ACCforum: The new ACC dispute review body - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

The new ACC dispute review body Be Warnned

#1 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 28 March 2020 - 11:05 AM

ACC are able to make ‘any’ decision they like on a claim providing they provide you with the right to review that decision. The review body was previously Fairway Resolution, still operating, but another has been added: ICRA.
I wish to offer a warning about ICRA. I work at a support service for ACC claimants and have come to the conclusion that while Fairway was well criticised for not being independent of ACC ICRA takes this to a new level.
ICRA works directly to ACC’s instructions and if you bring to their attention the need for independence in judicial processes they do not laugh at you – they simply get rude (ICRA can be quite rude) and confirm they do what ACC tells them, get this, as part of their contract.
Whatever your view of Fairway as a review body you may find ICRA very considerably worse.
If ICRA is put up as the review body request a different one (you have the right) or suffer the consequences.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 28 March 2020 - 12:29 PM

Perhaps a group of us should put the ACC and the various companies who are contracted with the ACC to provide review hearings together with the reviewers themselves on "JUDICIAL REVIEW". Someone like myself who is financially impoverished should be able to initiate this process without having to pay the court fees which would normally be about $1500 or more. If we relied upon the lawyer we would expect to pay between $50,000 and $100,000 in lawyer's fees and as such this might be something we need to do collectively ourselves.

As you are aware keen to help the ACC has refused to make arrangements for a number of review hearing applications that has resulted in an automated process that cause those hearings to be in my favour which then resulted in further review hearings regarding the lack of progress the ACC had made in complying with the outcome of those decisions in my favour of which also have resulted in review hearing dates being set down when I addressed the delay under the complaints system from which this process quickly escalated with a succession of further applications regarding the same delays of compliance.

As a further example there was decisions in my favour made by reviewers Of which the ACC ignored resulting in all reviewers directing the ACC to comply three times one after the other, a process that took six years. This was finally and abruptly brought to an end by the ACC then refusing to set review hearing dates resulting in the ACC getting no more directions from reviewers.

When there are issues of compliance under the ACC legislation and then those charged with the administration of that legislation ignore the directions of the proper legal authorities and then abuse their duties to arrange review hearings properly and/or manipulate with the review hearing process in all manner of different ways that you will have experienced the only way forward is the judicial review process. This should be fairly straightforward as the ACC is very clearly disregarding the legislative instruction for their own financial advantage.

-4

#3 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 28 March 2020 - 01:36 PM

View Postkeentohelp, on 28 March 2020 - 11:05 AM, said:

ACC are able to make ‘any’ decision they like on a claim providing they provide you with the right to review that decision. The review body was previously Fairway Resolution, still operating, but another has been added: ICRA.
I wish to offer a warning about ICRA. I work at a support service for ACC claimants and have come to the conclusion that while Fairway was well criticised for not being independent of ACC ICRA takes this to a new level.
ICRA works directly to ACC’s instructions and if you bring to their attention the need for independence in judicial processes they do not laugh at you – they simply get rude (ICRA can be quite rude) and confirm they do what ACC tells them, get this, as part of their contract.
Whatever your view of Fairway as a review body you may find ICRA very considerably worse.
If ICRA is put up as the review body request a different one (you have the right) or suffer the consequences.


There are a whole range of steps the new body, ICRA, are taking. To take a simple example they do not wish to hold hearings in person outside of Auckland (or even within Auckland if they can avoid it) leaving applicants talking/attending to their phones or phone screens and wondering why ACC are much better heard in the process when ACC attend via better video gear, are trained in the practice and have online access to the whole file.

Applicants speaking on their cell phone screen or even from their PC find what thery have does not cut the mustard - result, fail, both ACC and ICRA happy
0

#4 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 28 March 2020 - 02:43 PM

Keentohelp, I agree with you.

I have similar issues with ICRA.

I just wonder whether this contract that ICRA has with ACC is contracting people out of the Act contrary to s.299?

I now have a copy of the contract released under the OIA between ICRA and ACC and it states that ICRA must comply with the law.

ICRA is headed up by a John Green - if this is the same guy, he was a DRSL reviewer.

I also wonder whether ICRA reviewers are not acting within jurisdiction because there is a distinction and a separate and sequential process in the Act between a review and a hearing and a telephone case conference and then a hearing only is simply not an investigative review.

