ACCforum: Repeat - Review options besides Fairways - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Repeat - Review options besides Fairways

#1 User is offline   mabel88 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 20-April 10

Posted 30 October 2019 - 07:47 AM

Newbie
Pip
Group:Members
Posts:9
Joined:20-April 10
Posted 24 October 2019 - 10:09 AM
https://www.acc.co.n...stomer-reviews/


Does anyone know how the claimant is supposed to be informed that
they have a choice in Providers to handle the review?
The claimant gets the choice, right? If so - how do we get that information?

It isn't included on the Review Application'Info that I can see..
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10573
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 October 2019 - 11:10 AM

View Postmabel88, on 30 October 2019 - 07:47 AM, said:

Newbie
Pip
Group:Members
Posts:9
Joined:20-April 10
Posted 24 October 2019 - 10:09 AM
https://www.acc.co.n...stomer-reviews/


Does anyone know how the claimant is supposed to be informed that
they have a choice in Providers to handle the review?
The claimant gets the choice, right? If so - how do we get that information?

It isn't included on the Review Application'Info that I can see..



Your posting is interesting inasmuch as it raises certain points of law.

Legislation requires ACC to make all the arrangements for review hearings and to appoint the reviewers.


This means that ACC cannot commission third parties with regard to these judicial duties.

The consequence of these points of law is that there is no choice and other providers from which you can choose a reviewer.


The evidence of this reality is obvious and as much as ACC are not lawfully permitted to promote unlawful reviewers.

In the event that a reviewer is unlawful it means that the decision arrived that has no basis in law.


However if you spontaneously appoint a reviewer then responsibility is your own as to the outcome.

There is a viewpoint towards a point of law and as much as all of the review hearing is arranged by Fairway whereby the reviewer has been appointed by fairway and even an employee of fairway who may even be supervised by fairway as to what is law and what is not law or what is favoured caselaw et cetera have produced review decisions that are in effect a nullity. In other words a gigantic con.


Far from trying to find a favourable reviewer you should be looking at enforcing the law.

0

#3 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1217
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 30 October 2019 - 02:08 PM

Wrong Thomas

ACC have a contract with another organisation to do reviews.

mabel88 if you didnt want Fairway hearing your review then ask ACC to arrange for the review to be done by the new organisation that is contracted to do reviews.

One would hope that ACC would be informing claimants of this new provider but bear in mind it is just new so may need to be implemented yet.
0

#4 User is offline   mabel88 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 20-April 10

Posted 30 October 2019 - 02:18 PM

Thank you for the response. I know claimant s cannot appoint Reviewers. But as I understand it, Claimants can now choose between 3 Review Providers.
Although this doesn't spell that out.. I am told we do have a choice/input of which outfit handles it.
My question is whether anyone has the information about this as distributed to clients.

####
New providers on board

https://www.acc.co.n...stomer-reviews/

'From today, The Independent Complaint and Review Authority Ltd. (ICRA) will provide independent reviewer and dispute resolution services alongside FairWay Resolution Ltd. The ICRA is a subsidiary of the New Zealand Dispute Resolution Centre.

Talk Meet Resolve will also provide Alternative Dispute Resolution services, focusing on using conciliation. They can help at any time where we all agree that an independent conciliator can help us to resolve issues.

Independent Complaint and Review Authority Ltd. (ICRA)

FairWay Resolution Ltd.

Talk Meet Resolve'


Mabel



quote name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1572390653' post='265018']
Your posting is interesting inasmuch as it raises certain points of law.

Legislation requires ACC to make all the arrangements for review hearings and to appoint the reviewers.


This means that ACC cannot commission third parties with regard to these judicial duties.

The consequence of these points of law is that there is no choice and other providers from which you can choose a reviewer.


The evidence of this reality is obvious and as much as ACC are not lawfully permitted to promote unlawful reviewers.

In the event that a reviewer is unlawful it means that the decision arrived that has no basis in law.


However if you spontaneously appoint a reviewer then responsibility is your own as to the outcome.

