ACCforum: acc weekly compensation - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

acc weekly compensation

#1 User is offline   Alister 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 25-April 19

Posted 26 April 2019 - 12:46 PM

Hi
I had injury sept:2014 covered by ACC.I was getting ACC income calculated differently due to high income and not 80%( I was employee)
Went back to same job in 2015 to 2017,so no ACC income.

I was unable to continue same job and end up accepting new training post in 2018 with about 50% less income for one year(full time),remaining emplyee

ACC was aware about this change but I never had any assistance in terms of weekly compensation.
1-Did I miss there? Can I go back??

Now I am self-employed and unfortunately had to go back to ACC for two weeks loss of income.They calculate my earing from 2018(last 50 weeks when my income was 50% less than preinjury income.

2-Did they calculate it right? or they should calculate my pre injury earnings?
3-self employee Vs employee make any difference?
4-What support in terms of training ACC can provide?
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 April 2019 - 01:01 PM

 Alister, on 26 April 2019 - 12:46 PM, said:

Hi
I had injury sept:2014 covered by ACC.I was getting ACC income calculated differently due to high income and not 80%( I was employee)
Went back to same job in 2015 to 2017,so no ACC income.

I was unable to continue same job and end up accepting new training post in 2018 with about 50% less income for one year(full time),remaining emplyee

ACC was aware about this change but I never had any assistance in terms of weekly compensation.
1-Did I miss there? Can I go back??

Now I am self-employed and unfortunately had to go back to ACC for two weeks loss of income.They calculate my earing from 2018(last 50 weeks when my income was 50% less than preinjury income.

2-Did they calculate it right? or they should calculate my pre injury earnings?
3-self employee Vs employee make any difference?
4-What support in terms of training ACC can provide?


First of all we need to address the reason why you could not return to your preinjury occupation or part thereof.
In this category you would receive 80% of your preinjury earnings or the maximum payable, which seems to be your case. If you were waiting for further medical treatment to improve your earnings capacity at your old occupation you cannot be rehabilitated into a new occupation. This prevents them from relabelling you and you suffering due to that new occupation not paying as much as your previous occupation. If you are able to return to your preinjury occupation of a part-time basis ACC would still have to pay up to the maximum amount.

Keep in mind that ACC is not an insurance to provide you with a working capacity but ensures you for your capacity to earn. Your capacity to earn is in relation to your preinjury occupation and nothing else. That fundamental principle does not change. ACC will avoid the nature of the insurance of your pre-injury earnings capacity by all kinds of storytelling and manipulation away from the actual legislation.

With a brand-new injury while self-employed? This raises the issue as to whether or not you are actually fit to carry out the work task activities of this new occupation. In other words had you been vocationally rehabilitated?

With regards to the criteria for vocational rehabilitation you must be rehabilitated back to the same "skill level" described in the Australia New Zealand standard classification of occupations. The skill levels are from 1-5. The skill level appears to be providing the relevance to an earnings capacity thus making up the difference between what the legislation was and is now. If the ACC have bypassed the skill level when considering you have a capacity to work in a new occupation then they have committed insurance fraud plain and simple.

I cannot see in your comments were you have described actual clearance by a medical professional to state that is safe for you to work. If there is no medical certificates giving you Clarence to work then you are still covered under your original occupation earnings capacity. If you have engaged in any other occupation in the meantime ACC are required to calculate an abatement of earnings. For example:
If your previous earnings was $2500 per week and your new occupation provided you with $750 per week ACC would have to make up the difference up to the maximum amount payable for the duration of time you were actually working and earning. All other times right up until the present the ACC would be required to pay the maximum amount payable under the ACC legislation.

If you have never been provided with clearance to work from your original injury then any subsequent injury from subsequent occupation is totally and completely irrelevant to any calculation or entitlement.

0

#3 User is offline   Alister 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 25-April 19

Posted 26 April 2019 - 01:29 PM

Thanks Alan,very helpful
1-Medical certificate was given to start preinjury work but it was not going well and had ongoing issues with injury related pain and work was more demanding, so after advice from medical professional, I change role of my job which required training which ACC never help with me(I didn't ask either).I was not offered any medical rehabilitation as I was working full time.
2-I didn't have any new injury while self employee. I still get flareup of 2014 injury and was off work with some pain for two weeks. So it is 2014 injury.
3-in terms of ACC makeup payment from higher to lower income($2500 to $1200)
should acc makeup difference even I was doing FULL TIME last year(training) and this year.

