ACCforum: Reinstatement of Weekly Conpensation - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Reinstatement of Weekly Conpensation

#21 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 14 April 2020 - 07:22 PM

View PostSammy5570, on 07 April 2020 - 12:04 PM, said:

Hello again,
Well I did get retired and am now on weekly compensation. However, they have calculated it based on earnings from 2012, when I started working part time, rather than on my annual salary at the time I stopped working altogether. As I have worked hard and had promotion in that 8 year period, they are assessing me on almost 30K less than my annual salary at the time I left.... surely this is not right???

I would have thought they would have to calculate based on 80% of my annual salary for the past 52 weeks, and not take into account the part time top up that they were already paying me?? surely they can't say my salary was less, because they paid some of it??
0+-


The sections that you need to look at is

Corporation to pay weekly compensation after first week of incapacity
32 Corporation to pay weekly compensation for loss of earnings to claimant
who was earner
(1) The Corporation is liable to pay weekly compensation for loss of earnings to a
claimant who—
(a) has an incapacity resulting from a personal injury for which he or she
has cover; and
(B)/> was an earner immediately before his or her incapacity commenced.
(2) The claimant is entitled to weekly compensation for loss of earnings—
(a) on and from the day after the first week of incapacity ends; and
(B)/> for any period of incapacity, after that first week, resulting from the personal
injury for which he or she has cover.
(3) The weekly compensation payable is 80% of the claimant’s weekly earnings, as
calculated under clauses 33 to 45 and 48.
(4) Subclause (3) is subject to clauses 46, 51, 52, and 53.
(5) The amount of weekly compensation payable to the claimant must be adjusted
in the manner provided in section 115.
(6) In this clause, earner includes a person who has purchased weekly compensation
under section 223.
Compare: 1998 No 114 Schedule 1 cl 7
Employee in permanent employment
Heading: amended, on 1 July 2010, by section 47(1) of the Accident Compensation Amendment Act
2010 (2010 No 1).
33 Weekly earnings if earner had earnings as employee immediately before
incapacity commenced: application of clause 34
(1) Clause 34 applies to a claimant who—
(a) was an earner immediately before his or her incapacity commenced; and
(B)/> was in permanent employment at that time; and
© had earnings as an employee from that permanent employment at that
time.
(2) If the claimant had permanent employment with more than 1 employer at that
time, the weekly earnings of the claimant, in respect of each employer he or
she had at that time, are as calculated separately under clause 34 and aggregated
under clause 41.
Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001
Reprinted as at
17 December 2016
276
(3) For the purposes of this clause and clause 34, the claimant is regarded as having
been in permanent employment if, in the opinion of the Corporation, he or
she would have continued to receive earnings from that employment for a continuous
period of more than 12 months after the date on which his or her incapacity
commenced, if he or she had not suffered the personal injury.
(4) Subclause (5) applies if—
(a) the claimant was in permanent employment (that was full-time employment)
as an employee immediately before his or her incapacity commenced;
and
(B)/> before the employment, the claimant was employed by the same employer
for less than 30 hours per week.
(5) The weekly earnings of the claimant is the greater of—
(a) the claimant’s weekly earnings calculated in accordance with clause 34:
(B)/> the claimant’s weekly earnings calculated in accordance with clause 36,
as if the claimant were not in permanent employment immediately before
his or her incapacity commenced.
Schedule 1 clause 33: substituted, on 1 July 2010, by section 47(1) of the Accident Compensation
Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 1).

You will need to take into account the meaning of the word Incapacity

103 Corporation to determine incapacity of claimant who, at time of personal
injury, was earner or on unpaid parental leave
(1) The Corporation must determine under this section the incapacity of—
(a) a claimant who was an earner at the time he or she suffered the personal
injury:
(B)/> a claimant who was on unpaid parental leave at the time he or she suffered
the personal injury.
(2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant is
unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in
which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.
(3) If the answer under subsection (2) is that the claimant is unable to engage in
such employment, the claimant is incapacitated for employment.

(4) The references in subsections (1) and (2) to a personal injury are references to a
personal injury for which the person has cover under this Act.
(5) Subsection (4) is for the avoidance of doubt.

You should look at section 103 (ignore section 105 as it does not apply to you )

Incapacity does not mean disability and the question is when did your injury incapacity prevent you from engaging in the employment .

My suggestion would be to ask the case manager how did they interpenetrate the legislation and how did they determine that unable engage in employment was in 2012 and not the later date the employment ceased.
0

#22 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 14 April 2020 - 09:01 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 April 2020 - 09:25 PM, said:

Doppelgänger of course it is fruitless for you to be arguing points of principle, behaviour of the ACC or any kind of injustices that you might perceive.
What matters is what the legislation actually states in the form of criteria for purposes of determining entitlement. Everything else is actually irrelevant.