There is a viewpoint towards a point of law and as much as all of the review hearing is arranged by Fairway whereby the reviewer has been appointed by fairway and even an employee of fairway who may even be supervised by fairway as to what is law and what is not law or what is favoured caselaw et cetera have produced review decisions that are in effect a nullity. In other words a gigantic con.


Far from trying to find a favourable reviewer you should be looking at enforcing the law.
[/quote]
0

#5 User is offline   mabel88 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 20-April 10

Posted 30 October 2019 - 02:25 PM

Thanks Huggy
Ya.. I just want to see how they inform the claimant. The info should be on the review information sheet.
It has been implemented but ACC does not always inform of it and unless we get the explanation- claimants can be in the dark about it.





View PostHuggy, on 30 October 2019 - 02:08 PM, said:

Wrong Thomas

ACC have a contract with another organisation to do reviews.

mabel88 if you didnt want Fairway hearing your review then ask ACC to arrange for the review to be done by the new organisation that is contracted to do reviews.

One would hope that ACC would be informing claimants of this new provider but bear in mind it is just new so may need to be implemented yet.

0

#6 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1217
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 30 October 2019 - 02:36 PM

There is only one other provider for review hearings so now we have Fairway and the new provider Independent Complaint and Review Authority Ltd. (ICRA).

Talk, meet resolve is a conciliation service and not a review service.
0

#7 User is offline   mabel88 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 20-April 10

Posted 30 October 2019 - 02:38 PM

Check.thanks for that .
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10573
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 October 2019 - 02:48 PM

View Postmabel88, on 30 October 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

Thank you for the response. I know claimant s cannot appoint Reviewers. But as I understand it, Claimants can now choose between 3 Review Providers.
Although this doesn't spell that out.. I am told we do have a choice/input of which outfit handles it.
My question is whether anyone has the information about this as distributed to clients.

####
New providers on board

https://www.acc.co.n...stomer-reviews/

'From today, The Independent Complaint and Review Authority Ltd. (ICRA) will provide independent reviewer and dispute resolution services alongside FairWay Resolution Ltd. The ICRA is a subsidiary of the New Zealand Dispute Resolution Centre.

Talk Meet Resolve will also provide Alternative Dispute Resolution services, focusing on using conciliation. They can help at any time where we all agree that an independent conciliator can help us to resolve issues.

Independent Complaint and Review Authority Ltd. (ICRA)

FairWay Resolution Ltd.

Talk Meet Resolve'


Mabel



quote name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1572390653' post='265018']

Your posting is interesting inasmuch as it raises certain points of law.

Legislation requires ACC to make all the arrangements for review hearings and to appoint the reviewers.


This means that ACC cannot commission third parties with regard to these judicial duties.

The consequence of these points of law is that there is no choice and other providers from which you can choose a reviewer.


The evidence of this reality is obvious and as much as ACC are not lawfully permitted to promote unlawful reviewers.

In the event that a reviewer is unlawful it means that the decision arrived that has no basis in law.


However if you spontaneously appoint a reviewer then responsibility is your own as to the outcome.

There is a viewpoint towards a point of law and as much as all of the review hearing is arranged by Fairway whereby the reviewer has been appointed by fairway and even an employee of fairway who may even be supervised by fairway as to what is law and what is not law or what is favoured caselaw et cetera have produced review decisions that are in effect a nullity. In other words a gigantic con.


Far from trying to find a favourable reviewer you should be looking at enforcing the law.



The point that I'm making is that ACC do not have the authority within legislation to delegate their duty to a third party in order to permit that third party to elect their own reviewers, put them on their staff and instruct them how to carry out review hearings. That being the case any decision made by such a review hearing is not within the law. In turn that means that ACC claimants cannot choose a reviewer to their own liking by shopping for a reviewer amongst these various competing companies. if you are able to select a company together with a preferred reviewer then the reviewer would not be independent.

