ACCforum: acc moraly bankcrupt - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

acc moraly bankcrupt John Monigati hit man

#1 User is offline   Bruce Gardiner 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 26-October 16

Posted 21 October 2019 - 12:25 PM

TO ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
URGENT
14/01/18

BruceGardiner

264Borman rd Hamilton

3210 ph 078545539 0272455674.

Iam writing to ask that Parliament take a look at the practice of Acc using nontreating Dr’s to write reports that are favourable to the corporation.

Inthe past I have complained about this practise and have been told that thereare very strict protocols and that the non treating Dr’s must take note of thetreating Dr’s records and comment’s.

Inreality this is not the case .

Thesenon treating Dr’s are so far removed from reality that they no longer have thepatient’s health and wellbeing in their thoughts

Theyhave been bought and paid for by Acc and that is reflected in their reports.

Justto refresh you people about my case, I was involved in a serious accident thatresulted in the death of a teenager.

Thefirst Dr that I seen after the accident made me pay the full consultation cost,he said that acc would not cover your accident.

Tome this was and always will be a catastrophic accident as I was very close tolosing my own life .

2low life non treating Dr’s have put in their reports to Acc that I did not havean accident as defined and I did not have an injury as defined.

The reviewer has made a finding that heis not qualified to make, in fact I doubt that even the village idiot couldcome up with the same finding.

The reviewerhas found that my PTSD was not caused by the accident with the boy it was onlytriggered by the sight of the boy standing in front of my tanker.

The fact isthat the boy was not standing in front of my tanker he was running into thefront of my tanker.

The fact thatthe reviewer used the word triggered is proof positive that there was collusionbetween the reviewer and Dr John Monigati because Acc has used the wordtriggered on me before after another accident.

Ibelieve that the practise of using non treating Dr’s has to stop as it isrepugnant to natural justice.

Ialso believe that when these non treating Dr’s write reports that are not inthe best interest of the patients they are breaching the Hippocratic Oath thatthey took when they became a Dr.

Ialso believe that I have good grounds to sue Acc for no cover.

When the Acc law was changed on the 1stApril 2001 it was in breach of the bill of right’s as it discriminated on thegrounds of causation.

Pleasenote the reviewer and the Dr both used the word triggered.

Atthe review hearing I had 4 Specialists they collectively had 120 yearsexperience in their field of expertise.

Acchad 3 Dr’s 1 specialists and 2 GP’s Acc”s specialists said that the DSM saidthat it was a disorder and that is where it lies however he expresses hispersonal view that it was a physical injury in the brain.

Acc’sBMA GP said the same but she also expressed her personal view that it was aphysical injury in the brain.

Acc’sthird Dr who by his own admission has no experience in the field of medicinethat this case was about, was able to wipe out ny 4 specialist with 120 yearsexperience as well as his 2 colleges and convince the reviewer that I had nothad an accident and my PTSD was only triggered by this event. Can I please saythis my accident was on Saturday 18 May 2002 I still have nightmares andflashbacks I have not moved on from this event as I am still at the scene.

MyGP was the mental health registrar at Waikato Hospital and he received a letterfrom Acc instructing him to make a diagnoses based on the DSM and not on hismedical knowledge.

TheDSM was written for American law that is totally different from NZ law so whyare Acc allowed to use it ?

Nowfor something that you may not know.

Iinjured both shoulders in a accident inside a shipping container

Ihad full thickness tears in the ligaments of both shoulders as well as rupturedtendants.

Wouldyou believe that the acc Dr said that the injuries were not caused by the accidentthey were only triggered by the accident

Afterthe accident with the boy the reviewer said my ptsd was not caused by theaccident it was triggered by the sight of the boy standing in front of mytanker ? the boy was not standing in front he was running into the front

Theacc Dr said that my ptsd not caused by an accident as specified by sec 25 ofthe acct it was triggered by the unpleasant emotional experience of seeing theboy in front of his tanker.

Acchave used the word triggered 3 times against me and each time they have won.

Imade an official information acct request to ask acc how many claims wererejected each year because the patients injuries were not caused by theiraccident and only triggered by it.

Theanswer 8000 in the last year .

Myview is that if Acc were as big in statue as they are in principle then theycould kiss a rats arse without bending their knees.



RegardsBruce Gardiner

Ph078545539 0272455674




Bruce Gardiner

264 Borman rdHamilton 3210

Ph 078545539 0272455674


To all membersof Parliament / copy to CEO ACC /DR John Monigati and DR Greg Finucane/Fairways resolution /all TV channels /All major News Papers /Human Right’s commissionin Geneva
Is the AccCorporation one of the most corrupt Insurance companies of all time?
Below is a briefhistory of my accident.

