ACCforum: Weekly Compensation - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Weekly Compensation

#1 User is offline   oldbowler 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 05-October 13

Posted 17 October 2019 - 12:06 PM

Is there any legal or statutory obligation for ACC to advise claimants that earnings related weekly compensation is available to them? I'm thinking of a situation where someone may tell ACC about loss of earning policy they have with another insurance company.
Is ACC legally obligated to advise the client that that compensation is available regardless of other private insurance?
0

#2 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1910
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 October 2019 - 06:16 PM

View Postoldbowler, on 17 October 2019 - 12:06 PM, said:

Is there any legal or statutory obligation for ACC to advise claimants that earnings related weekly compensation is available to them? I'm thinking of a situation where someone may tell ACC about loss of earning policy they have with another insurance company.
Is ACC legally obligated to advise the client that that compensation is available regardless of other private insurance?
one can not double dip , it appears , as such matters ,,,,,,
0

#3 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1910
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 October 2019 - 06:20 PM

View Posttommy, on 22 October 2019 - 06:16 PM, said:

one can not double dip , it appears , as such matters ,,,,,,

where legislation , v/s policy . v/s outside insures you may have to investigate such matters one self
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 October 2019 - 12:39 PM

View Posttommy, on 22 October 2019 - 06:16 PM, said:

one can not double dip , it appears , as such matters ,,,,,,


If someone is paying into the ACC scheme and there is also a key person insurance on that person quite obviously both the ACC and that insurance company will have to make payment in the event of an injury that prevents the person carrying on working.


there is nothing whatsoever that even remotely suggests that receiving payment on both policies would be fraud/double dipping et cetera.

1

#5 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2564
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 23 October 2019 - 05:32 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 23 October 2019 - 12:39 PM, said:

If someone is paying into the ACC scheme and there is also a key person insurance on that person quite obviously both the ACC and that insurance company will have to make payment in the event of an injury that prevents the person carrying on working.


there is nothing whatsoever that even remotely suggests that receiving payment on both policies would be fraud/double dipping et cetera.

Bollocks Thomas.
0

#6 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1910
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 23 October 2019 - 05:40 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 23 October 2019 - 12:39 PM, said:

If someone is paying into the ACC scheme and there is also a key person insurance on that person quite obviously both the ACC and that insurance company will have to make payment in the event of an injury that prevents the person carrying on working.


there is nothing whatsoever that even remotely suggests that receiving payment on both policies would be fraud/double dipping et cetera.

have as yourself , evidence as in such matters you posted allan , ,,,,,,,,,,,, :rolleyes:
0

#7 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9392
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 24 October 2019 - 06:54 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 23 October 2019 - 12:39 PM, said:

If someone is paying into the ACC scheme and there is also a key person insurance on that person quite obviously both the ACC and that insurance company will have to make payment in the event of an injury that prevents the person carrying on working.


there is nothing whatsoever that even remotely suggests that receiving payment on both policies would be fraud/double dipping et cetera.



The reason that there would be no fraud involved, is because a claim on such a policy would be paid to the employer, and not the injured person.

This type of policy is often used by employers to cover the paying of wages or salary to employ a person to replace the sick or injured employer, (the key person) . It is commercial insurance.

The ACC claimant would not be double dipping, unless they were the employer and were using the money personally.

https://www.amp.co.n...tection-options
0

#8 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2564
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 24 October 2019 - 07:35 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 23 October 2019 - 12:39 PM, said:

If someone is paying into the ACC scheme and there is also a key person insurance on that person quite obviously both the ACC and that insurance company will have to make payment in the event of an injury that prevents the person carrying on working.


there is nothing whatsoever that even remotely suggests that receiving payment on both policies would be fraud/double dipping et cetera.



View PostHemi, on 23 October 2019 - 05:32 PM, said:

Bollocks Thomas.



View PostBrucey, on 24 October 2019 - 06:54 AM, said:

The reason that there would be no fraud involved, is because a claim on such a policy would be paid to the employer, and not the injured person.

This type of policy is often used by employers to cover the paying of wages or salary to employ a person to replace the sick or injured employer, (the key person) . It is commercial insurance.

The ACC claimant would not be double dipping, unless they were the employer and were using the money personally.

https://www.amp.co.n...tection-options

Correct Bruce
All in the particular type / details /wording and named holder beneficiary of the policy taken out
Something Thomas fails to comprehend.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 October 2019 - 12:10 PM

View PostHemi, on 23 October 2019 - 05:32 PM, said:

Bollocks Thomas.


