the due date,—
(i)the Work Account levy, at the rate prescribed, to the extent that it applied to the person’s earnings as a self-employed person in that tax year; and
(ii)the earner levy, at the rate prescribed, to the extent that it applied to the person’s earnings as a self-employed person in that tax year.

(2)The provisions of this section (other than subsection (1)(b}(ii)) and sections 239 and 329(1)(b} apply, with any necessary modifications, to private domestic workers.
Section 233: substituted, on 3 March 2010, by section 37 of the Accident Compensation Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 1).



I provided the above section simply because I am uncertain when you ceased working either in self employment or as an employee.

I also uncovered the following material when reviewing other hernia cases and caselaw information - and this tells me that if ACC were presented with the same circumstances by a person, it is most likely their hernia cover would have failed on multiple fronts ie NZLII in your case shows no official workplace record and there may be questions concerning medical history for you eg congenital factors possibly as you describe multiple problems over the years etc

ACC apply the policy guidelines for hernia cover that are set out in ACC’s publication “ACC News” Issue 59 August 2003. These guidelines are:
1. A single strenuous event is claimed to have caused the hernia
2. If the accident occurred in a workplace, an incident of muscle strain is officially reported.
3. Significant groin pain was present at the time of the accident.
4. A medical practitioner diagnoses traumatic inguinal hernia within 30 days of the accident but preferable within 10 days.
5. There is no history suggestive of gradual onset or congenital inguinal hernia.

0

#14 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 01 November 2018 - 07:25 PM

FYI Alan - here are a whole bunch of terms used within NZ Laws which likely are relevant to questions or issues pertinent to your various ideas and ACC claims etc etc I have italicised & underlined a couple of key ideas for you to digest...


Income Tax Act 2007

director—
(a)means—
(i)a person occupying the position of director, whatever title is used:
(ii)a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons occupying the position of directors of a company are accustomed to act:
(iii)a person treated as being a director by any other provision of this Act:
(iv)in the case of an entity that does not have directors and that is treated as, or assumed to be, a company by a provision of this Act, any trustee, manager, or other person who acts in relation to the entity in the same way as a director would act, or in a similar way to that in which a director would act, were the entity a company incorporated in New Zealand under the Companies Act 1993:


employee—
(a) means a person who receives or is entitled to receive a PAYE income payment:
(ab)for the purposes of the FBT rules, includes a shareholder-employee:.....

income, for a person, means income of the person under section BD 1(1) (Income, exempt income, excluded income, non-residents’ foreign-sourced income, and assessable income)

CD 1 Dividend
A dividend derived by a person is income of the person.


CD 3 Meaning of dividend
Sections CD 4 to CD 21 define what is a dividend.


CD 38 General calculation rule for transfers of value

Difference in value
(1)The amount of a dividend that is a transfer of value from a company to a person is calculated using the formula—
value from company − value from person.
Definition of items in formula
(2)In the formula,—
(a)value from company is the market value of the money or money’s worth that the company provides to the person:
(b} value from person—
(i)is the market value of the money or money’s worth, if any, that the person provides to the company as consideration for the transfer; and
(ii)excludes any amount that is attributable merely to the holding or giving up of rights as a shareholder in the company.

Relationship with sections CD 39 to CD 42
(3)This section is overridden by sections CD 39 to CD 42.
Defined in this Act: amount, company, dividend, shareholder, transfer of value
Compare: 2004 No 35 s CD 27





Another important NZ Legislation Act


Tax Administration Act 1994

decision
, for the purposes of the definition of disputable decision, includes the making, giving, or exercising of a discretion, judgment, direction, opinion, approval, consent, or determination by the Commissioner

80E Particulars to be included in income statement
(1) An income statement issued under this Part must contain the information specified in subsection (2) to the extent that the information is both available and applicable to the person’s circumstances.

(2)The information is—
(a)the amount of a natural person’s annual gross income for the tax year that the Commissioner considers was derived from employment, or interest, or dividends; and
(b}the sources of the annual gross income for the tax year in paragraph (a); and
(c}the amounts of the tax withheld for PAYE income payments and other income made in relation to the annual gross income for the tax year; and
(d)the amount of earner premium or earner levy deducted in respect of the person; and
(e)a calculation of the income tax liability of the person, including any tax payable or refund due; and
(ea)for a person to whom a notice of entitlement has been given under section 80KD, particulars relating to Working for Families tax credits; and
(f)any further particulars the Commissioner considers necessary.
(3)Information required under subsection (2)(ea) may be placed on a separate form and still remain part of the income statement.

0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10192
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 November 2018 - 10:39 AM


anonymouse

For clarity of thought it would be helpful if you first focused on the intent of the ACC legislation. With regards to someone receiving an injury and therefore unable to continue with the typical work tasks relied upon to achieve earnings the legislation provides 80% earnings compensation. The issue is whether it is the capacity to earn that the legislation measures or is it the capacity to work. I know a lot of people confuse these two issues but it is essential to distinguish the different issues so as to properly quantify the nature of the ACC is a liability to compensate as compensating earnings is not the same thing as compensating work. In fact it is not even possible to fund any kind of compensation for loss of capacity to work.

