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

#21 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 20 January 2007 - 09:42 AM

I have just had my IRP returned [Replacement form] refused due to me writing
on it.
Point 1 I want all 'registered injuries' included in the document.

2 They have not told me why any requests were refused.
-- after I sign the replacement form they will send a letter explaining 'our decision'.
no social rehb. :P :P why only 7 days not 21??.
0

#22 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 20 January 2007 - 10:26 AM

send them an email of letter explaining what the writing mean and what changes you want item by item and request they send revised form with ammendments for signing.
I would be reluctant to sign what ever that paper is as I does not sound kosher...... look carefully at all the writing and think about what they asking you to sign.
I may sound paranoid but in my experience ACC is not to be trusted as bits of paper regurly get used for purposes beyond what they were obtained for and often used to support decisions in a questionable way.

Why do they persist in this pettyfoggery?
All the more to bamboozle you my babies.

Attached File  wolf_evil_smile_md_wht.gif (20.61K)
Number of downloads: 8

0

#23 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 January 2007 - 10:50 AM

Let them deem it and then go to Mediation.

An IRP is for YOU and YOUR rehabilitation .
All accepted claims and injuries and correct diagnoses must be shown
What Rehab and medical treatment has been shown?
You may write on it whatever you like and CM can retype it!
The Act says it must be returned within 21 days. The seven now used by ACC is a THREAT only.
It, as you know, is really important that the IRP is done correctly as enormous problems come when it isnt!

What I did with mine was write on it, several pages of corrections and then SIGNED IT. Then they cannot say you are noncompliant. AND CM can't change what you have signed.
Good luck
0

#24 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:58 AM

New case manager changing agreed outcomes signed from 1 yr ago. due to previous c/m not completing tasks
0

#25 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10632
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 January 2007 - 02:43 PM

Give them an ultimatum that either they provide an IRP that includes all of your accepted injuries or a provide superb IRP is for each of the injuries.

It is not a rehabilitation plan offer unless they had signed it!

If they had signed the IRP then submit it for review hearing. This will require an internal review.

Any ordinary person would know instinctively that the Corporation staff member involved with this nonsense is acting criminal. This is not just an immoral behaviour where it is permissible to use strong negotiating tactics. The crimes act protects us from tactics such as this.

Obviously it is criminal misconduct on the behalf of the individual responsible holding your health to ransom for the pecuniary advantage of the Corporation. I would imagine does comes under section 151 of the crimes act, denying the necessities of life. As the documentation has the known potential to be addressed by the judiciary that would also be subject to section 116 of the crimes act.
0

#26 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 20 January 2007 - 06:11 PM

Haven't tried this yet but if an IRP is received the CM should have signed it before sending it too you.

Idea is to return it the day you receive the doc and request that the CM sign the doc. when receive it back enter what was important on previous ones and ones agreed to Cross out what is not going to supply the rehabilitation as per the Act and then send it back..

Just make sure that there is rehabilitation including Vocational (even if they are not going to supply it because it does not conform to the Act. the Vocational rehabilitation that you choose must be with in your means of physical capability. ACC can make a decision to refuse it only because it is not economical for the corporation to supply the Vocational Rehabilitation. they can not use the wording that it will improve your position in life.
0

#27 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 20 January 2007 - 07:15 PM

I have never received a signed one. They are always written for me to sign....then they wonder why I don't want to be the first to sign, cause they can then change them and then sign what you didn't agree to.....all those empty spaces!!! :wacko:

Gloria
0

#28 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 January 2007 - 07:46 PM

Gloria, to avoid that situation, initial every clause and sign every page. Put a line thru all the empty spaces , so the CM cannot fill in anything else on that page!

The CM will be desperate to get KPI's for another signed IRp and you have to watch out that they comply with the Legislation, as you will well know!!