My concern is my new earnings are better than last year(Training year 1)I got weekly compensation calculated on the basis of last 50 weeks.
Is ACC right doing that?
where do I get help to sort correct calculation? How is expert in ACC calculation
Thanks in advance.
0

#4 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9275
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 26 April 2019 - 02:04 PM

There is a cap on income related insurance payment regardless of being a high earner

The last 52 weeks pay is what your 80% is based on.

You should have spoken to acc at the time as its not retrospective, especially as you continued to work full time

The 2014 injury is under the current act

You dont have to be rehabilitated back to your original job at all !


Disregard Alan Thomas version of law, hes put you wrong already.

If you were not cleared to work, but did regardless, acc will have you for fraud!
( cant believe thomas stated that this is irrelevant)

Obtain the services of an advocate or lawyer, they will give you correct advice
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 April 2019 - 02:13 PM

 Brucey, on 26 April 2019 - 02:04 PM, said:

There is a cap on income related insurance payment regardless of being a high earner

The last 52 weeks pay is what your 80% is based on.

You should have spoken to acc at the time as its not retrospective, especially as you continued to work full time

The 2014 injury is under the current act

You dont have to be rehabilitated back to your original job at all !


Disregard Alan Thomas version of law, hes put you wrong already.

If you were not cleared to work, but did regardless, acc will have you for fraud!
( cant believe thomas stated that this is irrelevant)

Obtain the services of an advocate or lawyer, they will give you correct advice


You don't seem to have grasped the nature of the problem. That you should read the problem again and have another try. This time familiarise yourself with the legislation as well
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 April 2019 - 02:23 PM

My comments in blue

 Alister, on 26 April 2019 - 01:29 PM, said:

Thanks Alan,very helpful
1-Medical certificate was given to start preinjury work but it was not going well and had ongoing issues with injury related pain and work was more demanding, so after advice from medical professional, I change role of my job which required training which ACC never help with me(I didn't ask either).I was not offered any medical rehabilitation as I was working full time.Okay so the bottom line is there is no medical certificate enabling you to safely return to your preinjury occupation and that your preinjury occupation has been modified to attempt to maintain your earnings capacity without success. This means you remain fully entitled to 80% of your preinjury occupation or the maximum payment allowable.
Is there any medical treatment available to youTo increase your capacity in your original occupation?

2-I didn't have any new injury while self employee. I still get flareup of 2014 injury and was off work with some pain for two weeks. So it is 2014 injury.It seems to me that the ACC have attempted to get an unlawful discount and if they have produced a documentation without regard to the legislation knowing that what they were saying was untrue then that is insurance fraud. If the decision maker was ignorant of the law then it is just a civil appeal. Perhaps you could get a proper legal opinion about your situation, present that to them and asked them to rectify the mistake.

3-in terms of ACC makeup payment from higher to lower income($2500 to $1200)
should acc makeup difference even I was doing FULL TIME last year(training) and this year.Yes. In the event that you work utilising your residual capacity in your existing occupation, or any other occupation for that matter, the ACC liability for earnings compensation remains energetically the same and get a discount by way of abatement of earnings for the amount that you did earn. This is a calculation described in legislation. There is no excuse for the ACC to bypass the section of legislation and it is particularly naughty for them to make up something instead which appears to be what they have done.

My concern is my new earnings are better than last year(Training year 1)I got weekly compensation calculated on the basis of last 50 weeks.
Is ACC right doing that?As above the only issue is what you are earning prior to being injured and ACC paying compensation on that liability with any new earnings no matter what they are being calculated in accordance with the legislation describing the abatement of earnings calculation. This is not anything that can be negotiated or very based on all the nuances of different circumstance. While you remain incapacitated to earn in your preinjury occupation yet during this time generate earnings abatement of earnings is the only allowable procedure by the ACC. In other words the ACC did not have an to pay what you earned which is simply deducted from your ERC

where do I get help to sort correct calculation? How is expert in ACC calculation.I would simply asked the ACC to provide to what legislation they have applied in your situation in relation to the facts provided. Which brings me to the point as to the nature of their awareness and what documentation is on your file.

Thanks in advance.

0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 April 2019 - 02:26 PM

 Brucey, on 26 April 2019 - 02:04 PM, said:

There is a cap on income related insurance payment regardless of being a high earner

The last 52 weeks pay is what your 80% is based on.

You should have spoken to acc at the time as its not retrospective, especially as you continued to work full time

The 2014 injury is under the current act

You dont have to be rehabilitated back to your original job at all !


Disregard Alan Thomas version of law, hes put you wrong already.