I've already explained to you that if the person is injured and incapacitated permanently then the claimant is entitled to their earnings compensation from the date of their injury forward. In the event that they do achieve meaningful work and gain earnings for that work that does not in any way or form alter the ACC liability by with legislation regarding the permanent nature of the entitlements. All it means is that the ACC carry out a calculation in accordance with the abatement of earnings legislation right up until 2012 in the case of the author of this thread. Anything else is a corruption of the legislated criteria which provides support to ACC misbehaviour. I therefore strongly urge you to focus your mind and efforts on the obedience to legislative criteria.


Thank you for confirming again that you know what you are doing. You know that you are deliberately misleading everyone. You might want to do the research on Leiming and FBI. How the FBI confirmed that the denial is the conformation of knowing you are misleading persons.



View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 April 2020 - 09:25 PM, said:

When you are injured did it initially prevent you from returning to your original occupation?
Did ACC carry out a determination that you were permanently incapacitated in accordance with section 60 of the 1992 legislation?

If it was determined that your injuries were permanent Under section 60 that means that from that day forward, even if you recovered, you are covered. The purpose of this is in case you again deteriorated as seems to be the case now so as you would have an immediate return to earnings compensation. Throughout the entire period up until now the ACC should have been calculating abatement of earnings with regards to your earnings while permanently incapacitated to earn in your preinjury occupation. I trust this is not too confusing but that is the way the legislation works and the courts have insisted the ACC follow.


Just to clarify you are correct in applying the legislation complete the part of the section

1988 had the accident and become incapacitated due to the Accident

Between 1988 and sometime latter claimant returns to employment and earns in excess if updated relative earnings You need no more information so use the KISS principle or become stupid. You don't need know the date when the earnings was in excess of updated relative earnings.

The weekly amount of earnings related compensation to be paid to
him initially after the making of the assessment in respect of
that permanent loss of earning capacity (if any), which amount
shall, subject to subsection (8) of this section, be 80 percent
of the weekly amount assessed under paragraph (d) of this
subsection, or any greater weekly amount that may for the time
being be payable to him in consequence of the injury in
accordance with section 61 of this Act---
and shall pay him earnings related compensation in accordance with the
assessment.

(3) In making its assessment under subsection (1) of this section, the
Corporation shall have regard to section 59 (3) and (8) of this Act and
the said provisions shall apply to such an assessment as if any
reference to temporary loss of earning capacity were a reference to
permanent loss or diminution of capacity to earn and permanent loss of
earning capacity.

Failing to carry out the calculation will confirm you know what you are doing and that you already know there is no entitlement to compensation under section 60.
0

#23 User is offline   han308 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 24-April 07

Posted 16 April 2020 - 09:46 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 07 April 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

The entitlement of earnings compensation has absolutely nothing to do with what you have been earning subsequent to your injury and incapacity to earn prior to your injury. Any money that you learn after your injury only provides the ACC with a discount by way of abatement of earnings. This avoids you double dipping.

So in short your earnings compensation entitlement is based on 80% of your preinjury earnings and if your injury is permanent under the old scheme it is calculating on your projected earnings had you not been injured. Forget about what you have been earning since as that has nothing to do with the base calculation of earnings compensation entitlements.

You should be looking at the legislation rather than what you perceive to be fair. If you don't think the legislation is fair then you need to be talking to a member of Parliament to get the act changed.


Hello,
I thought I would ask a few questions about this subject.
Alan, are you saying ACC gets an effective "discount" if the client earns more money while on reduced hours covered by weekly comp, and so the more the client earns, the less ACC has to compensate? Leaving the employer to pay more?
If this is, and its not illegal for ACC, surely it is unethical?

I would have expected if a client works a 30 hours week and has the 10 hours weekly comp to make up the 40 hour week equivalent, ACC should pay for the 10 hours at the clients hourly rate?

Cheers, han
0

#24 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 April 2020 - 11:17 AM

View Posthan308, on 16 April 2020 - 09:46 AM, said:

Hello,
I thought I would ask a few questions about this subject.
Alan, are you saying ACC gets an effective "discount" if the client earns more money while on reduced hours covered by weekly comp, and so the more the client earns, the less ACC has to compensate? Leaving the employer to pay more?
If this is, and its not illegal for ACC, surely it is unethical?

I would have expected if a client works a 30 hours week and has the 10 hours weekly comp to make up the 40 hour week equivalent, ACC should pay for the 10 hours at the clients hourly rate?

