ACCforum: Flawed Irp's - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Flawed Irp's Flawed IRP's

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 11 February 2005 - 07:59 AM

If ACC prepares and presents an IRP with only a S77 (3) (B) IOA and IMA vocational rehabilitation needs assessment in it and deliberately fails to place a s77 (3) (a) social rehabilitation needs assessment in it, does the forum consider that that is a reviewable "decision" as defined in s6 (d)????

s6 (d) says "a decision about which entitlements the Corporation will provide to a claimant." (my underlining)

In my view it is a decision because by failing to place s77(3) (a) social rehabilitation needs assessment in the IRP when it has a statutory obligation to do so, ACC has made up it's mind, made a judgment, come to a conclusion or resolution about which entitlements it will provide to a claimant - i.e. a decision.

In Hawea v ACC (High Court, Napier, CIV-2003-441-607 6 July 2004 Justice Gendall said at para's 17 and 18

"....The definition section is not exclusive"

IMHO such a prepared and presented IRP is a communication to a claimant which can be characterised as a "decision in terms of s6 (d).

A flawed IRP, where there has been no attempt made to comply with s77, cannot be construed as anything but a decision - it is not administrative IMHO.

ACC has an obligation to assess a claimant's needs by way of assessments and such assessments will inform ACC of the claimants' rehabilitation needs.

If ACC does not place the social rehab assessments in the IRP then it subverts the statutory goal of rehabilitation.

Am I correct that this is a reviewable "decision" about which entitlements ACC will provide???????
0

#2 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 11 February 2005 - 08:46 AM

The claimant would have to make a request for a specific social rehabilitation objective in the agreed IRP Magnacarta. If that was declined it would naturally fall to review. If ACC has omitted to put "Social Rehabilitation" as one of the goals of the plan Then that is "closing its eyes to the reality of the situation" mate and puts a few more million in the investment portfolio! Personally I think we should all hit them with social rehab claims in the same week.
Why was the IRP made compulsory we might ask? Well I will explain. It is a scam. If you are in receipt of ERC you are on the books as a long term liability. ACC has 9.5 billion dollars in long term liabilities. Which is of course a debt on the ledger. ACC seldom mentions this figure. It is much easier for Wilson to look good if he crowes about the 6 billion he has invested and not mention the debt. Now, the IRP each person MUST have means that when you sign it;
The account is transferred from the compensation account to the rehabilitation account. So on paper ACC is using the greater amount of its financial commitment on Rehabilitation. Have a look at the expenditure graph from ACC and you will see that, by far, it spends more money on rehabilitation than compensation. This is how Wilson cooks the books and makes it all look good. UNUM does the same thing. One of the executives of UNUM who turned on and gave evidence against UNUM described it in the early posts we received from Corporate Crimefighters. If an account starts showing too much debt, they transfer claimants to another account to balance things out and provide a better showing of the corporations financial status.
0

#3 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 11 February 2005 - 08:52 AM

Now you know why each claimant must have an IRP and why, if you do not agree, acc will implement the plan. In the states UNUM has been fined US $80 million for these practises. The Labour Government has legalised them here with fraudulent and corrupt legislation.
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 11 February 2005 - 04:11 PM

of cause the corporation has a duty to inform you of all rehabilitation. Section 70 must be completed by the corporation before any IRP can be completed. so far I haven't seen this done and it is time that requests are made in releightionship to section 70 so that all entitlements are known.
0

#5 User is offline   Juscallin1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 11 February 2005 - 11:37 PM

Another thing Magna Carta is , if the IRP has IMO to see if claimant capable of working 35hrs a week, well just throw it back at the Case Manager. This is not according to the Act. An IMA MUST NOT include 35hrs a week. This is restricted to the VIA.
In my case the IRP was sent to me containing only the IOA IMA and 35hrs per week on it. Threw it back at CM and only 1 year later has he written another, only because I asked for Home help. This has been denied me till I sign the new IRP which also DOES NOT MEET STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. I can see this thing deemed and a Review is in the air.
fun fun fun.....
0

#6 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 11 February 2005 - 11:56 PM

I agree with Magnacarta, an IRP with IOA and IMA does not comply with sec 77 (Weir decision - ACC is using everything in its arsenal to disregard). The plan must include assessments for soc and voc rehab whether or not ACC is liable to provide them.