Quite obviously you're neither qualified or have the necessary experience to know such matters and as such we can safely disregard your imagination.
1

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 October 2019 - 12:11 PM

View Posttommy, on 23 October 2019 - 05:40 PM, said:

have as yourself , evidence as in such matters you posted allan , ,,,,,,,,,,,, Posted Image


It's in the legislation backed up by caselaw..


1

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 October 2019 - 12:15 PM

View PostBrucey, on 24 October 2019 - 06:54 AM, said:

The reason that there would be no fraud involved, is because a claim on such a policy would be paid to the employer, and not the injured person.

This type of policy is often used by employers to cover the paying of wages or salary to employ a person to replace the sick or injured employer, (the key person) . It is commercial insurance.

The ACC claimant would not be double dipping, unless they were the employer and were using the money personally.

https://www.amp.co.n...tection-options


Not on the case of self-employed persons.

For example with myself to have my customers each had insurance for $300,000 in the event I have an accident with myself also having the exact same policy for the exact same amount. the insurance company would pay out the $300,000 to me in the event of an accident as well is the ACC good on their liabilities for earnings compensation as well.

This is not double dipping but rather a simple and basic transaction.

Another situation for example would be the payment of medical treatment in the event of an accident. The ACC would of course have their liability to pay for surgery but a claimant may have additional insurance to receive the gold standard medical treatment rather than some cut-price scheme that the ACC prefers. It is quite in order to have insurance to pay for things when it is known that the ACC defy the ACC legislation when making payment for treatment. The example in my own case is that ACC would pay for an amputation but would not pay for reconstruction despite the review hearing directing them to make such a payment.


Bruce you have provided a URL to an insurance company but you have not identified any support from that company for your belief. Why?

1

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 October 2019 - 12:17 PM

View PostHemi, on 24 October 2019 - 07:35 AM, said:

Correct Bruce
All in the particular type / details /wording and named holder beneficiary of the policy taken out
Something Thomas fails to comprehend.


The blind and dimwitted leading the blind and dimwitted.

Both of you should avoid making any postings on matters you don't understand

1

#13 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2564
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 24 October 2019 - 12:33 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 October 2019 - 12:17 PM, said:

The blind and dimwitted leading the blind and dimwitted.

Both of you should avoid making any postings on matters you don't understand

Been there done that
No issues at all
Your the dimwit who got done for fraud
You wouldn’t know about personal income protection Thomas
It’s allm in the wording of the policy
Something you do not understand
Not the wonder you got gone and went to jail for fraud you corrupt bastard

All you can go is post at others in a way you think demeans them
Well stuff you thomas
I reply to you so your the dumb cluk like acc and the judge told you were.
And you went bankrupt
How’d ya protection go there
You never had one otherwise you’d not have gone bankrupt
But then mmmm?
You would not show any form of meaningful accounts to acc or the courts
So what were you hiding Thomas B)/>Douglas Weal knew.
0

#14 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9392
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 24 October 2019 - 12:43 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 October 2019 - 12:17 PM, said:

The blind and dimwitted leading the blind and dimwitted.

Both of you should avoid making any postings on matters you don't understand



I totally understand, I have had several of these policies over the years, and I have posted reference material to show that my comments are correct.
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 October 2019 - 01:03 PM

View PostBrucey, on 24 October 2019 - 12:43 PM, said:

I totally understand, I have had several of these policies over the years, and I have posted reference material to show that my comments are correct.


and there is no exclusion mentioned in what you have claimed to be evidence which means that you have not even read your own exhibit.
1

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 October 2019 - 01:04 PM

With regards to key person insurance it does distinguish the difference between the capacity to work and a capacity to earn. Why does the ACC avoid this issue?
1

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 October 2019 - 01:05 PM

How is that that ACC have managed to persuade a judge that company profits is the same thing as personal earnings when the person totally owns the company? Are the ACC really so dishonest and does the judge claimed to be so stupid?

In my own case ACC cancel my claim and prosecuted for fraud based on their presumption that I was working because the company I owned had an income of $1.3 million. In the ACCs mind they seem to imagine that I was no longer ito earn and therefore and therefore was no longer entitled to ACC earnings compensation. How ridiculous is that?

1

#18 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9392
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 24 October 2019 - 01:05 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 October 2019 - 12:15 PM, said:

Not on the case of self-employed persons.

For example with myself to have my customers each had insurance for $300,000 in the event I have an accident with myself also having the exact same policy for the exact same amount. the insurance company would pay out the $300,000 to me in the event of an accident as well is the ACC good on their liabilities for earnings compensation as well.

This is not double dipping but rather a simple and basic transaction.