Insurance companies always seek to confound the insured so as to evade liability. Weak minded people will invariably capitulate to what is fundamentally a form of propaganda and social engineering with all kinds of complex stratagems that not only tend to confuse the injured but even of the people that are relevant such as medical professionals, reviewers and even judges. The only way to be certain about these things is to discuss the intent of the legislation with the politicians that are responsible for the making of it and who have continued to change and improve the wording of the legislation so as to undo the damage the ACC does to our accident insurance scheme in order that we are properly compensated until the Corporation funds either medical treatments and in the event that such treatment is not successful fund education, qualification, work experience so as to achieve the skills necessary in order that a capacity to earn is achieved.

It is not rocket science so I am struggling to understand why you are having difficulty with these fundamental concepts.

0

#16 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 02 November 2018 - 11:43 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 01 November 2018 - 10:32 AM, said:

Alan Thomas Posted Image


It will be fantastic to finally read material which is clearly and properly described and referenced as required Alan.

I will try another approach as it appears that you are still unable to discern or comprehend the issues which I am highlighting. I will keep this simple for you as Google is very helpful and of course the Legislation itself is also important.


So with due particularity if you could try, can you please answer both questions and identify the similarities or differences in definition &or purpose with your personal opinion Alan.


Do you think ACC legislation entitlement is named EARNING COMPENSATION?


OR do you think the ACC Legislation entitlement is detailed as EARNINGS COMPENSATION?




It would also be great for me to follow your argybargy if you could try to distinguish between your two confusing conflicting and contradictory ideas Alan

ie capacity to work VERSUS capacity to earn



Lastly I have no idea what you mean by *jittering the occupation type without regard to the legislated criteria* because in my POV there is international instruments available which should show that all the occupation types and work task activities are all determined by the associated professions. ie not legislators or ACC

Simply it is my POV that there is no such thing as legislated or prescribed criteria because occupations are dynamic and it is the connected professional experts who decide this Alan. There are also feedback loops within the legislation plus it is quite clear that within the Act Parts & Sections relating to various Regulation-making powers that *consulting* is an inherent process to the legislation. Caselaw would also be part of these ongoing occupational fields of knowledge etc


Anomousey

Again I am in the exact same place as with the IPRAC Act 1992, in that it is in the garage, boxed up. I am also in that place with the 1994 Income Tax Act which allows you to look up OB1 and the ACC compensation is to be used under that section of that Act. That tells all the names of all the tasks by name which will answer Alans question for him.

All W/C is to be taxed like the law says in OB1, even the ACC weekly compensation. I think you will find the words salary, work, etc etc will be in there.

These of course are simply the correct sections and Acts that Thomas should have already found the diffinition of because he has written so many words about this subject. another thing I am sure you will find it will be in the Tax Act somewhere, what working is included in, and it will put all his bits and bobs he picks up and uses are in the end useless, as if one Act doesn't cover it, the other one will and at the end of the day who does any monies raised by making income, belong too, of course it is Thomas first and then some for the tax dept before getting into his hands. If he hasn't paid tax and he has being raising money by his efforts, from mind or hands, he will have broken the law anyway.
0

#17 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 02 November 2018 - 12:02 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 01 November 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

To know whether the ACC cover is for a capacity to work or a capacity to earn we need to be looking at the language of the ACC legislation. I am seeing that we are covered to earn and that the concept of working is to enable us to earn. This raises a number of downstream issues whereby the ACC Corporation staff are making decisions contrary to the legislation.


No Thomas


You need to be looking at section OB! of the Income Tax Act 1994.

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10192
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 November 2018 - 12:06 PM

View PostMINI, on 02 November 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

Anomousey

Again I am in the exact same place as with the IPRAC Act 1992, in that it is in the garage, boxed up. I am also in that place with the 1994 Income Tax Act which allows you to look up OB1 and the ACC compensation is to be used under that section of that Act. That tells all the names of all the tasks by name which will answer Alans question for him.

All W/C is to be taxed like the law says in OB1, even the ACC weekly compensation. I think you will find the words salary, work, etc etc will be in there.

These of course are simply the correct sections and Acts that Thomas should have already found the diffinition of because he has written so many words about this subject. another thing I am sure you will find it will be in the Tax Act somewhere, what working is included in, and it will put all his bits and bobs he picks up and uses are in the end useless, as if one Act doesn't cover it, the other one will and at the end of the day who does any monies raised by making income, belong too, of course it is Thomas first and then some for the tax dept before getting into his hands. If he hasn't paid tax and he has being raising money by his efforts, from mind or hands, he will have broken the law anyway.