Cheers, han

Firstly Han the injured are not clients. This is a derogatory term by the ACC and has no basis in law. To be a client the ACC would have had to engage in some type of productive service in exchange for us paying the ACC something. ACC have a duty under legislation to perform certain tasks described in legislation. This would make the legislation the client on behalf of New Zealand as a whole who have paid into the scheme insurance premiums/levies. As the levies are compulsory they are not in the form of an optional contract safer example insurance cover you would have with those they insure. We are claimants to entitlements as described under the ACC legislation.


Earnings compensation exists because of incapacity to earn because of injury. That injury can have an increasing or decreasing effect over time. For exampleThe claimant may disregard the medical advice and engage in work task activities that is outside of their capacity, or even the ACC independent medical assessment makes a determination that it is safe for the claimant to work and over time it is proven that that advice was wrong.

In addition the legislation has the expectation that if the claimant has a residual capacity that that capacity should be utilised so as to reduce the burden upon the ACC scheme to the maximum extent practicable while having regard for the nature of the injuries, in other words don't harm yourself further.

To accommodate these realities the legislators have very wisely determined that it would be unacceptable for someone to be working and receiving earnings for that work while at the same time receiving earnings compensation when in fact the person has generated earnings as well. In other words it would be wrong to double-dip.

The earnings compensation prior to 1992 is fixed at 80% of the preinjury earnings capacity for temporary disability to earn and 80% of the projected earnings capacity of the incapacity as permanent. This is to accommodate the development and advancement of someone's career. So if you were in a go nowhere occupation with little prospect of improvement the compensation would properly not change. However if your a go ahead progressive person engaged in occupation where there is a clearly defined career pathway with expectation of increased earnings then those increased earning potential would be reflected in the earnings compensation. Whether self-employed or employed any work and earnings occurring by the claimant that would be in direct proportion to the work done. In other words if employed the employer would have the benefit of an able-bodied person who in productive work from which the employer obtains a profit to the company and that the claimant receives their sheer of that profits in the form of the hourly wages etc.


To reduce the ACC liability it appears that it has callously and cold-blooded lea disregarded the requirement to determine whether or not someone is permanently incapacitated. This number is truly large which demonstrates a massive insurance fraud on behalf the ACC.

I don't understand why you would imagine and why would pay anything more. The legislation is quite clear on this in as much as the employers limit to contribute towards earnings compensation is only for the first week of disability and nothing more. I trust that you are not some kind of conspiracy theorist like doppelgänger and others Who perceive sinister things in all manner of different issues and when they don't understand the legislation they simply dump a whole lot in your lap expecting your imagination to run wild without connection to any particular thing In the hope that they will get another person ranting and raving. I trust that you are not destined to be one of these loonies.




0

#25 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2622
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 16 April 2020 - 12:40 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 April 2020 - 11:17 AM, said:

Firstly Han the injured are not clients. This is a derogatory term by the ACC and has no basis in law. To be a client the ACC would have had to engage in some type of productive service in exchange for us paying the ACC something. ACC have a duty under legislation to perform certain tasks described in legislation. This would make the legislation the client on behalf of New Zealand as a whole who have paid into the scheme insurance premiums/levies. As the levies are compulsory they are not in the form of an optional contract safer example insurance cover you would have with those they insure. We are claimants to entitlements as described under the ACC legislation.


Earnings compensation exists because of incapacity to earn because of injury. That injury can have an increasing or decreasing effect over time. For exampleThe claimant may disregard the medical advice and engage in work task activities that is outside of their capacity, or even the ACC independent medical assessment makes a determination that it is safe for the claimant to work and over time it is proven that that advice was wrong.

In addition the legislation has the expectation that if the claimant has a residual capacity that that capacity should be utilised so as to reduce the burden upon the ACC scheme to the maximum extent practicable while having regard for the nature of the injuries, in other words don't harm yourself further.

To accommodate these realities the legislators have very wisely determined that it would be unacceptable for someone to be working and receiving earnings for that work while at the same time receiving earnings compensation when in fact the person has generated earnings as well. In other words it would be wrong to double-dip.

The earnings compensation prior to 1992 is fixed at 80% of the preinjury earnings capacity for temporary disability to earn and 80% of the projected earnings capacity of the incapacity as permanent. This is to accommodate the development and advancement of someone's career. So if you were in a go nowhere occupation with little prospect of improvement the compensation would properly not change. However if your a go ahead progressive person engaged in occupation where there is a clearly defined career pathway with expectation of increased earnings then those increased earning potential would be reflected in the earnings compensation. Whether self-employed or employed any work and earnings occurring by the claimant that would be in direct proportion to the work done. In other words if employed the employer would have the benefit of an able-bodied person who in productive work from which the employer obtains a profit to the company and that the claimant receives their sheer of that profits in the form of the hourly wages etc.