Therefore, ACC has made a decision not to provide entitlements, surely that is a decision on the claim and subject to review. Now, whether our toady judges see it that way remains to be seen. they're doing their best to minimise Weir - the Print decision is a case in point and the effects of that are already being felt.

ACC is blithely ignoring medical treatment, specialist medical updates, soc rehab assessments, and soc entitlement prior to implementing IOA/IMA. All branches, particularly the Long Term Claims Units, are singing from the same song sheet and insisting that medical treatment - including surgery - will not delay IOA which can go ahead because Occ Assessor does not need to know claimant's medical condition and physical restrictions. Irrelevant, said one Technical Claims Manager, so you can imagine the attitude claimants are faced with when questioning case managers pressing on with policy decisions. Don't let the legislation get in the way of a few good KPIs.

ACC is attemtping to use the IMA as the gateway to ALL entitlements, relying on the biased medical report to either remove cover altogether or diminish liability at every opportunity and thereby saving itself a great deal of money.

Not forgetting, of course, that all the above completely overlooks sec 76 that both soc, voc and treatment can be provided before an IRP is agreed, and here we have claimants being threatened with no assessments, let alone provision of entitlements, until they sign the plan.

Blackmail, pure and simple blackmail. What do you say to them apples Mr. Plod???
0

#7 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 12 February 2005 - 07:23 PM

In my laungauge to build /do something one must have all the details of the project ,basic facts...so that intelligent decisions can be based upon appropiate adequate resources working to the common goal to assist to complete the project.

Simple:FAIL to PLAN , PLAN to FAIL.

Fact is a project is never fully complete untill the cheque is cleared at the bank.

:wacko: A plan for a "sticky plaster" may be adequate appropiate but if the injury requires surgery then the plan is simply useless inadequate waiste of time,for all parties concerned.

:wub: Thanks.
0

#8 User is offline   ernie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 February 2005 - 08:09 PM

We are already seeing the District Court trying to wiggle out of Weir. Check out the Millin judgment at http://www.accforum....?showtopic=1900
0

#9 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 12 February 2005 - 09:22 PM

Ernie, Thanks for directing me to Millen and Print - Bettie's decisions must be the most disgraceful and unprincipled decision I have ever read.

Beattie conveniently omits to mention (as usual) that Miller J in Weir also found that no attempt had been made by ACC to comply with s77.

I simply cannot believe the quality deficit of Bettoe in Millen et al.

What part of s 75 and s77 (2) does Beattie not understand?????????

s77 (2) (B) "An IRP must identify the assessments to be done......."

If no social rehab needs assessment is identified and deliberately not placed in an IRP what does s6 (d) mean???

It has to be a s6 (d) reviewable "decision" about which entitlements ACC will provide.

IMHO Judge Beattie has lost any judicial immunity accorded.
0

#10 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 12 February 2005 - 10:23 PM

magnacata when you are considering section 6 (d) shouldn't that be referance to section 70. this is were the corporation informs the claimants of there entitlements. Of cause if te corporation has not informed of the entitlements as directed in section 70 how can the claimant know what can be expected in the IRP plan.

if this has not been done over the country then there could be a mass review application forcing the corporation to obey the legistation and informing the claimants of there entitlements.

A result would be that when when an entitlement is left out of IRP then a review application can be applied for to get that entitlement reinstalled.

I have asked several people and not one has had been informed about there entitlements as the legistation compells the corporation to do.
0

#11 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 13 February 2005 - 08:07 AM

Doppel, as I see it, s70 informs ACC and the claimant of their obligations regarding the entitlements to rehabilitation to the extent provided in the Act. That is evident from the heading of s70.

The s3 overriding goal of the Act is to minimise the impact of the injury through a primary focus on rehabilitation and fair determination of weekly compensation.

s48 is also relevant because once ACC receives a claim for cover s50 requires it to provide information about the entitlements to which it considers the claimant may be entitled and facilitate the claimant's access to those entitlements.

s50 is a power to exercise a discretion and it must exercise that discretion and not fetter it by not making that s50 consideration and informing the claimant of the entitlements which it considers the claimant may be entitled.

Long term claimants have cover by the transitional provisions in the 2001 Act.

In my view, there are two ways in which a claimant can receive rehab.

1. The first way is by s75 where it is a mandatory power for ACC to determine whether a claimant is likely to need social or vocational rehab.