As it is unlawful it is doubtful that the ACC would be so stupid as to advertise the fact By distributing their illegal conduct in the form of some kind of instruction or choice or option when the only option is for the ACC to appoint the reviewer in order to maintain total independence.
When we see the likes of Fairway "educating" their reviewers in the way of reviewing and making decisions along with supplying the reviewer with a selection of preferred judgements it cannot be argued by Fairway or the ACC that the reviewer is independent but rather is under the influence of fairway who maintains their commercial status with ACC by achieving the criteria within the ACC fairway contract instead of ACC complying with legislation as the mode of instruction/criteria in order to maintain independence.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10573
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 October 2019 - 02:57 PM

View PostHuggy, on 30 October 2019 - 02:36 PM, said:

There is only one other provider for review hearings so now we have Fairway and the new provider Independent Complaint and Review Authority Ltd. (ICRA).

Talk, meet resolve is a conciliation service and not a review service.


In what fantasy world is Independent complaint and review authority limited and "authority"? Will John Green, a former ACC employed in reviewer continue to be a reviewer and presiding over matters under the authority of the so-called authority? And by what authority? And by what way could be claimed there exists an independence? If John Green cannot comprehend the true nature of independence how could claim to be a reviewer? The same question could go to any reviewer employed by anybody or any agency as opposed to being commissioned directly by the ACC in accordance with the legislated criteria of independence.

A little side note here addresses further diminishment of the right to be heard by all of these so-called agencies who have elected not to have face-to-face review hearings but rather try to do them by the telephone instead. A course limited liability companies have a duty to their directors and shareholders to make profit. Making additional profit that they are not entitled to have by way of cutting back on the right to be heard by reducing the hearing to a telephone conference is just one indication as to how much trouble ACC are in.

The ACC have a duty to arrange for independent review hearings by an independent reviewer and in the event that this is not arranged within three months the decision automatically defers to a decision on the claimant's favour. It does seem to me that an awful large number of review hearing decisions have been automated into a claimant's favour as the ACC not complied with the legislated criteria in these matters.

0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10573
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 October 2019 - 02:59 PM

Maple 88 I suggest that you wait for three months after the review hearing application has been made and right to the ACC asking them for acknowledgement that the review hearing has converted to a decision in your favour. When you go to have that decision enforced by the ACC's lack of action by another review hearing concerning the delay of process to compliance of that automated decision no doubt the ACC will refer the application to yet another agency not complying with legislation.
we should be very careful what we agreed to as far as an alternative to a review hearing in accordance with legislation as the legislation does permits an alternative to the proper procedure so long as there is consent by all relevant parties. Perhaps You should be asking ACC by letter what is the legislator criteria and step-by-step compliance by all parties including yourself to ensure that the legislation has been satisfied to the extent that the decision being arrived at by the reviewer is in fact lawful. Ask for this information under the official information act with the expectation that you will have the answer within 20 days.

Perhaps someone could offer their thoughts with regards to what constitutes a duly authorised and lawful review hearing from the application made by the claimant through to the completion of the hearing.
0

#11 User is offline   mabel88 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 20-April 10

Posted 30 October 2019 - 03:29 PM

I get what you mean but my question did not go anywhere near;
'The point that I'm making is that ACC do not have the authority within legislation to delegate their duty to a third party in order to permit that third party to elect their own reviewers'

There is a thing that claimants get to choose between ***Review Providers*** from the 2 ..... not the Reviewer!!




View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 October 2019 - 02:48 PM, said:

The point that I'm making is that ACC do not have the authority within legislation to delega



te their duty to a third party in order to permit that third party to elect their own reviewers, put them on their staff and instruct them how to carry out review hearings. That being the case any decision made by such a review hearing is not within the law. In turn that means that ACC claimants cannot choose a reviewer to their own liking by shopping for a reviewer amongst these various competing companies. if you are able to select a company together with a preferred reviewer then the reviewer would not be independent.