To reduce the ACC liability it appears that it has callously and cold-blooded lea disregarded the requirement to determine whether or not someone is permanently incapacitated. This number is truly large which demonstrates a massive insurance fraud on behalf the ACC.

I don't understand why you would imagine and why would pay anything more. The legislation is quite clear on this in as much as the employers limit to contribute towards earnings compensation is only for the first week of disability and nothing more. I trust that you are not some kind of conspiracy theorist like doppelgänger and others Who perceive sinister things in all manner of different issues and when they don't understand the legislation they simply dump a whole lot in your lap expecting your imagination to run wild without connection to any particular thing In the hope that they will get another person ranting and raving. I trust that you are not destined to be one of these loonies.





Thomas

I am a client of ACC
As are all acc claimants
Learn the English language you PILLOCK and stop giving advice via your bullying orders of MUCH false information



THOMAS
the legislation is quite clear
As in your case when you are suspected of committing an offence against the LAW-ACC legislative acts then you are investigated
subsequently as you found out after you were investigated and told many lies to acc to try and cover your ass you were charged with committing an offence [may of] being -The Use of documents for pecuniary gain for yourself and /or others,

Prior to you being taken to court your claim that you rant on and on about as being some sort of valid claim ,YOUR CLAIM due to the bullshit you provided to the acc -was PLACED AS = A TOTAL DECLINATION OF CLAIM, in full meaning you were removed from the acc system as having a valid claim for your alleged injuries.
Confirming the acc decision to annul your claim in total, You were found guilty of the many charges against you and received the sentence set down on you by the courts.

your the last one who should be out here giving advice
as we can all see for the last 30 years all your attempts using your own Posted Image/>advice similar as you still give out ,was COMPLETELY USELESS AND OF NO VALIDITY.
Never worked for you and it sure aint going to work for anyone else , other than have them end up with no claim at all and before the courts.
2

#26 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 April 2020 - 05:22 PM

View PostHemi, on 16 April 2020 - 12:40 PM, said:

Thomas

I am a client of ACC
As are all acc claimants
Learn the English language you PILLOCK and stop giving advice via your bullying orders of MUCH false information



THOMAS
the legislation is quite clear
As in your case when you are suspected of committing an offence against the LAW-ACC legislative acts then you are investigated
subsequently as you found out after you were investigated and told many lies to acc to try and cover your ass you were charged with committing an offence [may of] being -The Use of documents for pecuniary gain for yourself and /or others,

Prior to you being taken to court your claim that you rant on and on about as being some sort of valid claim ,YOUR CLAIM due to the bullshit you provided to the acc -was PLACED AS = A TOTAL DECLINATION OF CLAIM, in full meaning you were removed from the acc system as having a valid claim for your alleged injuries.
Confirming the acc decision to annul your claim in total, You were found guilty of the many charges against you and received the sentence set down on you by the courts.

your the last one who should be out here giving advice
as we can all see for the last 30 years all your attempts using your own Posted Image/>advice similar as you still give out ,was COMPLETELY USELESS AND OF NO VALIDITY.
Never worked for you and it sure aint going to work for anyone else , other than have them end up with no claim at all and before the courts.


You need to learn your English before you criticise Those who have a working grass of English.

ACC have informed the court that my claim is a valid claim and that they accept my claim on the basis that I am injured and incapacitated to work in accordance with what the medical profession have told the. So what on earth are you talking about?
The ACC also acknowledge that the law does not permit them to cancel a claim. Judge Barbar reconfirmed this point of law. As such no claim can ever be annulled as you put it. It would be helpful if you stopped telling people what you continue to imagine and instead studied the law.
In addition repeatedly judges congratulate me on my comprehensive grasp of the ACC legislation.

The current situation is that the ACC have been directed three times in a row to comply with the legislation by making the arrangements and funding the relevant independent medical assessments. If you want to be helpful you ought to write a letter to the ACC reminding them of the duties to comply with the legislation so as I can enjoy the benefits of the legislation by being paid all my entitlements together with interest, as is the requirement in my case. Why is it that you defend the indefensible?

David Butler please take you and your multiple identities elsewhere. Perhaps you would enjoy using the other site ACCfocus.org. Two down two to go

0

#27 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 April 2020 - 07:10 PM

View Posthan308, on 16 April 2020 - 09:46 AM, said:

Hello,
I thought I would ask a few questions about this subject.
Alan, are you saying ACC gets an effective "discount" if the client earns more money while on reduced hours covered by weekly comp, and so the more the client earns, the less ACC has to compensate? Leaving the employer to pay more?
If this is, and its not illegal for ACC, surely it is unethical?