Then there is s76 where it is a discretionary power for ACC to consider the suitability of social or vocational rehab before an IRP is agreed.

Under s76 (2) ACC may provide social or vocational rehab before an assessment is undertaken or completed or it commences its considerations of the matters specified in s87 (1).

But what happens if ACC fails to comply with the s75 (mandatory) determination and also fetters the exercise of the s76 discretionary power and simply prepares an IRP under s77 with only an IOA and IMA vocational rehab needs assessment in it???????

Clearly, ACC must have turned its mind to the s75 mandatory determinations (social or vocational rehab ) because it has determined that it is likely that you need only vocational rehab and that assessment is all it placed in the IRP.

Because it failed to comply with s77 (3) (a) and place a social rehab needs assessment in the IRP as it was obliged to do, then that is a reviewable s6 (d) "decision" about which entitlements it will provide.

By virtue of s75 ACC obviously made up its mind, made a judgment, came to a conclusion or resolution about which entitlement it would provide. (see Hawea v ACC High Court Napier Justice Gendall)

By virtue of s69 (1) (a) "Rehabilitation comprises treatment, social and vocational rehabilitation"

Because "rehabilitation" comprises treatment, social and vocational ACC's dilatory actions could also be said to a s6 (e) "decision" about the level of entitlemenbts to be provided.

2. The second way a claimant can receive rehab is this: - Because ACC made no attempt to comply with s75, (mandatory) s.76 (discretionary) and the total of s77 a claimant, can lodge a claim for a specified entitlement under s48.

Section 48 does not require that an application for a specified entitlement be lodged in writing. Indeed, s52 obliges ACC to specify to the claimant a manner for lodging a claim. Invariably ACC does not.

It's all very well for Judge Beattie to rule the way he has in Henderson, Print and Millin, and there is a right to appeal if they disagree with him on a point of law, but incalculable detriment and harm is caused to the claimant along the way.

In Henderson, Print and Millin Judge Beattie has focused solely on the Clause 9 Schedule 1 meaning of "decision" and failed to address the s6 definitions of "decision."

Clearly, Clause 9 is a "decision" additional to the definitions of "decision" in s6.

It's not as though Judge Beattie didn't know that because in Hawea v ACC Justice Gendall in the High Court said, when ruling on s6, that the ".....definition section is not exclusive."

The overriding goal of the Act is to minimise the impact of the injury through a primary statutory focus on rehabilitation which restores the claimant to the maximum practicable extent.

Can't they just get it right first time and provide entitlements - instead of trying to find ways of maximising the impact of the injury instead of minimising it ??????

The Attorney-General appoints Judges and I just wonder what she might say about all this goings on????
0

#12 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 13 February 2005 - 10:21 AM

M mistake Magnacata. I should have open the book up. it should have been section 50 but what really amases me is that the ACC must provide the entitlements that the claimant may be entitled to but must facilitate the claimants access to those entitlements.

So when the corporation doesn't advise of the entitlements dose that mean that the claimant has access to all entitlements or none of the entitlements. of cause if they ar receiving compensation then by default the corporation will be able to supply all entitlements and the claimant on applying for an entitlement must receive that entitlement with out questioning.

a case that has just come up and should be one of the first to use te new home help sheets. there are a few question that needed to be answered before can really coment on. who reduced the hours ? Case manager or assessor? wasthe assessor told te correct information orginially or was the information incorrectfrom the case manager. his needs to be seen as if the assessor was given the wrong figures then the case manager has introduced incorrect information to be used as a base. It can only be presumed if that has been done that the case manager was looking at ways to reduce theentitlements so that he branch will obtain there KPI's. it is correct that KPI's are only acheived in the dollar term of paid out to the amount received as levies in that branch.
0

#13 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

  Posted 13 February 2005 - 12:07 PM

My Case Manager made a new IRP up for me at the begining of Jan 2005, he had in it 1. i must notify ACC of my weekly earnings for abatment. Person responsabile me. time to be compleated Jan 2006 2. I will go for a IOA Person responsible me. Time to be compleated Jan 2006 3 I will go IMA Person responsabile me. Time to be compleated Jan 2006 .

Outcome i will be working or work ready. I allready hold a position working as many hours as my ARC 18 allows.