Another situation for example would be the payment of medical treatment in the event of an accident. The ACC would of course have their liability to pay for surgery but a claimant may have additional insurance to receive the gold standard medical treatment rather than some cut-price scheme that the ACC prefers. It is quite in order to have insurance to pay for things when it is known that the ACC defy the ACC legislation when making payment for treatment. The example in my own case is that ACC would pay for an amputation but would not pay for reconstruction despite the review hearing directing them to make such a payment.


Bruce you have provided a URL to an insurance company but you have not identified any support from that company for your belief. Why?


No one is interested in what you done Thomas, you were convicted for fraud, and is it any wonder.
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 October 2019 - 01:17 PM

View PostBrucey, on 24 October 2019 - 01:05 PM, said:

No one is interested in what you done Thomas, you were convicted for fraud, and is it any wonder.


How is an accusation of fraud relevant?
For fraud to be relevant there would need to be some actual substance to the allegation and relevance to law. Yet in my case there is no such thing as a factual allegation let alone any connection to any actual law for ACC to alleged fraud. No judge has ever addressed a single work task activity of any sort let alone relate an alleged activity to the ACC legislation. as ACC presented no evidence in court how could a conviction that come about? So how even did a fraud allegation come about? The legal advice from the most senior legal professionals specialising in ACC matters in the country confirm that this is quite impossible and that the only conclusion they can draw is that corruption is seen to be at work.


We can see that when the ACC are challenged in court that they then embark upon a new allegation also based on speculative assumptions and nonsense from the likes of David Butler, Kenneth Miller and Douglas Weal all of which acknowledged to the authorities that they did make me know anything yet another conviction was achieved as if they had told the courts of actual information. David Butler recognising that he would be put in jail if he did go to court avoided going to court. The police also did not want to court knowing that he is so stupid that it would be easily tripped up. Kenneth Miller however did come back into the court and confess that he didn't know anything yet the judge in his judgement made reference to Kenneth Miller as an expert on psychological matters and relied upon him as if he was holding such a qualification despite the fact that the judge challenged him on the liquid he was bringing into the court as if it was a bottle of alcohol which was hardly surprising because he reeked of alcoholof his hope is alleged recollections involving his imagination that I was going to blow up the ACC for investigating and for fraud whereby he claimed that I was going to blow up that offers for him he was extremely drunk yet the judge relied upon him as the sole point of reference to support the ACC allegation when convicting me. The various legal professionals hearing of this were appalledat such judicial incompetence given the fact that such evidence does not meet the threshold of being proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal matters.

Then we have the loony tune brigade and various nutters associating with my accusers trying to support them despite having no evidence whatsoever. One thing is for certain that these individuals are most certainly suffering from a compulsively Obsessive disorder an fixation about myself. The likes of David Butler as demonstrated this very serious level of compulsive obsession now for almost 2 decades. This has to be described as a quite an extreme disorder to the extent that I have been advised that is probably dangerous. I didn't need anyone to tell me that as the degree and magnitude of his cognisant and intellectual problems together with irrationality is self-evident.

1

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 October 2019 - 01:41 PM

View Postoldbowler, on 17 October 2019 - 12:06 PM, said:

Is there any legal or statutory obligation for ACC to advise claimants that earnings related weekly compensation is available to them? I'm thinking of a situation where someone may tell ACC about loss of earning policy they have with another insurance company.
Is ACC legally obligated to advise the client that that compensation is available regardless of other private insurance?


To answer your question the answer is yes.
The legislation requires ACC to determine its liability to fund all of the entitlements under the act.
ACC's failure to comply with the legislation would of course be fraud by omission in the same context as failure to disclose is a lie by omission and when there is a lie by omission for pecuniary advantage then it is insurance fraud. When there is a duty of care to administer the act on the claimant's behalf and there exists mechanisms within the ACC to avoid compliance with that duty to administer the act for financial gain then of course we must be talking about sedition as well.

As for your suggested that the ACC has some form of policy I think you must put out of your mind any notion that the ACC is entitled to have a policy. The legislation simply does not permit the ACC to have "policy". This is one of those spin doctoring words.

It is quite simple the ACC are compelled under the act to administer the act. There is no such thing as something other than that that the ACC may entertain.

The calculation of entitlements is base exclusively on independently relevantly qualified specialist providers of information. No information whatsoever may be generated from within the ACC.

With regards to private insurance there is nothing in the ACC legislation that would even begin to suggest a person may obtain such private insurance in addition and or above what the ACC are compelled to provide the claimant in the event that the various criteria require such payment.


Put simply if it is not in the law it is not unlawful.

1

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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