Time will tell!!!!
2

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 28 March 2020 - 03:43 PM

Magna Carta is good men do nothing how will "Time will tell" result in any kind of correction?

Surely we must rely upon the legal systems to enforce the law!!!

0

#6 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 29 March 2020 - 10:13 PM

History of John Green

Branch Manager of Dunedin Branch and thinks that ACC staff members can deliberately cause hospitalization of claimants and that that is not an offence.

He was branch manager from 1995 until it seams that he became a reviewer and a Lawyer. Started his own company.

Best way to beat these persons (reviewer) who do not have experience and skills is to treat then as Corporate Psychopathy. FBI has a number of documents on how they brought down Corporate Physchopathy.

Some reading The Devil in the Boardroom- Corporate Psychopaths and Their Impact on Business reader
Corporate Psychopathy- Talking the Walk
0

#7 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 04 April 2020 - 08:56 PM

Let me try to bring to everyone's attention again that ACC Review hearings - whether held by Fairway or ICRA - are ALL held by Zoom during lockdown but are predominantly (I mean nearly all) going to be Zoom hearings going forward and Zoom is coming under increasing scrutiny for not being secure. Zoom itself acknowledges it is not See https://www.stuff.co...sed-on-open-web
Some stuff revealed at ACC Review hearings may not be private to you the person but if you have ever read your ACC file you may well have noticed it has captured quite a lot that may well be.
ACC assured everyone when they moved hearings to Zoom it was secure but now...
0

#8 User is offline   Ericthered 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 13-August 19

Posted 08 April 2020 - 07:57 AM

View Postkeentohelp, on 28 March 2020 - 11:05 AM, said:

ACC are able to make ‘any’ decision they like on a claim providing they provide you with the right to review that decision. The review body was previously Fairway Resolution, still operating, but another has been added: ICRA.
I wish to offer a warning about ICRA. I work at a support service for ACC claimants and have come to the conclusion that while Fairway was well criticised for not being independent of ACC ICRA takes this to a new level.
ICRA works directly to ACC’s instructions and if you bring to their attention the need for independence in judicial processes they do not laugh at you – they simply get rude (ICRA can be quite rude) and confirm they do what ACC tells them, get this, as part of their contract.
Whatever your view of Fairway as a review body you may find ICRA very considerably worse.
If ICRA is put up as the review body request a different one (you have the right) or suffer the consequences.


I agree with your assessment of ICRA. I understand that they are a small company only working the Auckland Area using "Senior Case Managers" who are inexperienced and unqualified. They use Poor quality lawyers as Reviewers.
Their Reviewer Iain Lawless has recently recused my review.(Abdicated his role) when I challenged his unsatisfactory bias in an aggressive during an adversarial case conference.
ICRA messed up serving a review Hearing set down notice on me in time, so now one of my multiple review Numbers is a deemed Decision s146 in my opinion. ACC and ICRA are acting complicitly to claim I did receive the Notice.
I am likely going to change all my 30+ review Numbers back to Fairways, though both are just Toadies.
0

#9 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 10 April 2020 - 12:19 PM

View Postkeentohelp, on 04 April 2020 - 08:56 PM, said:

Let me try to bring to everyone's attention again that ACC Review hearings - whether held by Fairway or ICRA - are ALL held by Zoom during lockdown but are predominantly (I mean nearly all) going to be Zoom hearings going forward and Zoom is coming under increasing scrutiny for not being secure. Zoom itself acknowledges it is not See https://www.stuff.co...sed-on-open-web
Some stuff revealed at ACC Review hearings may not be private to you the person but if you have ever read your ACC file you may well have noticed it has captured quite a lot that may well be.
ACC assured everyone when they moved hearings to Zoom it was secure but now...


Zoom does not work with dial up and is unreliable with all of the school kids on the internet.

Like the courts they need to postpone the review hearings as evidence needs to be presented and seen by both parties.
0

#10 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 10 April 2020 - 12:24 PM

View Postkeentohelp, on 04 April 2020 - 08:56 PM, said:

Let me try to bring to everyone's attention again that ACC Review hearings - whether held by Fairway or ICRA - are ALL held by Zoom during lockdown but are predominantly (I mean nearly all) going to be Zoom hearings going forward and Zoom is coming under increasing scrutiny for not being secure. Zoom itself acknowledges it is not See https://www.stuff.co...sed-on-open-web
Some stuff revealed at ACC Review hearings may not be private to you the person but if you have ever read your ACC file you may well have noticed it has captured quite a lot that may well be.
ACC assured everyone when they moved hearings to Zoom it was secure but now...