Mini the ACC legislation requires that the ACC rely upon real information as opposed to the theoretical information you have described. In other words you need to be looking at actual tasks are claimant relies upon for purposes of earning and then in the course of the incapacity whether or not they are capable of safely carrying out those tasks. All issues of safety of course must be validated by a medical professional, either the claimants or the ACCs.

In my case the medical profession confirmed that I am unable to engage in any actual occupation of any sort for more than two hours per day fragmented throughout the day so long as I don't use my right hand. You should note that I suffer from numerous other injuries and should not place an excessive focus on my right hand injury as that is only part of the medical diagnosis derived from the various high-tech imaging documentation. For example more recently it has been discovered that not only have I lost a portion of brain tissue in the left parietal lobe I also have widespread micro-damage through the frontal lobes oobserved by high-tech imaging equipment. The primary result from brain injury is exhaustion. Intellectual cognizance does not seem to be affected so long as I am not overtaxed/stressed but the left parietal lobe is between the language Centre and the control of the right hand from which it has been concluded that both have been affected. It is always remained a mystery to me as to how a human being can rely upon the man in the street as an alternative to the medical profession.

With regards to your belief concerning the tax departments definition of terms you may not be aware of various caselaw that has confirmed that the definition of earnings and therefore capacity of earnings et cetera found in the ACC legislation has its own meaning separate from the IRD. As the definition has been written into the ACC legislation those definitions are totally separate from the IRD and as such you cannot allow yourself to be confused or even intimidated by another division of government. Familiarise yourself with the ACC legislation so you do not confuse claimants on the site

0

#19 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 02 November 2018 - 03:49 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 November 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:

Mini the ACC legislation requires that the ACC rely upon real information as opposed to the theoretical information you have described. In other words you need to be looking at actual tasks are claimant relies upon for purposes of earning and then in the course of the incapacity whether or not they are capable of safely carrying out those tasks. All issues of safety of course must be validated by a medical professional, either the claimants or the ACCs.

In my case the medical profession confirmed that I am unable to engage in any actual occupation of any sort for more than two hours per day fragmented throughout the day so long as I don't use my right hand. You should note that I suffer from numerous other injuries and should not place an excessive focus on my right hand injury as that is only part of the medical diagnosis derived from the various high-tech imaging documentation. For example more recently it has been discovered that not only have I lost a portion of brain tissue in the left parietal lobe I also have widespread micro-damage through the frontal lobes oobserved by high-tech imaging equipment. The primary result from brain injury is exhaustion. Intellectual cognizance does not seem to be affected so long as I am not overtaxed/stressed but the left parietal lobe is between the language Centre and the control of the right hand from which it has been concluded that both have been affected. It is always remained a mystery to me as to how a human being can rely upon the man in the street as an alternative to the medical profession.

With regards to your belief concerning the tax departments definition of terms you may not be aware of various caselaw that has confirmed that the definition of earnings and therefore capacity of earnings et cetera found in the ACC legislation has its own meaning separate from the IRD. As the definition has been written into the ACC legislation those definitions are totally separate from the IRD and as such you cannot allow yourself to be confused or even intimidated by another division of government. Familiarise yourself with the ACC legislation so you do not confuse claimants on the site


There may be different definitions in the Two Acts re types of income ie self employed v earner, but that is only to work out how much you get and how much you have to pay for levies and the way you pay your tax.

All ACC w/c comes under section OB1 of the Income tax act.

I have finished here on this day, because you have no intention of taking what Anonomousey and I say as Kosha. Information is not meant to give you the whole answer, it is supposed to make you open your mind to new information, to allow you to follow through the parts that you are interested in.

gods sake we don't put as much blunder and burble as you do, so be appreaciative of what you get and make the most of it.

Mini
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10192
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 November 2018 - 05:05 PM

View PostMINI, on 02 November 2018 - 03:49 PM, said:

There may be different definitions in the Two Acts re types of income ie self employed v earner, but that is only to work out how much you get and how much you have to pay for levies and the way you pay your tax.

All ACC w/c comes under section OB1 of the Income tax act.

I have finished here on this day, because you have no intention of taking what Anonomousey and I say as Kosha. Information is not meant to give you the whole answer, it is supposed to make you open your mind to new information, to allow you to follow through the parts that you are interested in.

gods sake we don't put as much blunder and burble as you do, so be appreaciative of what you get and make the most of it.

Mini


Mini Unfortunately you are not correct regarding determining earnings compensation by way of the tax information. The tax information is only a first initial guide. The ACC earnings as defined at a greater level than the PAYE. For example non-taxable fringe benefits and other considerations are calculated as part of earnings that are not the same thing as is taxed. ACC were following the same as your suggestion until the early 1990s when the court told them that they were doing it wrong and from that time forward we would hope that they have changed their ways. It is important that we get these matters right so people know what they are entitled to and are not cheated.
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