ACCforum: Weekly compensation decline - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Weekly compensation decline

#1 User is offline   Lost 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 12-August 19

Posted 12 August 2019 - 11:37 AM

.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10346
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 August 2019 - 01:51 PM

In previous times ACC had gone for several years without accepting liability for a single shoulder injury. We saw a succession of situations whereby the ACC excused themselves from liability by every different which way. The problem is that the decision-making staff do not receive any form of formal training such as comprehension of the legislation or any kind of interpretation from manuals as to the precise meaning of legislation. Instead decision-makers are expected to pick things up as they go along by way of osmosis, such as learning from their peers, and then making decisions of which they have an entire legal team to defend.

This insurance company, ACC, makes a profit by way of avoidance stratagem and attrition. For example once a decision is made only about 30% will try to challenge that decision by review hearing and at review hearing there is a 70% chance of failure and if appealed to the district court there is again another 70% of failure. When looking at these decisions it is clear to see that there is a deliberate pattern of behaviour from the hierarchy of the ACC whereby stupid people are left to make decisions without any form of training with the obvious outcome that not training the staff will be incredibly profitable for the ACC. Even reviewers find themselves making quite ridiculous decisions, along with district court judges. It is a very small minority that pressed the matter any further yet successfully demonstrating something is thoroughly corrupt within the system.
The ACC legislation was set up to avoid such problems that the New Zealand public were taught to believe was occurring from private insurance companies with the claim that public servants would never behave so badly. Yet we see the same situation that we see in commonest countries whereby individual human beings known as bureaucrats act outside of the law knowing that they have the protection of a monopoly which is in turn supported by the government.

As for the problem at hand I have some recollection that there are some court decisions that address the predicament your friend is in. It will take some time to find that case. In the meantime maybe someone else can recall some cases that should be in support of what seems to be a very obvious liability for the ACC. I think it goes along the lines of people transferring from one job to another or waiting to start a job with everything locked down/contracted. Between jobs it's about three weeks however seasonal workers between seasons have achieved cover by having matters contracted whereby other portions of legislation require the ACC to take an annual approach.

The bottom line is that your friend was not "unemployed"all without employment. They were employed! Go to the ACC legislation where it describes the meanings of words because I think your answer is in that section in relation to the portion of legislation requiring ACC to determine whether or not to accept the claim for cover and the other section that is required to determine entitlements.

On the issue of separate and distinct accident events it does seem that despite the first injury he was capable of being in an until injured again. The second event is an accident event involving an incapacity regardless as to whether or not there was a relationship to the first injury. On that basis alone ACC has liability to accept the new claim for cover and to determine its liability to fund earnings compensation.

The very first approach is to write to the decision maker and ask them for the information they relied upon to make the decision along with the very specific portion of legislation together with the decision-makers understanding of that portion of legislation. If they fail to do so contact the manager and asked the same question and if the manager fails make a complaint that the decision has not been specific in accordance with the legislator criteria when making decisions. There is a portion of legislation that requires the ACC to make the decisions up to a certain standard and another portion to make disclosure.

0

#3 User is offline   Lost 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 12-August 19

Posted 12 August 2019 - 03:00 PM

Thanks very much Alan. I have been back with their definition of employee and they state that he was not an 'earner' at the time. But he wasn't a student either or unemployed. I have put it through to review and will see if I can fight it. Thanks again.
0

#4 User is offline   spacefish 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 19-February 14

Posted 12 August 2019 - 06:22 PM

View PostLost, on 12 August 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

Thanks very much Alan.


Be careful of information posted here, meet Alan:
https://www.nzherald...jectid=10740850
2

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10346
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 August 2019 - 07:01 PM

View PostLost, on 12 August 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

Thanks very much Alan. I have been back with their definition of employee and they state that he was not an 'earner' at the time. But he wasn't a student either or unemployed. I have put it through to review and will see if I can fight it. Thanks again.


as he had a contract in hand to be an earner therefore he was an earner.

In order to fight things through a review hearing you first must acquire from the ACC the legal basis for the decision together with the information they relied upon. Write a letter to the ACC asking under the privacy act and official information act for that information. They will have three weeks to reply. Under no circumstances should you go to a gun fight only armed with a knife as ACC seem to be wanting you to do. If you don't have this information you simply must adjourn until they supply the information.



-1

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10346
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 August 2019 - 07:06 PM

View Postspacefish, on 12 August 2019 - 06:22 PM, said:

Be careful of information posted here, meet Alan:
https://www.nzherald...jectid=10740850


As the ACC have now confessed to having no information whatsoever to support their allegations and the ACC informants also confessing that they too had no information we have a case of perjury.