If you were not cleared to work, but did regardless, acc will have you for fraud!
( cant believe thomas stated that this is irrelevant)


Obtain the services of an advocate or lawyer, they will give you correct advice



It would be a most terrible thing ACC refused to fund the necessary medical treatment or provide some form of retraining to assist accommodating the injury in the original job. Such action by the ACC would be highly illegal.
In the event that there is no possibility of medical or other treatment to return a person to their original occupation it is only then that the ACC may consider vocational rehabilitation into a new occupation provided that they get a medical report that it is safe to do so. Then there would need to be an occupational specialist together with medical specialist to determine what's job might be investigated. Then the ACC would need to agree to fund the vocational rehabilitation as prescribed. Evidentially this has not happened in this case and as such we are only talking about the original occupation as it would be unlawful to address this issue in any other way.

Bruce E is seems to me that your obsession about my case as you in some kind of deadly grip where you have difficulty focusing your attention on the legislated criteria. When attempting to work while still injured as far from fraudulent but rather is encouraged by legislation with medical supervision and guidance as is evident in this case. I point out that I too had medical supervision and guidance within the ACC required me to produce business plans and other work activities towards working in a new occupation with the result that my doctors insisted that I stop one ACC stopped by compensation because I refused to continue with tthe ultimatum requiring me to work. Try to focus your attention on the information provided and stop making stuff up and making a nuisance of yourself on the site

0

#8 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9275
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 27 April 2019 - 09:17 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 26 April 2019 - 02:26 PM, said:

It would be a most terrible thing ACC refused to fund the necessary medical treatment or provide some form of retraining to assist accommodating the injury in the original job. Such action by the ACC would be highly illegal.
In the event that there is no possibility of medical or other treatment to return a person to their original occupation it is only then that the ACC may consider vocational rehabilitation into a new occupation provided that they get a medical report that it is safe to do so. Then there would need to be an occupational specialist together with medical specialist to determine what's job might be investigated. Then the ACC would need to agree to fund the vocational rehabilitation as prescribed. Evidentially this has not happened in this case and as such we are only talking about the original occupation as it would be unlawful to address this issue in any other way.

Bruce E is seems to me that your obsession about my case as you in some kind of deadly grip where you have difficulty focusing your attention on the legislated criteria. When attempting to work while still injured as far from fraudulent but rather is encouraged by legislation with medical supervision and guidance as is evident in this case. I point out that I too had medical supervision and guidance within the ACC required me to produce business plans and other work activities towards working in a new occupation with the result that my doctors insisted that I stop one ACC stopped by compensation because I refused to continue with tthe ultimatum requiring me to work. Try to focus your attention on the information provided and stop making stuff up and making a nuisance of yourself on the site



I will not allow you to give bad advice to anyone.

A person with your record of court room failures, should not be giving advice.

https://www.nzherald...jectid=10740850
1

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 April 2019 - 09:59 AM

 Brucey, on 27 April 2019 - 09:17 AM, said:

I will not allow you to give bad advice to anyone.

A person with your record of court room failures, should not be giving advice.

https://www.nzherald...jectid=10740850


Reported for being off topic. To be on topic you needed to actually give substance to your comment rather than personal attack which is also against the rules
0

#10 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9275
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 27 April 2019 - 10:11 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 27 April 2019 - 09:59 AM, said:

Reported for being off topic. To be on topic you needed to actually give substance to your comment rather than personal attack which is also against the rules


Once again a false report from Thomas, as he attempts to silence me.

As you attacked me in your post, I am simply clarifying my position.

It is you that took this thread off topic as usual when you made the following comments, and attacked me.


"Bruce E is seems to me that your obsession about my case as you in some kind of deadly grip where you have difficulty focusing your attention on the legislated criteria. When attempting to work while still injured as far from fraudulent but rather is encouraged by legislation with medical supervision and guidance as is evident in this case. I point out that I too had medical supervision and guidance within the ACC required me to produce business plans and other work activities towards working in a new occupation with the result that my doctors insisted that I stop one ACC stopped by compensation because I refused to continue with tthe ultimatum requiring me to work. Try to focus your attention on the information provided and stop making stuff up and making a nuisance of yourself on the site"
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 April 2019 - 10:47 AM

 Brucey, on 27 April 2019 - 10:11 AM, said:

Once again a false report from Thomas, as he attempts to silence me.

As you attacked me in your post, I am simply clarifying my position.

It is you that took this thread off topic as usual when you made the following comments, and attacked me.