As it is unlawful it is doubtful that the ACC would be so stupid as to advertise the fact By distributing their illegal conduct in the form of some kind of instruction or choice or option when the only option is for the ACC to appoint the reviewer in order to maintain total independence.
When we see the likes of Fairway "educating" their reviewers in the way of reviewing and making decisions along with supplying the reviewer with a selection of preferred judgements it cannot be argued by Fairway or the ACC that the reviewer is independent but rather is under the influence of fairway who maintains their commercial status with ACC by achieving the criteria within the ACC fairway contract instead of ACC complying with legislation as the mode of instruction/criteria in order to maintain independence.

0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10573
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 October 2019 - 04:27 PM

View Postmabel88, on 30 October 2019 - 03:29 PM, said:

I get what you mean but my question did not go anywhere near;
'The point that I'm making is that ACC do not have the authority within legislation to delegate their duty to a third party in order to permit that third party to elect their own reviewers'

There is a thing that claimants get to choose between ***Review Providers*** from the 2 ..... not the Reviewer!!






What I am saying is don't be seduced into choosing something that is not in accordance with the law and in your best interests. Do not make a choice that is the of the ACC or any individual seeking to make money out of your situation.

The point that I'm making is that claimants do not have a legal right to select a "Review Provider" solely for the reason being that the ACC are the only ones that are lawfully entitled to select and commission reviewers as they are the administrators of the law and are duty bound in accordance with that more to ensure their independence. My point is that once a limited liability company employs reviewers on staff or even contracts reviewers then the reviewers become subservient to that company and are therefore not independent. I presume that the ACC have taken the viewpoint that so long as the reviewer is independent from them that they are independent. However this cannot be the case as any limited liability company having a contract with the ACC will be seeking to keep in good with the ACC so as to maintain their contract and in turn will be ensuring that the reviewers are Obeying company policy and in order to adhere to this contract. The contract cannot under any circumstance replace the legislation which is essentially what the ACC are attempting to do.

As a claimant having a dispute all you can do is apply for a review hearing in accordance with section 135
135 How to apply for review
(1)A review application is made by giving an application that complies with subsection (2) to the Corporation.

(2)The application must—


(a)be written:

(b)whenever practicable, be made on the form made available by the Corporation for the purpose:

©identify the decision or decisions in respect of which it is made:

(d)state the grounds on which it is made:

(e)if known by the applicant, state the relief sought:

(f)be made within 3 months of—

(i)the date on which the claimant has a decision under section 58; or

(ii)the date on which the Corporation gives notice under section 64; or

(iii)in the case of a decision under the Code, the date on which the claimant is notified of the decision:

(g)in the case of a review application relating to a claim for entitlement, not be made less than 21 days after the date the claim for entitlement is made.
(3)Despite subsection (2)(f) and (g) and any time frame prescribed in regulations made under section 328A for the lodgement of a review application, the Corporation must accept a late application if satisfied that there are extenuating circumstances that affected the ability of the claimant to meet the time limits, such as—


(a)where the claimant was so affected or traumatised by the personal injury giving rise to the review that he or she was unable to consider his or her review rights; or

(b)where the claimant made reasonable arrangements to have the application made on his or her behalf by an agent of the claimant, and the agent unreasonably failed to ensure that the application was made within the required time; or

©where the Corporation failed to notify the claimant of the obligations of persons making an application.

An additional consideration is as follows under section 35 a
Time frame for lodging review application where alternative dispute resolution conducted about same matter
(1)This section applies to a review application about a matter if an alternative dispute resolution procedure is conducted about the same matter.

(2)A review application to which this section applies must be lodged within the relevant time frame stated in section 135(2) unless regulations made under section 328A prescribe otherwise.




It is the ACC that must acknowledge your application and reply in writing in accordance with section 136




ACC in turn must comply with section 137S 137

Corporation to engage and allocate reviewers
(1)The Corporation must engage as many persons as it considers necessary to be reviewers under this Part.

(2)As soon as practicable after receiving an application for review, the Corporation must arrange for the allocation of a reviewer to the review even if it considers that there is no right of review in the circumstances.

(3)If for any reason the Corporation has to allocate a new reviewer to a review, the Corporation must do this as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the need to allocate a new reviewer.