Everyone, please remember that IRP's are Individual personal Rehab plans that apply to YOU and not ACC. It is a plan for your rehab and MUST contain social rehab, treatment plans etc!!
It also MUST NOT have a return to 35hrs a week work, as part of the return to work programme.
Remember that your Medical treatment and diagnoses must be completed before they start the RTW process. This is not happening! Case Managers are bullying people to go thru the process before their injuries are stable.
We need to be firm amd get this practice stopped!! - NOW!! :wacko:
0

#29 User is offline   accvictim 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 20 January 2007 - 10:14 PM

IRP, these IRPs are made out without thought or any consideration of the claimant.
Nine times out of ten they do not even get your OCCUPATION right, lets face it they
really dont give a damn.
Id say IRPs were a quick way to exit a claimant without rehabilitation, well thats my experience.
0

#30 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:09 PM

ACC Victim, Magnacarta put up some good info at the start of this thread.

It is up to the Claimant to get himself/herself informed. Buy a copy of the Legislation. IRP's are set out there quite easily understood.
Make sure yours is not signed till you are happy with the contents. Go to your GP and get his approval as well as your friend, family or some sort of Support person.

Think about what are your needs, make sure all the info is correct on the front page. All your covered claims must be listed, your diagnosis is correct on all claims, etc. It is a legal doco and ACC just do not take care to make sure the Claimant has had their rights covered and explained.

An IRP must inclued Social and treatment needs and diagnoses and assessments. It is not a return to work doco as the ACC staff are treating it.
Write what you want on it and sign it and send it to the CM. Make sure you have done as in the post above so that the CM cannot change anything.

I think we should make 2007 the year for the Claimant to stand up to ACC and get them back on track.
Their policies are wide of the mark and it is time we got them toeing the line as it were.After all, it is our rights that are being exploited here.
Let us have a good debate on this really important subject.
Something constructive for a change>?
0

#31 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 21 January 2007 - 02:58 PM

Well, Al9, if it has been proved that you are not able to be vocationally rehabilitated, ACC MUST give you support and help as required to maintain a quality of life for you.
This would include an assessment, (groan, not another) by an agreed professional to decide if ACC can help with any matters like all the usuals, home help, personal care, Transport, home heating , home alterations, aids and appliances etc.
These would then become part of your Rehab plan and ACC have to abide by this.
Then there is of course the matter too of ERC and IA.

ACC duck all these and tend to leave people alone and to get a home alteration, a car, or whatever, is a huge struggle for the Client to obtain these.This is where it is so wrong, once you are injured and your injury is for life and no hope of recovery, it is ACC's place to give you care.
They prefer to use a toady GP and tell you that you are now able to work 35hrs a week.
As I say, let us have a debate and see how we can approach ACC , maybe thru COGS and get this important matter sorted once and for all.
To leave a person for years with no help or rehab or medical treatment approved is criminal in my book.
All the CM wants to do is make out yet another shonky IRP and get KPI's.

One case I know of there were 25 IRP's in 3 years and it is still ongoing!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <_<
0

#32 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 12 April 2007 - 08:36 AM

And we know where 5 odd billion of that investment portfolio came from!

bull shit irp's that theive from the injured and invest off shore. And now they are using the super fund as well.

What ever happenedin Kiwi's investing in their own infrastructure instead of giving money to private business so they can send more profits overseas.

Any figures quoted in this spin context are spurious without full disclosure of how that figure is arrived at and of what elements the assertation cantains in an accounting sense.

Has open books and full disclosure been replaced by press releases?????
Seems a lot lately ............ political advertising in sheeps clothing at the taxpayers expense.
0

#33 User is offline   Al9lifes 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16-October 05

Posted 25 May 2007 - 05:47 PM

Review No.: 50056
Claim No.: 90214018
Application for Review by Alan Langdon

Under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 ("the Act")
Held at Auckland
Date of hearing 4 April 2007 (Concluded 14 May 2007)
Reviewer L A Clark
Present
No appearance by Mr Langdon. Ms Mechen for ACe.