I would have expected if a client works a 30 hours week and has the 10 hours weekly comp to make up the 40 hour week equivalent, ACC should pay for the 10 hours at the clients hourly rate?

Cheers, han


I agree with you han. that Alan thinks that ACC gets a discount when a claimant works and earns. The agreement between the public and Government was based on the known activity that happened to the disability after the 2 world war.

That is to enable the persons with disabilities be able to earn to the maximum capacity.

The client of ACC may be working 30 hours and therefore will be entitled to there make up to there full relative earnings.

The Relative earnings is meant to be kept level with inflation, where is should be aligned with wages of the Government employees.

This is alright for persons who are professional administers at the age of over 50 where inflation keeps up with pay increases were a person under 25 of age will also have a increase in wages due to experience and skills. many will then earn above the relative earnings.

You are woundering if that person should be paid the entitlement based on the latest earnings level.

You might want to study Clause 32 from part 2 schedule 2 of the Act. Those sections have been posted.in this thread and it decides how to determine incapacity in employment at the time of loss of employment/ injury.
0

#28 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 April 2020 - 08:54 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 April 2020 - 05:22 PM, said:

You need to learn your English before you criticise Those who have a working grass of English.




The only person who is has the working grass of English is the Poster of the post.

More than likely he is not on grass but is a regular user of some other chemical stuff as can be seen by his statements.
0

#29 User is offline   Sammy5570 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 18-June 12

Posted 17 April 2020 - 10:20 AM

Thank you to those who responded constructively. I'd prefer if you didn't use my post to conduct your mudslinging... I was simply looking for assistance. I have what I need now, no further replies needed at this point thanks
0

#30 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2622
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 17 April 2020 - 11:00 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 April 2020 - 05:22 PM, said:

You need to learn your English before you criticise Those who have a working grass of English.

ACC have informed the court that my claim is a valid claim and that they accept my claim on the basis that I am injured and incapacitated to work in accordance with what the medical profession have told the. So what on earth are you talking about?
The ACC also acknowledge that the law does not permit them to cancel a claim. Judge Barbar reconfirmed this point of law. As such no claim can ever be annulled as you put it. It would be helpful if you stopped telling people what you continue to imagine and instead studied the law.
In addition repeatedly judges congratulate me on my comprehensive grasp of the ACC legislation.

The current situation is that the ACC have been directed three times in a row to comply with the legislation by making the arrangements and funding the relevant independent medical assessments. If you want to be helpful you ought to write a letter to the ACC reminding them of the duties to comply with the legislation so as I can enjoy the benefits of the legislation by being paid all my entitlements together with interest, as is the requirement in my case. Why is it that you defend the indefensible?

David Butler please take you and your multiple identities elsewhere. Perhaps you would enjoy using the other site ACCfocus.org. Two down two to go


Well perhaps you can back up what you claim as YOU ARE a 'CLIENT' of the ACC Thomas.
proper acc documentation to prove what you claim is needed as your word is worthless out here
Is the claim you allege that acc have informed the court as being valid the 1989 Boating event where you suffered alleged injuries as that what acc declinated.
proof of the 1989 claim being reinstated thus UN - DECLINATED is required for anyone to believe what you claim here.
i would think from your many wordsmithing posts you are simply unable to answer truthfully on it and leaving out the 1989 claim and using other later alleged injuries that you have claimed for ,as the basis for stating acc have informed the courts your claim is valid
acc can refuse to cover pay out on any claim Thomas
especially when there is fraud involved in such as your case being declinated in full
you think you can break the law and get away with it

not a shite show of that happening thomas especially as you were working when you were receiving acc entitlements thus double dipping..

Come on Thomas-time to front up with the documentation of what /exactly what claim the acc told the courts is still valid.

On the english language ,In general, the word Client means someone who is using the services of a person or entity,
As you paid the acc to supply services to you YOU ARE INDEED A CLIENT OF THE ACC.
2 down :lol:/>
even with your self proclaimed knowledge and alleged> [not shown to be so yet thomas] expertise of the acc legislation your the one thats down and cant get up again.

hey bozo !
hows the respirator project going used all that $$$$$$$ funding yet, with all the Work your doing on project management ,design ,making assembly ,testing supply process's etc.
0

#31 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1964
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 17 April 2020 - 04:23 PM

in as being entitled to the acc entitlements etc . criteria must be met . as the corporation being the insurer . and the insuree. but as in receiving those entitlements etc can be an issue between both parties .nothing has changed and possibly will be more difficult times ahead as one as a insuree achieving results in ones favour :rolleyes:
0

#32 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1964
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 17 April 2020 - 04:28 PM

BTW .regardless of being a client , insuree etc . of acc corporation nz .can allan . give an update as to where he is to date with the corporation as in lost entitlements being restored :D
1

#33 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 20 April 2020 - 10:32 PM

View PostSammy5570, on 17 April 2020 - 10:20 AM, said:

Thank you to those who responded constructively. I'd prefer if you didn't use my post to conduct your mudslinging... I was simply looking for assistance. I have what I need now, no further replies needed at this point thanks


Sorry about correcting Alan Thommas as he has mislead a number of persons because he thinks that no one else should have ACC because he is not getting what he wants.