"Bruce E is seems to me that your obsession about my case as you in some kind of deadly grip where you have difficulty focusing your attention on the legislated criteria. When attempting to work while still injured as far from fraudulent but rather is encouraged by legislation with medical supervision and guidance as is evident in this case. I point out that I too had medical supervision and guidance within the ACC required me to produce business plans and other work activities towards working in a new occupation with the result that my doctors insisted that I stop one ACC stopped by compensation because I refused to continue with tthe ultimatum requiring me to work. Try to focus your attention on the information provided and stop making stuff up and making a nuisance of yourself on the site"


There is no reason for you to perceive a disagreement to ACC's viewpoint, which you seek to endorse, to be a personal attack against you. I have merely corrected the error in the interpretation of legislation. I have used my case as an example. That does not make me personally your target. You should focus on the ball and not the man.
0

#12 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9275
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 27 April 2019 - 11:12 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 27 April 2019 - 10:47 AM, said:

There is no reason for you to perceive a disagreement to ACC's viewpoint, which you seek to endorse, to be a personal attack against you. I have merely corrected the error in the interpretation of legislation. I have used my case as an example. That does not make me personally your target. You should focus on the ball and not the man.


Off topic.
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 April 2019 - 11:33 AM

 Brucey, on 27 April 2019 - 11:12 AM, said:

Off topic.


How do you think I'm off topic?
Your usual pattern of behaviour is to make empty accusations and allegations. This makes you a site nuisance occupying space meaninglessly and thus degrading the quality of the site.

0

#14 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9275
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 27 April 2019 - 11:42 AM

There is not one thread without a rehash of your capacity to earn/work

Which you were given a 3 year term for

Until such time as convictions are overturned you should

NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO GIVE "LEGAL ADVICE"


Also interesting
When at a point whereby you are stymied by your own lies, a newby asks questions so similar to subjects you have rehashed with semantic legerdemain

Co-incidental ?
2

#15 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9275
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 27 April 2019 - 12:32 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 27 April 2019 - 11:33 AM, said:

How do you think I'm off topic?
Your usual pattern of behaviour is to make empty accusations and allegations. This makes you a site nuisance occupying space meaninglessly and thus degrading the quality of the site.



Off Topic.
2

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 April 2019 - 03:09 PM

 Brucey, on 27 April 2019 - 11:42 AM, said:

There is not one thread without a rehash of your capacity to earn/work

Which you were given a 3 year term for

Until such time as convictions are overturned you should

NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO GIVE "LEGAL ADVICE"


Also interesting
When at a point whereby you are stymied by your own lies, a newby asks questions so similar to subjects you have rehashed with semantic legerdemain

Co-incidental ?


The legal criteria and scientific evidence is not something that is affected by personal opinions and preference.
We are all here discussing much the same subjects and will invariably site the most noteworthy cases in ACC case law and or stuff ups to express our point of view.
The reason why the site is successful is that many of us have similar experiences whereby we can share our knowledge base coming from those experiences, win or lose.

0

#17 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9275
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 27 April 2019 - 04:30 PM

 Alister, on 26 April 2019 - 12:46 PM, said:

Hi
I had injury sept:2014 covered by ACC.I was getting ACC income calculated differently due to high income and not 80%( I was employee)
Went back to same job in 2015 to 2017,so no ACC income.

I was unable to continue same job and end up accepting new training post in 2018 with about 50% less income for one year(full time),remaining emplyee

ACC was aware about this change but I never had any assistance in terms of weekly compensation.
1-Did I miss there? Can I go back??

Now I am self-employed and unfortunately had to go back to ACC for two weeks loss of income.They calculate my earing from 2018(last 50 weeks when my income was 50% less than preinjury income.

2-Did they calculate it right? or they should calculate my pre injury earnings?
3-self employee Vs employee make any difference?
4-What support in terms of training ACC can provide?


This is the subject matter of this thread,

If you can not answer his questions with factual information, then don't bother.

This thread is not about you.
0

#18 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9275
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 27 April 2019 - 04:41 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 27 April 2019 - 03:09 PM, said:

The legal criteria and scientific evidence is not something that is affected by personal opinions and preference.
We are all here discussing much the same subjects and will invariably site the most noteworthy cases in ACC case law and or stuff ups to express our point of view.
The reason why the site is successful is that many of us have similar experiences whereby we can share our knowledge base coming from those experiences, win or lose.



Off Topic.
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 April 2019 - 04:53 PM

 Brucey, on 27 April 2019 - 04:30 PM, said:

This is the subject matter of this thread,

If you can not answer his questions with factual information, then don't bother.

This thread is not about you.


I have on more than one occasion and he has thanked me. Then you came along
0

#20 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9275
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 27 April 2019 - 05:14 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 27 April 2019 - 04:53 PM, said:

I have on more than one occasion and he has thanked me. Then you came along


That was before I informed him you were wrong.

Hopefully he has the sense to take my advice and get professional help.
1

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • 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