Issue
Whether ACC correctly advised Mr Langdon that his Individual Rehabilitation Plan (IRP) was finalised.

Decision
The application is dismissed.

Costs Nil sought. Follow-up action None.
Review No.: 50056

Issue
The issue is whether ACC correctly advised Mr Langdon that his Individual Rehabilitation Plan (IRP) was finalised.

Outcome
The application is dismissed.

Reasons
Background

Mr Langdon has suffered numerous injuries over ilie years, dating back to 1997.

There are 48 in total recorded, with some of these being duplicates and others having been declined.

There are 31 claims in the main, with a number of these claims being for significant injuries.

Mr Langdon has also suffered substantial consequences from these injuries, including post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and ongoing chronic pain.

Only two claims remain open.

Both are handled by Henderson Branch.

ACC has acknowledged that there are historical issues over the management of Mr Langdon's claims and entitlements.


In an effort to try and reach some resolution, a full audit has been carried out on Mr Langdon's file.

Recommendations were made in October 2006.
(It was a DRAFT REPORT not final recommendations)

Part of the recommendation was recognising the historical issues, plus ongoing management and rehabilitation of current claims.

Dr Price advised he had met with Mr Langdon on 13 December 2006, but that Mr Langdon did not want to proceed with rehabilitation.

Dr Price advised ACC by telephone that the IRP gave a reasonable framework to undertake rehabilitation.

He did not identify any problems or issues with the draft IRP.

By January 2007, some three months after the draft IRP had been proposed, but agreement had still not been reached.

On 8 January 2007 ACC wrote to Mr Langdon advising that, as agreement could not be reached, the IRP was deemed to be finalised. Mr Langdon is seeking a review of that decision.

Review Proceedings

Mr Langdon's Case

There was no appearance by Mr Langdon I adjourned the hearing part heard and wrote to Mr Langdon, enclosing a copy of ACC's submissions. I advised that if he wished to respond to these he should let me have his written response by 16 April 2007.

ACC's Case

Ms Mechen's submissions are summarised:

  • Under the legislation a claimant must be informed about the process of developing an IRP

A claimant must be given a reasonable amount of time to have input.

However if this time agreement cannot be reached ACC is able to fmalise the plan.


Following a tel)phone discussion with Mr Langdon an initial letter was sent to him explaining the development of an IRP.
A draft IRP was then sent a week later.
This draft was also sent to Mr Langdon's lawyer Mr Miller and his GP, Dr Price.
(Mr Miller was representing me for two appeals not any IRP negotiations)

All further correspondence was also copied to Dr Price and Mr Miller.


Dr Price confIrmed that he thought the IRP was a reasonable attempt to produce a framework for a way forward.


The IRP was reasonable and ACC has worked hard to have all the parties participate in the development of the IRP.


With no agreement in sight ACC wrote to Mr Langdon finalising the IRP.
Review rights were given.

  • ACC has complied with the Act in trying to address rehabilitation.
  • It is appropriate that rehabilitation be contained in a plan.
  • Over the three month period Mr Langdon did not provide any further details of alternative rehabilitation. Neither Dr Price nor Mr Miller advised that the plan was not suitable, or that they had issues with the proposals.
The time period and actions of ACC were at all times reasonable.

Mr Langdon's Response

On 13 April 2007 I received written notes from Mr Langdon.
Mr Langdon said that the IRP injury list did not include the 1990 injury of chronic pain or posttraumatic stress disorder, nor traumatic brain injury.

He believes the list of injuries is incomplete and misleading, as an IRP requires correct and detailed information.

He said the reference to Dr Price is an insult: as specific questions were not put to him, and confirmation of the conversation ACC had with him had not been obtained.

Mr Langdon said that relying on a phone conversation regarding his rehabilitation plan was unacceptable.

He believed the IRP failed to address his transport to treatment needs, his mobility needs and his failure by ACC to supply these.

