[Holz]

Can anyone please give me a little information about, what the "Assisted Recovery Team" is really about?

Thank you

[spacefish]

Someone else has asked similar over here:
https://accforum.org...-accs-new-face/

Apparently you have the right to ask for (and receive) individualised case management as we've received in the past.

[keentohelp]

The assisted recovery team means when you contact ACC your inquiry is handed to the first available member of that team (all the case managers who are no longer in a specialised case management role following ACC's recent 'transition' (their word not mine)). The feature you will notice most is that whoever you talk to has no idea about your case and whatever ACC contact you have had to date forgotten and in any future ACC contact the inquiry you are making not known about.

To date the 'transition' has been a dismal failure for clients but I am assured they are 'working on it'.

[magnacarta]

I was most surprised to read the following arising in the case Turner v ACC (2016) when the Act prescribes that an appeal is a rehearing of the review decision

Why bother with a costly and time-consuming review at all? :-

Question 2 – Was the Learned Judge correct in law at paragraphs [17] and [18] of his judgment to find that it is not the place of the District Court to proscribe the review jurisdiction and behaviour of the Reviewer?


[20] Judge Powell stated at paragraphs [17] and [18]:


[17] Although I understand the frustration expressed by a number of claimants appearing in review hearings, that the process at the review hearings and the conduct of reviewers generally is not subject to appellate scrutiny in this Court, the attempt to utilise the present appeal for that purpose is misconceived.
[18] The jurisdiction of reviewers, how they are to conduct hearings and how they are to make their decisions, is set out in sections 140-145 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. It is not the place of this Court to attempt to proscribe this jurisdiction. Instead, as I have set out on several occasions, the legislation is clear that appeals of decisions of reviewers to this Court are by way of rehearing. Matters relating to procedure at the review hearing will in general have no bearing on the outcome of appeals. Instead, on appeal, judges in this Court consider the substantive issues afresh on the basis of the evidence presented at review and any other evidence subsequently admitted in the course of hearing the appeal. As a result, in many cases this will mean that on appeal, the issues are in fact quite different from what they were at review.

[21] As noted by Judge Powell in the decision, the statutory framework within which review hearings are to be conducted by Reviewers is clear. There is no basis for District Court intervention in proscribing guidelines for the conduct of review hearings.
[22] I accept Mr Hunt’s submission that this question falls outside the substantive issue before the Reviewer and Judge Powell.
[23] I am satisfied there is no question of law capable of bona fide argument arising in respect of this question.

[Alan Thomas]

 magnacarta, on 05 September 2020 - 10:46 AM, said:

I was most surprised to read the following arising in the case Turner v ACC (2016) when the Act prescribes that an appeal is a rehearing of the review decision

Why bother with a costly and time-consuming review at all? :-

Question 2 – Was the Learned Judge correct in law at paragraphs [17] and [18] of his judgment to find that it is not the place of the District Court to proscribe the review jurisdiction and behaviour of the Reviewer?


[20] Judge Powell stated at paragraphs [17] and [18]:


[17] Although I understand the frustration expressed by a number of claimants appearing in review hearings, that the process at the review hearings and the conduct of reviewers generally is not subject to appellate scrutiny in this Court, the attempt to utilise the present appeal for that purpose is misconceived.
[18] The jurisdiction of reviewers, how they are to conduct hearings and how they are to make their decisions, is set out in sections 140-145 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. It is not the place of this Court to attempt to proscribe this jurisdiction. Instead, as I have set out on several occasions, the legislation is clear that appeals of decisions of reviewers to this Court are by way of rehearing. Matters relating to procedure at the review hearing will in general have no bearing on the outcome of appeals. Instead, on appeal, judges in this Court consider the substantive issues afresh on the basis of the evidence presented at review and any other evidence subsequently admitted in the course of hearing the appeal. As a result, in many cases this will mean that on appeal, the issues are in fact quite different from what they were at review.

[21] As noted by Judge Powell in the decision, the statutory framework within which review hearings are to be conducted by Reviewers is clear. There is no basis for District Court intervention in proscribing guidelines for the conduct of review hearings.
[22] I accept Mr Hunt’s submission that this question falls outside the substantive issue before the Reviewer and Judge Powell.
[23] I am satisfied there is no question of law capable of bona fide argument arising in respect of this question.

When looking at the extreme situation concerning review hearing processes could be described where a reviewer fails to conduct a hearing at all yet reaches a decision. So if the claimant is denied a review hearing altogether yet makes a decision on the ACCs favour without a hearing how then does one seek recourse for denial of having a review hearing if not by the District Court. This would seem to imply that Judge Powell would perceive that a claimant should also make an application to the High Court on judicial review.

I am of course referring to my own case whereby ACC refused to supply a point of law or any substantive fact for purposes of a review hearing resulting in the reviewer adjourning the review hearing to give the ACC an opportunity to reconsider and supply the information necessary for a review hearing or cancel their decision. However the reviewer simply did not reconvene before making a decision not to disturb the ACC decision without reference to any criteria within the legislation for purposes of review hearing. The ACC then relied upon the reviewer's decision to achieve a criminal conviction in the criminal court and to demand that the District Court Judge rehear the matter despite the fact that there never was a hearing.

How does a judge rehear the matter when the matter has not been heard?

[Alan Thomas]

 keentohelp, on 03 September 2020 - 09:20 AM, said:

The assisted recovery team means when you contact ACC your inquiry is handed to the first available member of that team (all the case managers who are no longer in a specialised case management role following ACC's recent 'transition' (their word not mine)). The feature you will notice most is that whoever you talk to has no idea about your case and whatever ACC contact you have had to date forgotten and in any future ACC contact the inquiry you are making not known about.

To date the 'transition' has been a dismal failure for clients but I am assured they are 'working on it'.

How does one apply to the ACC to have matters dealt with by the assisted recovery team when the chief executive of the ACC instructs all staff to have no communications with me whatsoever?

[Hemi]

Alan Thomas, on 09 January 2021 - 01:55 PM, said:

How does one apply to the ACC to have matters dealt with by the assisted recovery team when the chief executive of the ACC instructs all staff to have no communications with me whatsoever?

You can’t

Your Acc class rating =Persona non gratis

[Alan Thomas]

Hemi, on 09 January 2021 - 03:01 PM, said:

You can’t

Your Acc class rating =Persona non gratis

As you advice in accordance with the law? If you think it is could you point towards any legislation to support your viewpoint.

If you are unable to provide substance to your assertion perhaps you would like to rethink your response.

[Hemi]

Hemi, on 09 January 2021 - 03:01 PM, said:

You can’t

Your Acc class rating =Persona non gratis

Alan Thomas, on 10 January 2021 - 02:21 PM, said:

As you advice in accordance with the law? If you think it is could you point towards any legislation to support your viewpoint.

If you are unable to provide substance to your assertion perhaps you would like to rethink your response.

No assertions.
Recovery assistance then First up you’d need legal entitlement to an injury claim

On the person non gratis
Acc have made it very clear to you they won’t deal with you person to person since your total declination of claim matters/ convicted on and subsequently matters you were convicted on that relate to terrorism activity you undertook.