[SweetPotatoe]

My partner had his first MVA in 1983, his glasgow coma scale was 3/15 on the first day and then for the following week it was 7/15. He was in hospital for over 3 weeks and diagnosed with a serious TBI. He was told by the specialist that he would need at least 9 months of intensive therapy and rehabilitation. He didnt really attend rehab much at all and fought to get back to work. HIs impairment rating for this accident was 4%!!! After he went back to work, he was pretty much left to it. He had no one checking in on him to see how he was coping or surviving with day to day lilfe.

He thought he was diong fine, even though he had trouble keeping jobs and even getting in trouble with the law for various things, all probably related to his injury and the lack of supervision or care he received after his 1983 accident. Does anyone know how they can justify an impairment rating of only 4% back then when quite clearly his injury was very serious.

Is there any way I can appeal this from so long ago? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Alan Thomas]

I have aTBI and due to the nature of it there is quite a number of CT and MRI scans together with quite intensive capacity assessments. Every time I have a new assessment it seems to be worse yet I feel I'm getting better. The event was in 1993.I seem to be a lot better off than your partner as I was only unconscious for the night and made remarkable recovery after the following three months.


Despite having extensive medical reporting from the best specialists in the country ACC continue to avoid doing much more than acknowledging that I am brain injured and accepting the claim. They have not yet determined the degree of disability for purposes of compensation.

I rather suspect that your 4% has been provided by someone that has not applied the assessment procedure in accordance with the criteria which is a diminishment of the person in relation to their preinjury capacity is as opposed to making a calculation in comparison to the general population.

It is quite common for people in our condition to imagine that we can do far more than we really can. My doctor explained to the ACC it is rather like a drunk person thinking that they can drive with the ACC having the duty to calibrate the degree of disability to determine the capacity of the individual to return to the preinjury state and if not to compensate them and provide other services to make the best of a bad situation, such as social rehabilitation.

[Hemi]

Alan Thomas, on 07 June 2019 - 09:52 PM, said:

I have aTBI and due to the nature of it there is quite a number of CT and MRI scans together with quite intensive capacity assessments. Every time I have a new assessment it seems to be worse yet I feel I'm getting better. The event was in 1993.I seem to be a lot better off than your partner as I was only unconscious for the night and made remarkable recovery after the following three months.


Despite having extensive medical reporting from the best specialists in the country ACC continue to avoid doing much more than acknowledging that I am brain injured and accepting the claim. They have not yet determined the degree of disability for purposes of compensation.

I rather suspect that your 4% has been provided by someone that has not applied the assessment procedure in accordance with the criteria which is a diminishment of the person in relation to their preinjury capacity is as opposed to making a calculation in comparison to the general population.

It is quite common for people in our condition to imagine that we can do far more than we really can. My doctor explained to the ACC it is rather like a drunk person thinking that they can drive with the ACC having the duty to calibrate the degree of disability to determine the capacity of the individual to return to the preinjury state and if not to compensate them and provide other services to make the best of a bad situation, such as social rehabilitation.

The cognitive / general processing skills you have and still do that are showing out In public leaves you as capable of looking after yourself.
Why would acc need to assist such a capable person as yourself Thomas.
In your case no imagination needed as you show yourself to handle your Personal affairs quite well.

[Brucey]

Alan Thomas, on 07 June 2019 - 09:52 PM, said:

I have aTBI and due to the nature of it there is quite a number of CT and MRI scans together with quite intensive capacity assessments. Every time I have a new assessment it seems to be worse yet I feel I'm getting better. The event was in 1993.I seem to be a lot better off than your partner as I was only unconscious for the night and made remarkable recovery after the following three months.


Despite having extensive medical reporting from the best specialists in the country ACC continue to avoid doing much more than acknowledging that I am brain injured and accepting the claim. They have not yet determined the degree of disability for purposes of compensation.

I rather suspect that your 4% has been provided by someone that has not applied the assessment procedure in accordance with the criteria which is a diminishment of the person in relation to their preinjury capacity is as opposed to making a calculation in comparison to the general population.

It is quite common for people in our condition to imagine that we can do far more than we really can. My doctor explained to the ACC it is rather like a drunk person thinking that they can drive with the ACC having the duty to calibrate the degree of disability to determine the capacity of the individual to return to the preinjury state and if not to compensate them and provide other services to make the best of a bad situation, such as social rehabilitation.

Off topic, this thread is not about you or your self diagnosed TBI Fraudster.

The poster has asked for specific advice regarding
HOW TO GET AN OLD IMPAIRMENT RATING CHANGED?