He said the background does not detail what the 48 injuries were.

Mr Langdon said the IRP does not build on his previous IRP,
and does not even mention any results or outcomes from the previous IRP interventions.

He believes that rehabilitation history was very important and failure to include those details was disturbing.

He said both he and his GP and him are willing to assist ACC with preparing an IRP that all can agree on and that contains all the details.

Ms Mechen's final submissions are summarised:

  • Chronic pain is not an injury itself, but a consequence of an injury.
  • The injury of February 1990 is recorded on the IRP as pain in lumbar spine; lumbar sprain.
  • It is correctly recorded.
  • The issue of chronic pain is well recognised as part of Mr Langdon's claims being a result of injury. He is entitled to treatment and rehabilitation in respect of chronic pain .

  • PTSD has been recognised as a result of Mr Langdon's injuries, and is part of his file as a consequence of injury.

  • It is noted more than once that Mr Langdon has suffered concussion and other injuries to his head.

  • His injuries are correctly recorded on his IRP
  • Mr Langdon has a claims history that shows 48 claims.
  • However a number of these are duplicates or cover the same injury but have been extended.

  • When you compare the list with those injuries outlined on the IRP none of the injuries suffered have been left off.


  • It is a true representation of the injuries the applicant has suffered.
  • The IRP outlines broadly rehabilitation interventions to be explored with Mr Langdon and his GP having input at all stages.

  • Any entitlements that flow from the commencement of an intervention will occur.
  • If they do not, Mr Langdon can request a decision from ACC, which, if not satisfactory, can be reviewed.
  • For example, if it was determined that Mr Langdon would attend pain management. then ACC would cover his transport to and from that treatment/rehabilitation.
  • Because that point is not necessarily included in the IRP does not mean it does not apply or will not happen.
  • These are the types of issues that can be worked through as each intervention is explored.

  • Dr Price was given a copy of the plan for his input but has not voiced any objections.

  • However if he had any issues they could be explored as the IRP provides for Dr Price's constant input into treatment and rehabilitation.

  • Mr Langdon has stated that the IRP does not mention Ann Scragg's report.

  • The IRP is a document that outlines rehabilitation.
  • The file has details of the report and the histoty surrounding it.
  • The IRP is not a claim file that contains a running record of the interactions between the applicant and the respondent.
  • That is for the file.
  • Due to the conflict between the parties in the past, ACC in drafting the IRP, was attempting to start afresh on treatment and rehabilitation needs.

  • Previous IRP's were often in dispute.

  • While the IRP does not contain all previous interventions, the file still contains the histoy of the claim.

  • The IRP's are part of the history.

  • ACC is attempting to get treatment and rehabilitation underway.

  • After considerable time ACC finalised the plan as it was unable to get agreement.
Mr Langdon provided further submissions, the content of which was difficult for me to follow, as they were inserted into other ACC documents and correspondence.

But, in essence, he believed that the 'conflict' he has or has had with ACC in the past was not sufficient reason to abandon protocol, procedure or policy.

He believes he is physically unable to 'start afresh' with rehabilitation.

The hearing concluded on 14 May 2007.

Decision Details

Relevant Legislation

Individual Rehabilitation Plans (IRP's) are dealt with under Clauses"7 through 10 of Schedule One to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.

Under Clause 8 of Schedule 1, ACC has the ability to finalise an Individual Rehabilitation Plan (IRP) 'if, after a reasonable time, the claimant declines to agree to the plan.'

Analysis

In response to Mr Langdon's numerous concerns, I have conducted a careful scrutiny of Mr Langdon's files.

From the evidence before me, I am satisfied that ACC has done all that it can be legally and reasonably required to do so, before finalising his IRP.

While Mr Miller was acting for Mr Langdon, he was advised of the process every step of the
way, as was Mr Langdon.

In addition, I confirm that Mr Langdon's GP, Dr Price was also invited to participate in the process.

