ACCforum: Reviewer's As Respondent's - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Reviewer's As Respondent's Reviewer's as Respondent's

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 18 April 2005 - 08:01 PM

During a conversation with a number of people (including claimants) over the powers of the District Court on appeal it was asked -

why aren't we naming the reviewer's as respondent's as well as ACC?

I would like to open it up for general discussion by forum members.

S. 149 (1) (a) of the Act says that a claimant may appeal to the District Court against a review decision

Clearly, an appeal to the Court is not an appeal against ACC's original decision but against a review decision. It is the review decision which is being scrutinised by the Judge.

I repeat, an appeal is by way of a rehearing of the review decision not ACC's decision.

Of course a judge can also hear and take any other evidence into account under s156.

However, it is the reviewer who will have properly heard the case and seen and heard witnesses and followed their obligations (or should have) when reviewing ACC's decision - not the Court.

I repeat, the reviewer will have had the benefit of seeing and hearing the evidence from the witnesses (Case Manager and Claimant) whereas the Judge hasn't.

But what happens if the reviewer has stuffed up in process and procedure, shouldn't we then also be naming the reviewer as second respondent in the appeal???????

I.E. Between Joe Bloggs Appellant and ACC first respondent and Fred Smith (Review officer) second respondent.

Having thought about this, it seems common sense and legally justifiable that a reviewer should be held accountable by way of his/her actions being examined by a judge and seeing and hearing the reviewer.

After all, some reviewers are former ACC employees and it is an appeal against a review decision which must also mean the lawfullness and/or legality in reaching that decision.

For example, what guarantee do we have that the Reviewer has disclosed any previous involvement in the case as an ACC employee (s.138) or whether ACC has secured the independence of the reviewer (s. 139)

Where is the evidecne and can the reviewer and ACC provide evidence to that effect.

So the independence, and the processes and procedures of a reviewer surrounding their decision must surely be examined by the Court and the reviewer given the opportunity in Court to legally justify independecne and the review decision to the Court.

What does the forum think.
0

#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 18 April 2005 - 08:23 PM

is a reviewer independence The Answer is NO a reviewer may include any information that has relavance but making decisions that no decision has been made is common. Try and have a review on a decision that has not been made. No justification is the Answer. ACC or any insurer can make a submission on a un related decision and the reviewer will accept this.

This is simply fraud and nothing short of being curopt.

Read this one and see judge beattie decision that reviewer doing nothing wrong
http://www.accforum....?showtopic=1797

I hve another one some were that show a review officer making a decision were ACC were claiming Back injury when the claimant was saying he had a hernier.

Even when he had an operation to fix the hernier the reviewer and Appeal athourty still made its decision on a fictious injury.

In his appeal he called the ACC Dr , claimmanager, reviewer, and judge several words because they claimed that nothing was wrong

the Judge suggested that he should use a lawyer to have the review reheard and this time based on his medical condition as a hearner.
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