Only dumb advocates would try to claim that the hearing can not be postponed under the legislation.
0

#11 User is offline   Ericthered 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 13-August 19

Posted 05 May 2020 - 01:17 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 March 2020 - 12:29 PM, said:

Perhaps a group of us should put the ACC and the various companies who are contracted with the ACC to provide review hearings together with the reviewers themselves on "JUDICIAL REVIEW". Someone like myself who is financially impoverished should be able to initiate this process without having to pay the court fees which would normally be about $1500 or more. If we relied upon the lawyer we would expect to pay between $50,000 and $100,000 in lawyer's fees and as such this might be something we need to do collectively ourselves.

As you are aware keen to help the ACC has refused to make arrangements for a number of review hearing applications that has resulted in an automated process that cause those hearings to be in my favour which then resulted in further review hearings regarding the lack of progress the ACC had made in complying with the outcome of those decisions in my favour of which also have resulted in review hearing dates being set down when I addressed the delay under the complaints system from which this process quickly escalated with a succession of further applications regarding the same delays of compliance.

As a further example there was decisions in my favour made by reviewers Of which the ACC ignored resulting in all reviewers directing the ACC to comply three times one after the other, a process that took six years. This was finally and abruptly brought to an end by the ACC then refusing to set review hearing dates resulting in the ACC getting no more directions from reviewers.

When there are issues of compliance under the ACC legislation and then those charged with the administration of that legislation ignore the directions of the proper legal authorities and then abuse their duties to arrange review hearings properly and/or manipulate with the review hearing process in all manner of different ways that you will have experienced the only way forward is the judicial review process. This should be fairly straightforward as the ACC is very clearly disregarding the legislative instruction for their own financial advantage.

0

#12 User is offline   Ericthered 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 13-August 19

Posted 05 May 2020 - 01:41 PM

Hi again Alan and others,

I am Auckland based and currently taking my own multiple reviews through the process. I believe that....
ACC is clearly an evil government department totally out of control that needs a bulldozer put through it and their toadies and staff. I blame the politicians for dereliction of duty.
The long list of associated ACC friendly rat-bags are bleeding this Act to death using case law is extensive. ICRA, Fairway Resolutions, Dr Giresh Kanji toadie.
The problem is that ACC is their boss - as it pays them.
Keep away from Nerve conduction studies (NCS) as they are fake used by ACC to allege Nerve Root compression via gradual process claims (ageing), even Giresh Kanji agrees they are rubbish.
NCS defies the laws of electro-physics.
I will keep this ACCforum updated as my matters progress.

ICRA and Fairways need some competition. I am interested in getting involved in this if anyone else sees an opportunity here?
In conjunction with this there needs to be pro-claimant lobby groups to lobby government for change.
The Netherlands have a much better system that doe snot use lawyers.
Is there any such non-profit Claimant lobby groups I can join?

ACC are a major owner in Kiwibank. I guess with the $30 Billion ACC holds in reserves from evading claimant liability is more than enough to buy a bank.

A question for anyone... ACC has taken some of my ACC33 Review applications and substantially altered them to suit themselves and render my review valueless. I protest! What can I do about it?
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 05 May 2020 - 04:03 PM

My observations and comments in blue

View PostEricthered, on 05 May 2020 - 01:41 PM, said:

Hi again Alan and others,

I am Auckland based and currently taking my own multiple reviews through the process. I believe that....
ACC is clearly an evil government department totally out of control that needs a bulldozer put through it and their toadies and staff. I blame the politicians for dereliction of duty.I agree that there is a dereliction of duty. Even though the legislation is not perfect it is functional. The more serious problem is ACC staff have actively defied the legislation in total disregard of the duty to administer the act. Their behaviour has been truly subversive and even going to the point of being criminal fraud when producing false documents for their own pecuniary advantage while at the same time often creating situation where there is physical harm from their intercepting claim entitlements in accordance with the legislated forthright facts supplanting such facts with their false statements or statement is not known to be true.
The long list of associated ACC friendly rat-bags are bleeding this Act to death using case law is extensive. ICRA, Fairway Resolutions, Dr Giresh Kanji toadie.
The problem is that ACC is their boss - as it pays them.Legislation requires ACC to commission "independent" information providers and reviewers. the evidence repeatedly demonstrates that the ACC routinely issue instructions to these people that render any thought of independence nullity And when it is known that the documentation being produced and Amana commissioned by the ACC for their own benefit is the version of the course of Justice combined with the insurance fraud being committed.