Alan Thomas is working as a corporate psycho works in telling everyone what he believes is correct when knowing it is incorrect.

ACC staff and their advisers (Lawyers) also use the same practices telling judges that not supplying irrelevant information is an offence and therefore believe that because the claimant did not inform ACC specific information the claimant is not entitled to entitlements.
0

#34 User is offline   Sammy5570 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 18-June 12

Posted 24 April 2020 - 10:39 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 20 April 2020 - 10:32 PM, said:

Sorry about correcting Alan Thommas as he has mislead a number of persons because he thinks that no one else should have ACC because he is not getting what he wants.

Alan Thomas is working as a corporate psycho works in telling everyone what he believes is correct when knowing it is incorrect.

ACC staff and their advisers (Lawyers) also use the same practices telling judges that not supplying irrelevant information is an offence and therefore believe that because the claimant did not inform ACC specific information the claimant is not entitled to entitlements.


Thank you for your messages. I think the point that I may not have made clear here, is that I was never assessed for incapacity until late 2019. This was the first time I had a Section 103 assessment. Hence why I think that in fact should be the date from which they take my earning related compensation calculations.
0

#35 User is offline   Sammy5570 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 18-June 12

Posted 24 April 2020 - 11:01 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 April 2020 - 02:51 PM, said:

Sammy as you have not provided all the information necessary it is impossible to provide you with any meaningful answer.

When you are injured did it initially prevent you from returning to your original occupation?
Did ACC carry out a determination that you were permanently incapacitated in accordance with section 60 of the 1992 legislation?

If it was determined that your injuries were permanent Under section 60 that means that from that day forward, even if you recovered, you are covered. The purpose of this is in case you again deteriorated as seems to be the case now so as you would have an immediate return to earnings compensation. Throughout the entire period up until now the ACC should have been calculating abatement of earnings with regards to your earnings while permanently incapacitated to earn in your preinjury occupation. I trust this is not too confusing but that is the way the legislation works and the courts have insisted the ACC follow.

Im revisiting this, to answer your questions, I got very confused earlier, and couldn't take it all in. In response, I never returned to my previous occupation. ACC never undertook a section 60 at anytime since my accident in 1988. I returned to work in a different role, (pretty much was forced into this by case manager in early 1990's, and now understand they had night right to do this under the 1982 Act, under which im covered) and worked full time for 12 years, then reduced to part time with ACC topping up my salary to my full time hours. Retired from work all together in January 2020, due to inability to carry on. Was sent to a Section 103 at this time, and was deemed unable to return to pre-injury occupation as a result of that assessment.
0

#36 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 April 2020 - 11:03 AM

View PostSammy5570, on 24 April 2020 - 10:39 AM, said:

Thank you for your messages. I think the point that I may not have made clear here, is that I was never assessed for incapacity until late 2019. This was the first time I had a Section 103 assessment. Hence why I think that in fact should be the date from which they take my earning related compensation calculations.


As it appears you have never recovered from your original injuries of which the claim was submitted under the 1982 legislation you will not be entitled to a section 103 assessment to determine ongoing incapacity. That is not how the legislation works. What appears that the ACC have done is ended up making an assessment under the current legislation in order to bypass all of the earnings compensation owed to you from that decision under the 1982 legislation until the present. Naturally if you have learned anything during that time by utilising your residual capacity in of course ACC would be entitled to a discount in relation to those earnings. But they are not permitted in law to escape the full liability as described by legislation. That is insurance fraud.
0

#37 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 27 April 2020 - 11:59 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 14 April 2020 - 07:22 PM, said:

The sections that you need to look at is

Corporation to pay weekly compensation after first week of incapacity
32 Corporation to pay weekly compensation for loss of earnings to claimant
who was earner
(1) The Corporation is liable to pay weekly compensation for loss of earnings to a
claimant who—
(a) has an incapacity resulting from a personal injury for which he or she
has cover; and
(B)/>/> was an earner immediately before his or her incapacity commenced.
(2) The claimant is entitled to weekly compensation for loss of earnings—
(a) on and from the day after the first week of incapacity ends; and
(B)/>/> for any period of incapacity, after that first week, resulting from the personal
injury for which he or she has cover.
(3) The weekly compensation payable is 80% of the claimant’s weekly earnings, as
calculated under clauses 33 to 45 and 48.
(4) Subclause (3) is subject to clauses 46, 51, 52, and 53.
(5) The amount of weekly compensation payable to the claimant must be adjusted
in the manner provided in section 115.
(6) In this clause, earner includes a person who has purchased weekly compensation
under section 223.
Compare: 1998 No 114 Schedule 1 cl 7
Employee in permanent employment
Heading: amended, on 1 July 2010, by section 47(1) of the Accident Compensation Amendment Act
2010 (2010 No 1).
33 Weekly earnings if earner had earnings as employee immediately before
incapacity commenced: application of clause 34
(1) Clause 34 applies to a claimant who—
(a) was an earner immediately before his or her incapacity commenced; and
(B)/>/> was in permanent employment at that time; and
© had earnings as an employee from that permanent employment at that
time.

(2) If the claimant had permanent employment with more than 1 employer at that
time, the weekly earnings of the claimant, in respect of each employer he or
she had at that time, are as calculated separately under clause 34 and aggregated
under clause 41.
(3) For the purposes of this clause and clause 34, the claimant is regarded as having
been in permanent employment if, in the opinion of the Corporation, he or
she would have continued to receive earnings from that employment for a continuous
period of more than 12 months after the date on which his or her incapacity
commenced, if he or she had not suffered the personal injury.
(4) Subclause (5) applies if—
(a) the claimant was in permanent employment (that was full-time employment)
as an employee immediately before his or her incapacity commenced;
and
(B)/> before the employment, the claimant was employed by the same employer
for less than 30 hours per week.
(5) The weekly earnings of the claimant is the greater of—
(a) the claimant’s weekly earnings calculated in accordance with clause 34:
(B)/> the claimant’s weekly earnings calculated in accordance with clause 36,
as if the claimant were not in permanent employment immediately before
his or her incapacity commenced.
Schedule 1 clause 33: substituted, on 1 July 2010, by section 47(1) of the Accident Compensation
Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 1).

You will need to take into account the meaning of the word Incapacity

103 Corporation to determine incapacity of claimant who, at time of personal
injury, was earner or on unpaid parental leave
(1) The Corporation must determine under this section the incapacity of—
(a) a claimant who was an earner at the time he or she suffered the personal
injury:
(B)/>/> a claimant who was on unpaid parental leave at the time he or she suffered
the personal injury.
(2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant is
unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in
which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.
(3) If the answer under subsection (2) is that the claimant is unable to engage in
such employment, the claimant is incapacitated for employment.

(4) The references in subsections (1) and (2) to a personal injury are references to a
personal injury for which the person has cover under this Act.
(5) Subsection (4) is for the avoidance of doubt.

You should look at section 103 (ignore section 105 as it does not apply to you )

Incapacity does not mean disability and the question is when did your injury incapacity prevent you from engaging in the employment .

My suggestion would be to ask the case manager how did they interpenetrate the legislation and how did they determine that unable engage in employment was in 2012 and not the later date the employment ceased.



I would suggest that you read the clauses in how the calculation is calculated.

Do a search on the court decisions using clause 32, 33. you will find decisions there on this matter.

Ignore Alan Thomas suggestions as he does not want you to recieve your rightful entitlements.
0

#38 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 28 April 2020 - 12:14 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 14 April 2020 - 07:22 PM, said:

The sections that you need to look at is

Corporation to pay weekly compensation after first week of incapacity
32 Corporation to pay weekly compensation for loss of earnings to claimant
who was earner
(1) The Corporation is liable to pay weekly compensation for loss of earnings to a
claimant who—
(a) has an incapacity resulting from a personal injury for which he or she
has cover; and
(B)/>/> was an earner immediately before his or her incapacity commenced.
(2) The claimant is entitled to weekly compensation for loss of earnings—
(a) on and from the day after the first week of incapacity ends; and
(B)/>/> for any period of incapacity, after that first week, resulting from the personal
injury for which he or she has cover.
(3) The weekly compensation payable is 80% of the claimant’s weekly earnings, as
calculated under clauses 33 to 45 and 48.
(4) Subclause (3) is subject to clauses 46, 51, 52, and 53.
(5) The amount of weekly compensation payable to the claimant must be adjusted
in the manner provided in section 115.
(6) In this clause, earner includes a person who has purchased weekly compensation
under section 223.
Compare: 1998 No 114 Schedule 1 cl 7
Employee in permanent employment
Heading: amended, on 1 July 2010, by section 47(1) of the Accident Compensation Amendment Act
2010 (2010 No 1).
33 Weekly earnings if earner had earnings as employee immediately before
incapacity commenced: application of clause 34
(1) Clause 34 applies to a claimant who—
(a) was an earner immediately before his or her incapacity commenced; and
(B)/>/> was in permanent employment at that time; and
© had earnings as an employee from that permanent employment at that
time.