Whenever ACC cannot win by way of legal means it does appear that they do have a history amongst many hundreds of people per year of denying entitlements and making false allegation to defame someone's name to chase them away. My situation is by no means uncommon. This is exactly what happens when a country takes away the right of trade from businesses such as insurance companies and sets up their own company known as the ACC in this instance to be a sole provider with the result that we see the inherent problems we are seeing now. What makes matters worse is that instead of people doing business for a place in society these bureaucrats are doing that to hold power and control. without question the ACC socialist system follows along the exact lines of communism which of course does not succeed in satisfying the needs of those they are meant to serve.


The reason the site was set upWas to address these types of issues whereby a bureaucracy holding monopoly literally steals from even invalids.

0

#7 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9327
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 19 August 2019 - 05:21 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 12 August 2019 - 07:01 PM, said:

as he had a contract in hand to be an earner therefore he was an earner.

In order to fight things through a review hearing you first must acquire from the ACC the legal basis for the decision together with the information they relied upon. Write a letter to the ACC asking under the privacy act and official information act for that information. They will have three weeks to reply. Under no circumstances should you go to a gun fight only armed with a knife as ACC seem to be wanting you to do. If you don't have this information you simply must adjourn until they supply the information.





Nah It doesn't work like that Fraudster, more false information from the village idiot.

An earner has to first work to become one.

Trying to change the law again fraudster.

Been in this situation, took it to review and lost,
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10346
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 August 2019 - 06:05 PM

View PostBrucey, on 19 August 2019 - 05:21 PM, said:

Nah It doesn't work like that Fraudster, more false information from the village idiot.

An earner has to first work to become one.

Trying to change the law again fraudster.

Been in this situation, took it to review and lost,


As you don't apply the legislation I am not surprised you lost your review hearing.
Nowhere in the legislation doesn't refer to work as being the criteria for the ACC to be making any decisions.
The legislation only refers to employment.

What you need to do is look at the definitions of employment under section 6.

Then you need to get ACC to determine whether or not you were incapacitated to be employed, in other words not employable because of the injuries.

Someone can work without having a capacity to either be employed or earning which is exactly how the ACC legislation describes matters.


PS
Name-calling and general attacking fellow claimants is not an acceptable form of behaviour for the members of the site and as you have failed in your claim against the ACC and are expressing levels of fury against the ACC and all those around you perhaps you should seek out real information to point you in the right direction.

0

#9 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9327
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 19 August 2019 - 06:56 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 August 2019 - 06:05 PM, said:

As you don't apply the legislation I am not surprised you lost your review hearing.
Nowhere in the legislation doesn't refer to work as being the criteria for the ACC to be making any decisions.
The legislation only refers to employment.

What you need to do is look at the definitions of employment under section 6.

Then you need to get ACC to determine whether or not you were incapacitated to be employed, in other words not employable because of the injuries.

Someone can work without having a capacity to either be employed or earning which is exactly how the ACC legislation describes matters.


PS
Name-calling and general attacking fellow claimants is not an acceptable form of behaviour for the members of the site and as you have failed in your claim against the ACC and are expressing levels of fury against the ACC and all those around you perhaps you should seek out real information to point you in the right direction.



Your a moron Thomas, It is very simple, you are not earning until you are on the clock. That is the law, fact.



3

#10 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1768
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 19 August 2019 - 07:39 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 August 2019 - 06:05 PM, said:

As you don't apply the legislation I am not surprised you lost your review hearing.
Nowhere in the legislation doesn't refer to work as being the criteria for the ACC to be making any decisions.
The legislation only refers to employment.

What you need to do is look at the definitions of employment under section 6.

Then you need to get ACC to determine whether or not you were incapacitated to be employed, in other words not employable because of the injuries.

Someone can work without having a capacity to either be employed or earning which is exactly how the ACC legislation describes matters.


PS
Name-calling and general attacking fellow claimants is not an acceptable form of behaviour for the members of the site and as you have failed in your claim against the ACC and are expressing levels of fury against the ACC and all those around you perhaps you should seek out real information to point you in the right direction.

as in your medical infos being presented to other parties from the corporation ,, to verify you have a claim to your lost entitlements being restored ,,where are you date allan ,, as in this event happening ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :rolleyes:/>
3

#11 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1768
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 19 August 2019 - 07:59 PM

View Posttommy, on 19 August 2019 - 07:39 PM, said:

as in your medical infos being presented to other parties from the corporation ,, to verify you have a claim to your lost entitlements being restored ,,where are you date allan ,, as in this event happening ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :rolleyes:/>/>

tommy will reiterate , as in allan must clean his own door step , up ,, as in opposed to others door steps are not in order ,,,,,,,so to speak
2

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10346
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 August 2019 - 08:30 PM

View PostBrucey, on 19 August 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

Your a moron Thomas, It is very simple, you are not earning until you are on the clock. That is the law, fact.





and what about the self-employed

what about those on piecework

What about those who provide volunteer services???