Please show some respect to the poster, and desist from pissing all over other peoples threads.

[Brucey]

Hemi, on 08 June 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

The cognitive / general processing skills you have and still do that are showing out In public leaves you as capable of looking after yourself.
Why would acc need to assist such a capable person as yourself Thomas.
In your case no imagination needed as you show yourself to handle your Personal affairs quite well.

Off Topic.

[Alan Thomas]

Hemi, on 08 June 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

The cognitive / general processing skills you have and still do that are showing out In public leaves you as capable of looking after yourself.
Why would acc need to assist such a capable person as yourself Thomas.
In your case no imagination needed as you show yourself to handle your Personal affairs quite well.

Off Topic.

[Alan Thomas]

Brucey, on 09 June 2019 - 09:00 AM, said:

Off topic, this thread is not about you or your self diagnosed TBI Fraudster.

The poster has asked for specific advice regarding
HOW TO GET AN OLD IMPAIRMENT RATING CHANGED?


Please show some respect to the poster, and desist from pissing all over other peoples threads.

Off Topic.

[Alan Thomas]

Sweet potato as I progressed this topic in my posting number two, despite getting medical evidence that nobody but nobody can challenge at a scientific level bureaucratic bugs and other idiots are always going to challenge your information and the information from your doctors and specialists as a result of their complete and utter arrogance.


Nonetheless what you need to do is obtain the highest quality technical/scientific information acquired from specialists that your doctor has sent you to show those reports provide a strong foundation to your claim for cover and entitlements. It is only from the strong foundation of information that you can proceed.


More to follow concerning how the previous legislation works and relates to the current legislation.

[Hemi]

Brucey, on 09 June 2019 - 09:00 AM, said:

Off topic, this thread is not about you or your self diagnosed TBI Fraudster.

The poster has asked for specific advice regarding
HOW TO GET AN OLD IMPAIRMENT RATING CHANGED?


Please show some respect to the poster, and desist from pissing all over other peoples threads.

It’s not about you either playing god so Where’s the answer / process then ?

[MINI]

In the first instance you will need to obtain the right to a late application against the 4% only. so that is your first approach to ACC.

If they agree, then they will have to supply you with the necessary specialists to see to give you a proper examination, re: the real amount of damage done to your brain and parts of your brain that allow you to physically compete in the job market, but do not allow you to hold onto a job long. This could likely be cognitive damage or even social damage, which would include anxiety and depression and lots of other specialist areas. As I am not a specialist I will not carry on about what it could be.

If ACC do not agree to a right of late application against the 4%, you will have to go to Review for the late part first then to the district court if the Reviewer does not allow the late Review. at the time of the Review you will have to prove that you had extrodinary circumstances that stopped you from reviewing in the past. This would take all the paper work you have from that time written by the doctors and specialists which show you had a injury that was far worse than the one that gave you 4% only. You would also need up to date specialists updates to say you have gotten worse and need another assessment, backdated if possible.

If declined at that stage you will have to think about take the late application to the District Court.

It does not hurt to ask ACC in the first place, as they can only say No and then you have to make up your mind what you are going to do about the next move. But I feel that if you knew that you were only going to get $1 for every dollar, if they gave you 10% before they paid you $10 per week........ask yourself if all the tremendously hard work is worth it.

Your claim would probably come under the IA as it already has done and that is the entitlement it would be, presuming you got it. I do not think you could get Lump Sum as the injury happened so long ago.

Having been thru both IA and Lump Sum, I can tell you this much, but it is you who will have to do the work. Which could be expensive and upsetting, only you can make the decisions that take you into the land of fighting with ACC.

Good Luck

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

the portion of legislation that must be looked into is in regards to the ACC obligation to reassess the decision as time goes by and additional information is provided. For example large numbers of people, including myself, who have suffered injuries causing disability find themselves with an increased disability over the years. This is common when there has been no rehabilitation funding to provide the relevant treatment.

My own personal experiences that when the ACC received a description of disability including a 60% of disability the ACC initially challenge that by sending me to one of their own assessors who only gave 14.5%, 1/2% under the threshold. The reviewers explained to the ACC that the information provided from the treatment providers was correct. Over the following years my incapacity increased substantially due to ACC refusing to fund the required surgery. This means that my disability is way higher than 60% now as described by more recent medical professionals reports to the ACC. ACC are now required to make another appraisal of the degree of disability and comply with the previous review hearing decisions by making the necessary calculations and funding entitlements. ACC's tardiness in this matter has necessitated a repeat of review hearings that have been found in my favour whereby the ACC have been provided 20 days to get started on the assessment each time by each reviewer. As you can appreciate ACC is ignoring all of the review hearing decisions.