My case manager is now getting upset with me as i am saying whats the hurry to do the assessments, i have signed the IRP saying i would do the assessments within the time frame allowed, and i am the person who has to make it happen.

He now tells me if i dont choose a assessor within a week he will choose one for me.

This is the same prick that cut me off for 6 months, then wouldn't listen to me. Got back on and back paid for the 6 months after a mediation meeting, after i complained he was persercuting me after 2 complaints aginst him were upheld by the cpmplaints dept.

Do you think this man can be trusted to look after my best interests for my rehabilatation.
0

#14 User is offline   Juscallin1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 13 February 2005 - 12:27 PM

Put his name up here, Easyrider.
Unfortunately he can send you off for assessments.

Hope you can find honest assessors and always tape and a witness as well.

Have you had an updated Assessment by your Specialist?

This should be carried out before any work rehab is proceeded with.

Was your GP involved in the drawing up of your IRP? That is in the Act and if he has not, well your IRP does not meet Statutory requirements and is illegal.
Good luck
0

#15 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 13 February 2005 - 05:43 PM

easyrider you need to change the purouse of IRP to maintain work and read section 77 (4). that should keep the case managers arse hot for a while.

trust him like all the other case managers that I have dealt with.
0

#16 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 13 February 2005 - 08:45 PM

As I can see the legislation if Rehabilitation is not included in any IRP therefore non is required. An IOA or IMA does not identify any rehabilitation needs Only when you come to vocational independence does any rehabilitation come into affect in the assessment. Section 76 (3) states that treatment can be provided before an IRP this is the same for all rehabilitation (section 76 (1 , 2) ). Treatment and rehabilitation can be applied for at any time. It can not be delayed because of some IRP as it can be supplied before an IRP is made. An IRP must be made after 13 weeks but does not need to be made before then.

What I see Beattie is doing I the Millin decision is that he is saying that a reviewer has jurisdiction because it was a sign IRP. In seams that the Reviewer didn't want to make a decision so it would go to court. (Who was the reviewer) Schedule 1 clause 9 takes care of if a reviewer has jurisdiction or not and in every case it has.

Now as for a vocational assessment it is a assessment to see if there is a job that you are suited for. It is not for anything to do with section 86, 87, or 88 these sections are the supplying and assessing of 'Vocational Rehabilitation.' To get it identified in the IRP it must be put there under the Claimants needs for rehabilitation. (section 77 (2) (a ) )

Just wonder who wrote this act as there is a deliberate scheme not to supply any Vocational Rehabilitation unless it is known that it must be applied for. This is why no one gets any.

Suggestion is just to apply for Vocational Rehabilitation, or treatment separate and modify the IRP at the same time. Of cause the best time would be apply for the entitlements and send the IRP in at the same time with them included in the IRP.
0

#17 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 16 February 2005 - 09:16 PM

f can i'll try and help you get your goal. South France looking over the Medertrainan Sea. your place would have a guest house with direct access to the sea so I could go sailing all day.
0

#18 User is offline   Accme 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 16 February 2005 - 11:15 PM

Why hasn't the Law Society challenged Beattie over the Millin judgment ?
0

#19 User is offline   roamy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 21 February 2005 - 03:23 PM

Dead right ernie, wiggling out of weir. Judge stated ""I find that there is no purpose to be served in referring the question of the appropriateness or otherwise of the IRP back to a Reviewer for consideration."" But how can that be, for it states in section 109 (1) ""The corporation may determine the claimant's vocational independence at such REASONABLE intervals as the corporation considers APPROPRIATE'' Surely if acc say it is approrpiate, they must have weighed different factors up, it indicates a process of thought was gone into.If not then it means an automatic process was gone through, a template, treat everyone the same, as many assessments as they can push claimants through, in other words , the exit plan.

So that means some parts of the act are of no purpose , and which parts are they, maybe the parts which can help the claimant.No purpose!! this means he has just allowed acc to send us on ima's whenever and as often as it takes, to find a crooked assessor.Why bother putting moderating clauses in the act if judges just nullify them with shallow decisions.Wow we would have more chance of logic or justice , facing a drugs charge in a tai jail.cheers.
0

#20 Guest_lorilye_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 January 2006 - 05:32 PM

Hi all, Just bringing this thread up again as it applies to us all and as it has just been helpful to me, there are bound to be more of you looking for just such advice at any time.

Thanks guys......Lori
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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