On the 18thMay 2002 at 10am I lost all enjoyment in life I was driving a milk tanker on state highway27 Patetonga.

I seen a man standing on the side of the road watchingthe traffic go by.

As I got closer theman changed his stance to that of a runner about to take off in a race

Because of thisunusual stance I looked at him and he looked directly into my eyes.

I got the impressionthat he was judging time and distance.

At the sametime all of the hair on the back of my neck stood up on end and my blood rancold my heart was racing

and my lower back waspounding.

I had just realizedthat the man was going to commit suicide so I swerved my truck to go aroundhim.

And then therewas a bang like what I have never heard before and the cold that I felt secondsearlier seems to be worse and my lower back was pounding even harder than a fewseconds before .The bang was like 3 of 4 bangs at once.

I now had abattle to save myself from a roll over because I had swerved my trailer wasgoing to punish me by rolling my truck.

The pounding in mylower back was now like a jackhammer but I managed to remain focus and regaincontrol of my truck and bring it to a stop.

The poundingin my back was extreme and I could not feel my legs they felt like rubber.

This all took placeover a matter of seconds and I believe that in that short time I would have had3 or 4 releases of Adrenalin and Cortisol.

I climbed out of thetruck a different person than when I climbed in.

Since going throughthis nightmare I have lost all enjoyment in life as I used to know it.

I have had flashbacksand nightmare’s and wakeup in the night crying .

During the accidentthe radio telephone came out of it’s cradle and hit me in the chest and on thehead.

I was diagnosed withPost Traumatic Stress Disorder and was told that I should not drive for aliving anymore.

So I thought that Accwould come to the party and help after all they are 24/7 no fault right !!!! wrong!!!!!! .

Acc have been totalarse wipes from day one.

AT a review hearing Ihad medical reports written by 4 Neuropsychiatrist’s one of these psychiatristshad the title of professor and the 4 had a collective experience in the fieldof mental health of over 120 years.

Acc on the other handhad one Dr with no experience in mental health and one psychiatrist withlimited experience in mental health. This is obvious by comments inhis report

Let’s look at whatthe 2 Corporation Dr’s had to say.

Dr Greg Finucane Mr. Gardiner’s PTSD was not caused by anaccident it was caused by experiences shortly before impact and possibly fromexperiences shortly after impact he has not said why that would be the case..

He also states thatthe DSM-IV says that to get a diagnoses of PTSD the event had to be accompaniedby intense fear helplessness or horror. As I was the person at the controls ofthe truck I can say that the whole 3 of those were present in abundance. Any suggestionthat they were not by Greg Finucane is a finding that could only have come fromthe village idiot, howeverin Greg’s defense he has expressed his own personal view that PTSD is aphysical injury.

So let’s now have alook at what Dr John Monigati had to say.

Mr Gardiners PTSD wascaused buy the unpleasant emotional experience he went through on 18thof May 2002 That is theone to be preferred.

However Dr Monigatihas also expressed the view .Ithink it reasonable to accept that his chest contusion although not serious wassustained in a life threatening event..

Sadly I have to putDr Monigati in the ranks of village idot as well as Grege Finucane and also thereviewer R M Carter.I find it impossible that 3 people can come to the sameanswer unless there has been collusion between the 3 .

They have all saidPTSD not the result of the accident becausethe accident was not an accident as defined by section 25 of the acct What a load of bullshit

That there was nofear helplessness or horror in this event.

And that my PTSD wascaused before impact .another a load of bullshit .

So there was noconnection between the accident and my PTSD.

Can I ask this, if Ihad seen the boy and was able to avoid the impact and subsequent loss ofcontrol and fear for my own life would I still have got PTSD ?!!!

It is blatantlyobvious that the 2 low life Dr’s and the reviewer got together after thehearing and that the 3 individuals areto close to the pockets of Acc to have come up with any other findings.

Acc wrote to my Drand asked him to make a diagnosis based on the DSM-IV.I believe a Dr should only make a diagnosis based on hismedical knowledge. Not on a half baked manual from America that is aligned toAmerican Law.

There is researchfrom the four corners of the earth that PTSD is a physical injury in the brain,Acc’s own Dr’s express that privately .

The reason the DSMmanual has PTSD classified as a disorder is because if it was classified as aninjury then the suing industry in America would have the mother of all fielddays.

To close I do notaccept that I was not involved in an accident on that day in 2002, I also do acceptthat that accident and physical injures did cause my life to end as Iused to know it at 10am on that day.