The case of this topic it follows a similar situation whereby the ACC haven't maintained contact with the claimant with the result that the claimant is not aware of how the legislation works. I trust by example gives some insight of which the starting point is obtaining current medical assessments and submitting those assessments to the ACC, assuming of course that those assessment demonstrate an increase of disability. It is the increase of disability that is the trigger point for the ACC to carry out a fresh assessment of their liability. This is the technically correct procedure to follow. If ACC don't follow these procedures then a form of enforcement may be necessary by way of review hearing decision.

[Alan Thomas]

With regards to the 4% figure I would find it very surprising given the description you have provided of the injuries. Quite often the ACC seek a report more to their wishes by not providing their assessor with all of the facts. What you need to do is apply for the files and find out what facts were presented in order for the ACC to get a report of 4%. If there are any deliberate anomalies such as withholding of information that would be classified as insurance fraud and would need to be addressed under the crimes act. It is not the first time that ACC staff have committed criminal fraud against the claimant by commissioning a false document for pecuniary advantage.

[Hemi]

MINI, on 09 June 2019 - 04:07 PM, said:

In the first instance you will need to obtain the right to a late application against the 4% only. so that is your first approach to ACC.

If they agree, then they will have to supply you with the necessary specialists to see to give you a proper examination, re: the real amount of damage done to your brain and parts of your brain that allow you to physically compete in the job market, but do not allow you to hold onto a job long. This could likely be cognitive damage or even social damage, which would include anxiety and depression and lots of other specialist areas. As I am not a specialist I will not carry on about what it could be.

If ACC do not agree to a right of late application against the 4%, you will have to go to Review for the late part first then to the district court if the Reviewer does not allow the late Review. at the time of the Review you will have to prove that you had extrodinary circumsances that stopped you from reviewing in the past. This would take all the paper work you have from that time written by the doctors and specialists which show you had a injury that was far worse than the one that gave you 4% only. You would also need up to date specialists updates to say you have gotten worse and need another assessment, backdated if possible.

If declined at that stage you will have to think about take the late application to the District Court.

It does not hurt to ask ACC in the first place, as they can only say No and then you have to make up your mind what you are going to do about the next move. But I feel that if you knew that you were only going to get $1 for every dollar, if they gave you 10% before they paid you $10 per week........ask yourself if all the tremendously hard work is worth it.

Your claim would probably come under the IA as it already has done and that is the entitlement it would be, presuming you got it. I do not think you could get Lump Sum as the injury happened so long ago.

Having been thru both IA and Lump Sum, I can tell you this much, but it is you who will have to do the work. Which could be expensive and upsetting, only you can make the decisions that take you into the land of fighting with ACC.

Good Luck

Mini

No time period date etc is given as to when the 4% rating was given.
On that I would take it as an assessment re looking at the rehab as to what was actually needed to be done and the rehab based on that 4% tally.
They seemingly were under acc care with rehab provision set and in place possibly some social needs and with return to work as the outcome as only a 4 % to work with.
They have said they never entered into that rehab process as a whole, and went there own way going back to work.
To go back to work must have been a viable option for them to leave the rehab offered although personally knowing that at times viable options are really not that and doctors input needed which acc would have asked doctor for that.
There own medical doctor handling there injury’s would not have allowed back to work if they were not capable of that. ??? On that one.
That would leave them as opting out of treatment rehab offered. No certificate of capacity provided with acc having no more to do apart from at some Time an assessment to clear the files as either fit for Fit for selected work or no work at all. Or fit to work full time,which I would think the 4% one would be used that process.
The question to ask with this is of there own medical doctor of what they said to claimant and the acc at the time of them going back to work.
It must have been good to go or part time.
To have a reassessment of so long ago injury one would have to show documentation medical / work records as to what happened at that rehab time, and subsequent documentation along the way /years showing that it was that initial injury causing problems more than the assessment showed.
Mini
On tne lump sum that if applicable that would have been processed back then. Pre IA coming in.
They don’t say on that nor exactly what the rehab was = medical and or social needs rehab.
Could be another one slipped they the cracks but to challenge from so long ago not an easy thing to do and times the amount of work stress etc just worsens an already bad situation for a most likely small gain.
The IA would along the process arrive into play and need to meet the threshold for that less any possible benefit gained via the 4% assessment data.
I note that it is said as the first motor vechile accident??? Meaning More than one now?? And then more later new head injury’s to deal with.