As you can see it as the ACC that are required to engage the reviewers which in no way can be confused with ACC having a contract with a limited liability company who in turn engages reviewers.


s138 Reviewer’s duty to act independently and disclose previous involvement
(1)A reviewer must act independently when conducting a review.

(2)A reviewer to whom the Corporation proposes to allocate a review must disclose to the Corporation any previous involvement that the reviewer has had in the claim other than as a reviewer.

A review must act independently. This means that the reviewer cannot enter into any kind of contract with any third party concerning the review such as an employer and may not contract with regards to a review hearing with anyone other than the ACC otherwise they cannot be claiming to be independent.


s139 Corporation’s duties to secure independence of reviewer
(1)The Corporation must not engage as a reviewer a person who is currently—


(a)employed by the Corporation; or

(Posted Imageengaged by the Corporation to make decisions on claims in a capacity other than that of reviewer; or

©employed or engaged by a subsidiary of the Corporation.
(2)[Repealed]

(3)The Corporation must not include in a contract with a reviewer any term or condition that could have the effect, directly or indirectly, of influencing the reviewer, when conducting a review, in favour of the Corporation.

(4)The Corporation must not allocate a claim to a reviewer who discloses to the Corporation any previous involvement in the claim other than as a reviewer.

Not only is the ACC not able to appoint a reviewer who is employed by the corporation or engage in any capacity to make decisions regarding claims or any subsidiary of the corporation.

Dispute resolution services Ltd was a subsidiary of the ACC and as this newcomer reviewer limited liability company is also a subsidiary of the ACC by way of being a subsidiary of dispute resolution services Ltd it follows that none of their employees or agents can be reviewers. As is with the case of Fairway, Michael Dunn a former employee of the ACC then a manager of Fairway cannot possibly entertain the idea of being a reviewer. Notwithstanding that impossibility he carried out review hearing is nonetheless and my own case purported to carry out a review hearing of 93 review hearings in one go with a lot of his review hearing processes happening without my presence when ACC provided him with full access to all of my files without my permission.

Legislation commissions the various state servants including ACC servants with duties and responsibilities to administer ACC legislation. When state servants go that extra step of being granted the authority to administer judicial procedures that dealing with sacred things so sacred that if they were to be compromised to the extent that justice is being misled or corrupted then they would be personally liable to a term of imprisonment of up to 7 years thus demonstrating the very serious nature of the duties. There is no circumstances whereby any state servant including the ACC may contract out of these sacred judicial duties such as the ensuring of the independence and appropriateness of the reviewers and the review hearing processes.

Quite obviouslyif ACC have a contract for commercial gain with the company and that company then has a contract with a reviewer no one in their right mind could ever conceive of a possibility whereby they would claim the reviewer not to be in any way influenced by the succession of contracts with the ACC. Of course no one could expect a reviewer to be independent in such circumstances. Good intentions and reassurances are not a substitute for strict obedience to the section of law.






Maple 88 I'm sorry to be so wordy and legalistic in response to your plight, which of course is the plight of many, and they awful reality of what you are facing whereby ACC has abandoned the legislated criteria and downgraded your rights to a fair hearing with breaches of natural justice of the magnitude that I've just described in circumstances whereby more likely than not your health and well-being and financial well-being are more than likely at stake.



I must reiterate my previous suggestion that you must get the paperwork in that locks and loads your position ready for the day when all review hearing decisions will be automated to be found in the favour of the claimant due to the fact that the ACC has failed to comply with the legislated criteria in these judicial arrangements. What of course the ACC are gearing up to is that they are planning to make a claim that everyone has voluntarily accepted an alternative hearing process and have willingly accepted what was available as an alternative which is of course an option permitted in law. I believe this will be the true reason why the ACC have not come right out and stated in clear language that nobody can get a review hearing whereby the ACC have commissioned the independence of the reviewer but instead are left no alternative but to select one of the Agencies offering alternatives. No doubt ACC will no doubt think that as a result of the fact that they employ a very large legal team that there is some fancy footwork they can do regarding explaining how they have deviated from the letter of the law in favour of something that is more convenient to themselves and profitable to others. After all these other companies will not exist unless there was dollars to be made to keep ACC happy.