I also do not acceptthat a Dr with no experience in the field of mental health can overrule 4specialists with a combined total of 120 years experience

I cannot believe thata drunk driver has more rights than I do.

If section 25 26 and 27 can be used against me then I would have to say the 2002 Accacct is a piece of shit .

The reviewer’sfinding was inconsistent with the evidence that was presented. However it wasconsistent with what Dr John Monigati had to say.

How is it possiblefor a person with no experience in mental health to overrule 6 Dr’s that haveover 120 years respectively in that field.

I have to draw theconclusion that if Acc were as big in statue as they are in principle theycould kiss a rat’s arse without bending their knees

Regards BruceGardiner

Ph 078545539 0272455674

















1

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10588
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 October 2019 - 02:11 PM

Bruce I have read your posting carefully and have given it a great deal of thought, notwithstanding there is still a lot more to learn to make any meaningful Comment.

However I think there is a couple of features that need to have very careful consideration.

You don't say whether or not the ACC had accepted your claim for cover or are simply arguing about the degree of disability calculated after accepting cover.

In accordance with the legislated criteria your accident event needs to have a physical injury before the ACC can accept cover. Once ACC have accepted cover for a physical injury they then have liability to provide entitlements for not only the physical injuries but also the post-traumatic stress disorder elements of your disability. These cause and effect situations must be properly documented before anyone can make any meaningful comment with regards to how the legislation should have been applied in your case.

It is important that you realise and factor into your response to your circumstances the extent of cover ACC legislation provides. ACC legislation was set up to remove blame from those causing the accident along with those responsible for your accident such as your employer to prevent you from suing them. It follows then that if the ACC legislation does not cover your particular circumstances the way is open for you to sue the person who run in front of you and/or your employer to expose you to this kind of danger and is therefore responsible for your subsequent financial well-being. The reality is you would be able to sue your employer for far more than you ever received from the ACC. What cannot be done is for you to sue both your employer and the ACC is that would be double dipping. However the fact remains that you are an innocent party of whom either ACC or the employer must accept financial liability for your current predicament.

I do trust these thoughts will be helpful. If you need further understanding of the ACC legislation please do not hesitate in asking me as I am known to be a willing civilian able to help and routinely do without cost or obligation. You will also note that my stand on these matters has resulted in huge amounts of opposition from ACC and those who seek to cozy up to the ACC.

-3

#3 User is offline   Bruce Gardiner 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 26-October 16

Posted 22 October 2019 - 01:52 PM

Thank you.

View PostAlan Thomas, on 21 October 2019 - 02:11 PM, said:

Bruce I have read your posting carefully and have given it a great deal of thought, notwithstanding there is still a lot more to learn to make any meaningful Comment.

However I think there is a couple of features that need to have very careful consideration.

You don't say whether or not the ACC had accepted your claim for cover or are simply arguing about the degree of disability calculated after accepting cover.

In accordance with the legislated criteria your accident event needs to have a physical injury before the ACC can accept cover. Once ACC have accepted cover for a physical injury they then have liability to provide entitlements for not only the physical injuries but also the post-traumatic stress disorder elements of your disability. These cause and effect situations must be properly documented before anyone can make any meaningful comment with regards to how the legislation should have been applied in your case.

It is important that you realise and factor into your response to your circumstances the extent of cover ACC legislation provides. ACC legislation was set up to remove blame from those causing the accident along with those responsible for your accident such as your employer to prevent you from suing them. It follows then that if the ACC legislation does not cover your particular circumstances the way is open for you to sue the person who run in front of you and/or your employer to expose you to this kind of danger and is therefore responsible for your subsequent financial well-being. The reality is you would be able to sue your employer for far more than you ever received from the ACC. What cannot be done is for you to sue both your employer and the ACC is that would be double dipping. However the fact remains that you are an innocent party of whom either ACC or the employer must accept financial liability for your current predicament.

I do trust these thoughts will be helpful. If you need further understanding of the ACC legislation please do not hesitate in asking me as I am known to be a willing civilian able to help and routinely do without cost or obligation. You will also note that my stand on these matters has resulted in huge amounts of opposition from ACC and those who seek to cozy up to the ACC.


1

#4 User is offline   Tish 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 23-September 15

Posted 22 October 2019 - 08:07 PM

Monigatti sits very high on my shit list and garnered himself 3 Statements of Correction to live inside ACC files in perpetuity outlining every lie and fabrication, misuse of information and documents, misrepresentation of documentation and failure to perform due diligence and insist on every document relevant to a case be provided and the claim fully investigated before performing his bogus pretence of doing his job. A dirty dog bought and ridden by ACC.

That's the clean version of my opinion.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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