[MINI]

Hemi, on 09 June 2019 - 06:45 PM, said:

No time period date etc is given as to when the 4% rating was given.
On that I would take it as an assessment re looking at the rehab as to what was actually needed to be done and the rehab based on that 4% tally.
They seemingly were under acc care with rehab provision set and in place possibly some social needs and with return to work as the outcome as only a 4 % to work with.
They have said they never entered into that rehab process as a whole, and went there own way going back to work.
To go back to work must have been a viable option for them to leave the rehab offered although personally knowing that at times viable options are really not that and doctors input needed which acc would have asked doctor for that.
There own medical doctor handling there injury’s would not have allowed back to work if they were not capable of that. ??? On that one.
That would leave them as opting out of treatment rehab offered. No certificate of capacity provided with acc having no more to do apart from at some Time an assessment to clear the files as either fit for Fit for selected work or no work at all. Or fit to work full time,which I would think the 4% one would be used that process.
The question to ask with this is of there own medical doctor of what they said to claimant and the acc at the time of them going back to work.
It must have been good to go or part time.
To have a reassessment of so long ago injury one would have to show documentation medical / work records as to what happened at that rehab time, and subsequent documentation along the way /years showing that it was that initial injury causing problems more than the assessment showed.
Mini
On tne lump sum that if applicable that would have been processed back then. Pre IA coming in.
They don’t say on that nor exactly what the rehab was = medical and or social needs rehab.
Could be another one slipped they the cracks but to challenge from so long ago not an easy thing to do and times the amount of work stress etc just worsens an already bad situation for a most likely small gain.
The IA would along the process arrive into play and need to meet the threshold for that less any possible benefit gained via the 4% assessment data.
I note that it is said as the first motor vechile accident??? Meaning More than one now?? And then more later new head injury’s to deal with.

I got IA backdated five years. That made a pretty nice sum and worth the hard work. but then I had to prove that the case manager lied to me when she told me I wasn't entitled to weekly compensation as well. That was also backdated, but once taxed was not such a tidy sum. Added up over the preceding years though and very grateful for it.

They can only say No and you work from there, it is a clear road to follow, just like the yellow brick one.

Mini

[Hemi]

MINI, on 11 June 2019 - 04:24 PM, said:

I got IA backdated five years. That made a pretty nice sum and worth the hard work. but then I had to prove that the case manager lied to me when she told me I wasn't entitled to weekly compensation as well. That was also backdated, but once taxed was not such a tidy sum. Added up over the preceding years though and very grateful for it.

They can only say No and you work from there, it is a clear road to follow, just like the yellow brick one.

Mini

Off topic.
Not interested in your issues in in here based on the money grab from acc Claire
It’s a different kettle of fish

[MINI]

Hemi, on 11 June 2019 - 09:02 PM, said:

Off topic.
Not interested in your issues in in here based on the money grab from acc Claire
It’s a different kettle of fish

Hemi/David Butler

It is not off topic as it relates to the work needed to be done to make it worthwhile or not. Depends on if it backdated, and you don't know that unless you make it part of you application to ACC. Totally on topic. I know from personal experience that you learn a lot off this forum if given the information as to what cant and cannot be an entitlement.

When learning all information is useful.

Mini

[Hemi]

MINI, on 13 June 2019 - 12:07 PM, said:

Hemi/David Butler

It is not off topic as it relates to the work needed to be done to make it worthwhile or not. Depends on if it backdated, and you don't know that unless you make it part of you application to ACC. Totally on topic. I know from personal experience that you learn a lot off this forum if given the information as to what cant and cannot be an entitlement.

When learning all information is useful.

Mini

Claire Hollis
Your bollocks
All ways ranting on about money you can grab
Think outside the square and the claimants well being before you spout off about the dollars
$ Be the last thing on the agenda on this one
You need to get there first on medical issues.
Read the info on post 1 and see what if anything constructive you can come up with other than a money grab from acc for IA.

Dave.

[Brucey]

Hemi, on 13 June 2019 - 12:29 PM, said:

Claire Hollis
Your bollocks
All ways ranting on about money you can grab
Think outside the square and the claimants well being before you spout off about the dollars
$ Be the last thing on the agenda on this one
You need to get there first on medical issues.
Read the info on post 1 and see what if anything constructive you can come up with other than a money grab from acc for IA.

Dave.

Off Topic.

[Hemi]

Brucey, on 13 June 2019 - 01:25 PM, said:

Off Topic.

Very on topic

Medical before the Claire money grab

[Alan Thomas]

Hemi, on 13 June 2019 - 01:57 PM, said:

Very on topic

Medical before the Claire money grab

Off Topic