Follow the money trail

0

#13 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1217
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 30 October 2019 - 05:47 PM

mabel88 dont worry about Thomas's ramblings, he is not reliable and accurate in his writings. His criminal history is well conversed in this forum.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10573
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 October 2019 - 05:53 PM

View PostHuggy, on 30 October 2019 - 05:47 PM, said:

mabel88 dont worry about Thomas's ramblings, he is not reliable and accurate in his writings. His criminal history is well conversed in this forum.


Are you claiming that I am wrong on a point of law regarding these matters?
If you are making such a claim what is the rationale/ point of law that you rely upon?

0

#15 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1900
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 30 October 2019 - 06:13 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 October 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

Are you claiming that I am wrong on a point of law regarding these matters?
If you are making such a claim what is the rationale/ point of law that you rely upon?

one would question your approach to the corporation , allan , ie legislation ,,,v/s policy , as in communicating , as in with the claimant and the corporation …….reaching an aimiable outcome ………….. :rolleyes:
1

#16 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1900
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 30 October 2019 - 06:16 PM

View Posttommy, on 30 October 2019 - 06:13 PM, said:

one would question your approach to the corporation , allan , ie legislation ,,,v/s policy , as in communicating , as in with the claimant and the corporation …….reaching an aimiable outcome ………….. :rolleyes:/>

hence such where are you to date as in resolving your ;long standing lost erc wc being restored ,,,allan :rolleyes:
1

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10573
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 October 2019 - 07:07 PM

View Posttommy, on 30 October 2019 - 06:13 PM, said:

one would question your approach to the corporation , allan , ie legislation ,,,v/s policy , as in communicating , as in with the claimant and the corporation …….reaching an aimiable outcome ………….. Posted Image


Legislation does not permit the ACC to have policy.
Legislation requires the ACC to restrict itself to administering the legislation, nothing more nothing less.

The legislation is not something that is negotiable as you seem to imagine.
Part five of the legislation provides us the means by which we can enforce ACC's obedience to the legislation.

0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10573
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 October 2019 - 07:07 PM

View Posttommy, on 30 October 2019 - 06:16 PM, said:

hence such where are you to date as in resolving your ;long standing lost erc wc being restored ,,,allan Posted Image


Reported
Being a nuisance and off topic

0

#19 User is offline   mabel88 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 20-April 10

Posted 31 October 2019 - 11:30 AM

I appreciate all the replies. I check in with this forum on occasion and know the lay of the land pretty much though I dont get into it.
Note I have had mostly good results from ACC decisions over the last 20 + years - and the inevitable following Reviews for myself and those I acted for on behalf.
So I am careful to take with a grain of salt just about everything.
However, I do recognize the need for a rant, even if off-topic and inaccurate.. and I choose not to get drawn into all the JAZZ between claimants/ between Advocates and those with scar tissue.
Mimi I do sit up with your postings and have been given insight on the same.

So .. carry on you crazy bunch !!!







name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1572419246' post='265054']
Reported
Being a nuisance and off topic
[/quote]
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10573
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 October 2019 - 12:16 PM

View Postmabel88, on 31 October 2019 - 11:30 AM, said:

I appreciate all the replies. I check in with this forum on occasion and know the lay of the land pretty much though I dont get into it.
Note I have had mostly good results from ACC decisions over the last 20 + years - and the inevitable following Reviews for myself and those I acted for on behalf.
So I am careful to take with a grain of salt just about everything.
However, I do recognize the need for a rant, even if off-topic and inaccurate.. and I choose not to get drawn into all the JAZZ between claimants/ between Advocates and those with scar tissue.
Mimi I do sit up with your postings and have been given insight on the same.

So .. carry on you crazy bunch !!!







name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1572419246' post='265054']
Reported
Being a nuisance and off topic


Disagreeing on a point of law is not being off topic but rather both healthy and necessary for the advancement of the purity of law.
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