There are many different scenarios to consider of which the legislation quite clearly describes..

If you read the legislation perhaps you would stop being so abusive

-1

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10346
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 August 2019 - 08:31 PM

View Posttommy, on 19 August 2019 - 07:59 PM, said:

tommy will reiterate , as in allan must clean his own door step , up ,, as in opposed to others door steps are not in order ,,,,,,,so to speak


Reported X 2
-1

#14 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9327
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 20 August 2019 - 08:45 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 August 2019 - 08:30 PM, said:

and what about the self-employed

what about those on piecework

What about those who provide volunteer services???

There are many different scenarios to consider of which the legislation quite clearly describes..

If you read the legislation perhaps you would stop being so abusive



You are not entitled to ERC unless you are an earner at the time of your injury, no matter what your employment status is, and you are certainly not considered an earner just because you have an employment contract, as you have stated.

You have to be on the payroll, ie have commenced employment.

You are clearly the one who needs to read the legislation, and stop giving out false information to people.
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10346
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 August 2019 - 09:27 AM

I have read the legislation and it is you that are in error

The ACC legislation is effectively a global insurance policy for all in the event of an accident that prevents them from being an earner. This Insurance Scheme is not restricted just to people who spend their lives working for an employer but rather covers everybody who expands energy for the purposes of earning so as to maintain that capacity of earning in the event of an injury.

The ACC scheme is not complex in fact it is very simple. It is the capacity to earn that is insured. When someone hold a contract that utilizes their capacity to earn then they are covered regardless as to whether or not they have actually started earning. This is the case with Seasonal workers for example.
0

#16 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9327
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 20 August 2019 - 09:42 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 20 August 2019 - 09:27 AM, said:

I have read the legislation and it is you that are in error

The ACC legislation is effectively a global insurance policy for all in the event of an accident that prevents them from being an earner. This Insurance Scheme is not restricted just to people who spend their lives working for an employer but rather covers everybody who expands energy for the purposes of earning so as to maintain that capacity of earning in the event of an injury.

The ACC scheme is not complex in fact it is very simple. It is the capacity to earn that is insured. When someone hold a contract that utilizes their capacity to earn then they are covered regardless as to whether or not they have actually started earning. This is the case with Seasonal workers for example.


They are not entitled to ERC unless they are earning.

No where in the legislation does it state that if you have an employment contract, that you are an earner.

I took it to review to test it.

Please show us some evidence of your statement that shows you are an earner, if you have a contract but have not yet commenced employment.

You will not find any such wording in the act.

Once again you have been caught out telling lies in order to insight people to attack ACC.
0

#17 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2439
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 20 August 2019 - 12:04 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 20 August 2019 - 09:27 AM, said:

I have read the legislation and it is you that are in error

The ACC legislation is effectively a global insurance policy for all in the event of an accident that prevents them from being an earner. This Insurance Scheme is not restricted just to people who spend their lives working for an employer but rather covers everybody who expands energy for the purposes of earning so as to maintain that capacity of earning in the event of an injury.

The ACC scheme is not complex in fact it is very simple. It is the capacity to earn that is insured. When someone hold a contract that utilizes their capacity to earn then they are covered regardless as to whether or not they have actually started earning. This is the case with Seasonal workers for example.

Acc can apply the rules of law and change a decision of cover to no cover thus no entitlements
Example of that is your own acc claim accepted then change decision made and it was tossed in the rubbish bin.
With the bonus for you added to appear in criminal courts up for fraud
Which you could not show you were not guilty as charged.
Twofold hit at you from acc and something you can NOT change to receive erc entitlements
As the front person for this forum you have made it into a very dangerous place for the injured vulnerable to come to and find what has become a site promoting radicalism/ terrorism by you Thomas.
One more slip up / mistake and your fucked matey. B)
Best you disappear before you have another judge up you.
0

#18 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2439
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 20 August 2019 - 12:11 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 August 2019 - 08:30 PM, said:

and what about the self-employed

what about those on piecework

What about those who provide volunteer services???

There are many different scenarios to consider of which the legislation quite clearly describes..

If you read the legislation perhaps you would stop being so abusive

Yes
Scenario
Don’t commit fraud.
You failed to consider the outcome of that Thomas.
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10346
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 August 2019 - 12:16 PM

What legislation did you put forward to the reviewer in your submissions and what legislation did the reviewer rely upon in their decision?
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10346
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 August 2019 - 12:20 PM

 Hemi, on 20 August 2019 - 12:11 PM, said:

Yes
Scenario
Don’t commit fraud.
You failed to consider the outcome of that Thomas.


How was it that you have forgotten to answer the questions? Had you answered the questions you would have found that your argument became unraveled and the point that I was making would have been made. That way it would have been a learning exercise
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