Alan Thomas, on 24 October 2019 - 01:41 PM, said:
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.
as there are two claims of being as in the acc corporation , v/s outside insurers ,one must check as in the second party insurer you have checked the ,fine print as in your claim can be jeopordised as in double dipping ,,,,,ie the second insurer , will not pay out ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,