As Ms Mechen has submitted, the chronic pain and PTSD that Mr Langdon suffers from are consequences of other covered injuries.

Entitlements to treatment and rehabilitation flow as a result.

These are correctly recorded on his IRP.

Any entitlements that flow from the commencement of an intervention will occur.

As Ms Mechen has confirmed, if they do not, Mr Langdon can obtain a decision from ACC, which, if not satisfactory, can be reviewed.

Mr Langdon should not be concerned that he has signed away any of his 'rights.'

These rights are preserved.

He should also be aware that an IRP is not set in concrete.

It is fluid,( like diarhea) with any changes to that IRP, reflecting a person's changing needs, depending on their current circumstances, agreement by ACC and the results of any assessments.

Conclusion

Therefore, for the above reasons, I find that ACC's decision to finalise Mr Langdon's IRP was made on a correct basis. The application for review is dismissed.

Costs Nil sought.

Review No.: 50056

L A Clark Reviewer

Date: 23 May 2007

Appeal Rights

All parties have the right of appeal to the District Court. For further particulars, please see the accompanying letter.
0

#34 User is offline   Al9lifes 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16-October 05

Posted 26 May 2007 - 10:37 AM

Mr Langdon should not be concerned that he has signed away any of his 'rights.'

These rights are preserved.

He should also be aware that an IRP is not set in concrete.

It is fluid, with any changes to that IRP, reflecting a person's changing needs, depending on their current
circumstances, agreement by ACC and the results of any assessments.

Individual Rehabilitation Plans (IRP's) are dealt with under Clauses"7 through 10 of Schedule One to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.

Previous IRP's were often in dispute.
  • While the IRP does not contain all previous interventions, the file still contains the history of the claim. The IRP's are part of the history.
Attached File  5056_decision.pdf (468.98K)
Number of downloads: 11
Attached File  2__3.pdf (509.05K)
Number of downloads: 7
Attached File  3_4.pdf (502.16K)
Number of downloads: 6
Attached File  5_6.pdf (573.48K)
Number of downloads: 17
any changes to that IRP
0

#35 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10632
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 May 2007 - 11:54 AM

The Individual Rehabilitation Plan is a very valuable entitlement in its own right as confirmed by Weir. The legitimate expectation of the claimant is that the IRP be produced by qualified and competent professionals. Very few IRPs appeared to be produced with any expertise at all which in turn rocked the claimant of the entitlement comprehensive and complete rehabilitation.

More often than not the ACC focuses on exit at the cheapest possible rout rather than expensive rehabilitation to the extent that rehabilitation is flagrantly disregarded. Obviously we need additional case law to expand upon Weir.
0

#36 User is offline   Al9lifes 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16-October 05

Posted 26 May 2007 - 11:55 AM

:)

Attached File(s)

  • Attached File  7_8.pdf (608K)
    Number of downloads: 5
  • Attached File  9_10.pdf (411.51K)
    Number of downloads: 7

0

#37 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10632
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 May 2007 - 11:57 AM

The Individual Rehabilitation Plan is a very valuable entitlement in its own right as confirmed by Weir. The legitimate expectation of the claimant is that the IRP be produced by qualified and competent professionals. Very few IRPs appeared to be produced with any expertise at all which in turn rocked the claimant of the entitlement comprehensive and complete rehabilitation.

More often than not the ACC focuses on exit at the cheapest possible rout rather than expensive rehabilitation to the extent that rehabilitation is flagrantly disregarded. Obviously we need additional case law to expand upon Weir.
0

#38 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 26 May 2007 - 06:47 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on May 26 2007, 11:57 AM, said:


More often than not the ACC focuses on exit at the cheapest possible rout rather than expensive rehabilitation to the extent that rehabilitation is flagrantly disregarded. Obviously we need additional case law to expand upon Weir.


Exiting is often more expensive than the rehabilitation
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