Keep away from Nerve conduction studies (NCS) as they are fake used by ACC to allege Nerve Root compression via gradual process claims (ageing), even Giresh Kanji agrees they are rubbish.
NCS defies the laws of electro-physics.Nerve conduction tests in my own case by the ACC preferred information provider demonstrated confirmation of my injuries. That documentation has disappeared including the invoicing yet I submit myself to those tests and saw the results.By Dr then sent me to the hospital for a similar set of nerve conductive tests the it with less sophisticated equipment. Out of the nerve groups that were tested the critical nerve described as being an injured was not tested with the report saying that there is nothing wrong with me. Various specialists seeing this information were horrified at the applications including the subversion of public hospital staff.

I will keep this ACCforum updated as my matters progress.Excellent. Your insights will be valuable to us all And form the basis of many discussions.

ICRA and Fairways need some competition.I thought your references to bulldozers were more appropriate. Keep in mind that the ACC scheme was meant to replace competition it is delivered by private enterprise. The purity of law and compliance with that law is all that we really need to have. What we need is enforcement of the law in accordance with the law by an independent judiciary. Obviously the judiciary take the form of review is under the effective direction have a chain of succession back to the ACC is not independent. Evidence such as directions to find in the claimant's favour only 30% of the time is not just suggestive but rather absolute evidence As there is no real possibility that such a figure could ever occur spontaneously. Achieving anything close to the 30% is evidence or at least indicative of compliance with such a directive.

I am interested in getting involved in this if anyone else sees an opportunity here? In conjunction with this there needs to be pro-claimant lobby groups to lobby government for change.
The Netherlands have a much better system that doe snot use lawyers.
Is there any such non-profit Claimant lobby groups I can join?Each and every support group has been subverted by the effects of gradualism. By the majority it seems that they slip into a pattern of compliance so as to avoid pressure. For example they know that if they simply submit themselves to form a decisions as being the guide rather than enforcement of the law they will have a better chance of winning by way of percentage thus achieving their allotted 30% of all cases they work on. This pattern of behaviour guarantees their maximum income. Lawyers, Except for the few, follow the same pattern. Those support groups and lawyers who buck the system get punished. For example the best lawyers in the country somehow don't manage to get a success rate above 30%. Even though they may challenge the law rigourously they find that the ACC set up a greater legal challenge against them. In my case, the biggest case in New Zealand history by way of the size of the claim and the duration in court found me as a Lay litigant alone with the writing hand disability and brain damage facing three lawyers from the ACC in the courtroom at once which is unprecedented. The judge fragmented the hearing over several years and did not even have a hearing date for final submissions and does not even appear to have addressed a single point of law in his judgement. A large number of lawyers have pointed this arrangement to be thoroughly corrupt. Contact me if you would like to become involved with http://accprotection.com/

ACC are a major owner in Kiwibank. I guess with the $30 Billion ACC holds in reserves from evading claimant liability is more than enough to buy a bank.What is ACC going to do with its contingency liability of those who continue to be incapacitated to earn as a result of their injuries. What would happen if a business failed to obey the isolation criteria resulting in both workers and customers acquiring Covid-19. This is not just a matter of death but also the majority suffering from long-term injury and capacity?

A question for anyone... ACC has taken some of my ACC33 Review applications and substantially altered them to suit themselves and render my review valueless. I protest! What can I do about it?Legislation requires ACC to arrange for a review hearing in accordance with your review here an application. Your copy of the application is the application. Their manipulation of the application is perverting the course of Justice, a criminal matter. If you have clear evidence of an alteration of document or an attempt to better the course of justice then it is a police matter as it is a matter for the criminal court. You can lay a private criminal prosecution with no cost to yourself and take it from there yourself. The definitive the you'll find is that ACC staff will benefit in secret and will have no mechanism by which they could trace the perpetrator. You also have to establish evil intent by the individual. After bringing it to the attention of the ACC that there is an anomaly between your application and theirs you engage a whole new group of people as perpetrators of crime when there is either nonaction or refusal to act . You could also ask the ACC to join you in the prosecution of their staff. This will help them do their hole deeper .

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