(2) If the claimant had permanent employment with more than 1 employer at that
time, the weekly earnings of the claimant, in respect of each employer he or
she had at that time, are as calculated separately under clause 34 and aggregated
under clause 41.
(3) For the purposes of this clause and clause 34, the claimant is regarded as having
been in permanent employment if, in the opinion of the Corporation, he or
she would have continued to receive earnings from that employment for a continuous
period of more than 12 months after the date on which his or her incapacity
commenced, if he or she had not suffered the personal injury.
(4) Subclause (5) applies if—
(a) the claimant was in permanent employment (that was full-time employment)
as an employee immediately before his or her incapacity commenced;
and
(B)/> before the employment, the claimant was employed by the same employer
for less than 30 hours per week.
(5) The weekly earnings of the claimant is the greater of—
(a) the claimant’s weekly earnings calculated in accordance with clause 34:
(B)/> the claimant’s weekly earnings calculated in accordance with clause 36,
as if the claimant were not in permanent employment immediately before
his or her incapacity commenced.
Schedule 1 clause 33: substituted, on 1 July 2010, by section 47(1) of the Accident Compensation
Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 1).

You will need to take into account the meaning of the word Incapacity

103 Corporation to determine incapacity of claimant who, at time of personal
injury, was earner or on unpaid parental leave
(1) The Corporation must determine under this section the incapacity of—
(a) a claimant who was an earner at the time he or she suffered the personal
injury:
(B)/>/> a claimant who was on unpaid parental leave at the time he or she suffered
the personal injury.
(2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant is
unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in
which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.
(3) If the answer under subsection (2) is that the claimant is unable to engage in
such employment, the claimant is incapacitated for employment.

(4) The references in subsections (1) and (2) to a personal injury are references to a
personal injury for which the person has cover under this Act.
(5) Subsection (4) is for the avoidance of doubt.

You should look at section 103 (ignore section 105 as it does not apply to you )

Incapacity does not mean disability and the question is when did your injury incapacity prevent you from engaging in the employment .

My suggestion would be to ask the case manager how did they interpenetrate the legislation and how did they determine that unable engage in employment was in 2012 and not the later date the employment ceased.


[quote]
Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001

36 Weekly earnings if earner had earnings as employee not in permanent
employment immediately before incapacity commenced: calculations
(1) This subclause applies to each of the 4 weeks after the first week of incapacity.
The claimant’s weekly earnings for each of the 4 weeks are calculated using
the following formula:
a
b

where—
a is the claimant’s earnings as an employee (from all employment that was
not permanent employment) in the 4 weeks immediately before his or
her incapacity commenced
b is the number of full or part weeks during which the claimant earned
those earnings as an employee in the 4 weeks immediately before his or
her incapacity commenced.
(2) This subclause applies to any weekly period of incapacity after the 4 weeks described
in subclause (1). The claimant’s weekly earnings for any such weekly
period are calculated using the following formula:
a
b
where—
a is the claimant’s earnings as an employee (from all employment that was
not permanent employment) in the 52 weeks immediately before his or
her incapacity commenced
b is 52 or such smaller number, if adjustments are required under subclause
(4).
(3) For the purposes of this clause the following must be disregarded in calculating
weekly earnings:
(a) any period during which the claimant was entitled to weekly compensation:
(b) any continuous period of unpaid sick leave, during a period of employment,
of more than 1 week:
© any period during which—
(i) the claimant did not receive earnings as an employee; and
(ii) the claimant did receive earnings as a self-employed person or as
a shareholder-employee; and
(iii) those earnings ceased before the commencement of the claimant’s
incapacity:
(d) any earnings in respect of any period under paragraph (a), (b), or ©.
(4) In item b of the formula set out in subclause (2), the expression 52 is adjusted
by deducting from it any number of weekly periods that subclause (3)(a), (b),
or © applies to.
(5) For the purposes of subclause (3)©, the Corporation may determine the number
of weeks that fairly and reasonably represent the period during which the
claimant received earnings as a self-employed person or as a shareholderemployee.

Schedule 1 clause 36: substituted, on 1 July 2010, by section 47(1) of the Accident Compensation
Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 1).

I would suggest that you read the clauses in how the calculation is calculated.
0

Share this topic:


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

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users