ACCforum: $7129.33 For Incomplete Medical Assessment - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

$7129.33 For Incomplete Medical Assessment

#1 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 03 June 2005 - 10:19 PM

:wub: :wub: :wub:

Attached File(s)

  • Attached File  1.JPG (111.15K)
    Number of downloads: 49

0

#2 User is offline   Juscallin1 

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

Posted 03 June 2005 - 11:05 PM

20 1/2 hrs for writing a report? This is outrageous! These turkeys should be stopped in their tracks!! No wonder ACC has to fight a poor asbestos sufferer!!!

These toadies are costing this country heaps. But still if they can kick you off.,they are saving ACC heaps I guess?!!!!!
No mention of his share of CM BONUS either!!!!!
0

#3 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 04 June 2005 - 06:38 PM

I would suggest that you copy this bill and put in front of the next assessor. If its good enough for one it good enough for all.
0

#4 User is offline   roamy 

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

Posted 09 June 2005 - 01:05 AM

doppel, how did you get hold of this invoice?You should be a pi, i know a good employer , roamy.
0

#5 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 09 June 2005 - 09:29 AM

This invoice has been sent to the media previously and also politicians by Acclaim Otago. They have done nothing.... The person concerned has taken it EVERYWHERE and still no one would listen... sad sad sad.
0

#6 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:21 AM

I believe ACC's Dunedin branch manager defended the cost of the assessment - "very complicated case, blah de blah" - and then used the information in it to disentitle the claimant. From ACC's point of view this is money well spent - they can save themselves money in the long run. It's up to the claimant to challenge ACC's decision, and the information it was based on, via the legal process. he will need good competing medical evidence from independent medical practitioners, particularly those who treat him.
0

#7 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:40 AM

This man had many experts' reports on file including Prof Bill Glass and Des Gorman. His own GP has better industrial health qualifications (and is behind him 100%) than the guy who did this report. I can't remember the exact number of reports on file but believe it was in excess of 35. All of which supported the fact that he had the occupational disease. Chronic Solvent Neurotoxicity, along with Respiratory and Central Nervous System damage.
In a 5 1/2 hr mediation I believe that when the branch manager was questioned as to why ACC were saying they had never accepted the respiratory part of the claim and were then shown the actual pathway file entry that did accept it, his response was "clerical error" . You gotta wonder don't ya!
0

#8 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 09 June 2005 - 02:20 PM

The politicians will take no notice, except to exploit this person's suffering for their own advantage. They will point to the legal process and say that is the only way for him to go.
0

#9 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 09 June 2005 - 05:50 PM

Yes I got it from the claimant after twisting a few things. yes this bill is a fast as all of hs reprts can be read in one day (by other ACC toade), but not by John Alchin. The 35 medicals by Alchin oppinion is not enoughand suggest at least another FOUR.

The report was to disentitle a 10 plus year claim that costs a few dollars yearly for medical perscriptions. His yearly coste is between $180 to $240 each year. or about 29 to 39 years before the costs of this one medical is recovered.

MG some members of parliment have there own copy of that invoice and I'm sure that they could hand it around. It was not posted for them. As for the Branch managers excusse for paying so much it is Fraud. Alchin is not qualified in the field that he was examiniting and to question some that are world renoun in there field is fraud especially when being paid so much.

The only clerical error is the money that ei ei o gets every week from the levys.

ei ei o needs to return to his farm and then McDonald will be back at his funny farm were he belongs.
0

#10 User is offline   Karney 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 11-March 05

Posted 10 June 2005 - 12:17 AM

When I worked for ACC I was asked to exit a young guy who had an old shoulder injury which had been operated on years earlier and the surgeon said he was completely cured. A further assessment by the same orthopaedic surgeon (wish I could remember the guys name cos Id post it here in large letters) actually claimed that the guy was workshy. So I made an appointment to interview the claimant and it was obvious that he had virtually no use in his arm - even had to use the other arm to lift it onto his lap when he sat down. The affected arm was colder and greyer than the other one. I am an OT and not easily fooled. No way was this guy faking this. So I approved more physio - the only thing that reduced his pain, sent him to another orthopaedic surgeon, got a functional assessment, etc. The reports all came back, as I expected, that the claimant had a permanent disability due to damage caused by the surgeon and he definately had no capacity for work. So I helped him put in a claim for medical misadventure, but left before I heard the result. Hope he got it, because he had put up with being called a bludger for years by the guy who had crippled him! Some medics should be sued and should be struck off, especially when they try to cover up their mistakes in this way.
0

#11 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 11 June 2005 - 01:56 PM

The system exists to protect the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. That'ts why the ACC Act was recently changed to avoid any need fo frindings of medical error against health professionals who injure their patients. I beleive ACC's real motivation was to create an atmosphere where doctors will collaborate with it in disentitling claimants - ACC recently spent about $21m "improving communications" with doctors. I think we know what that means.
0

#12 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 11 June 2005 - 05:37 PM

and mg there are a few Doctors that don't like the comunations that ACC provide


There seams to be more bugs in there programmes than programme
0

#13 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 29 July 2006 - 06:02 PM

Happen to keep noticing when reading my ACC injury file (for the zillience time) that soon after Dr TIM SPROTT had sent my predetermined assessment report to AON's LEANNE MacDONNELL, he also sent an invoice to them for $450 odd dollars I think it was but what caught my eye was that either ACC or AON had pre paid the prick $10,000.00 ... yes TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS PREPAYED for Work Capacity Assessments!

AON must have been pushing them (Clients W/C assessesment referals) throught Enviromedix at a pretty fast rate eh to be able to justify SPROTT earning the interest off that TEN GRAND while he had it eh!

And another thing I must blurb on is the fact that yes, the ACC have an answer for each and every occassion!

As well as having JUDY DEARSLEY at the control gate administering all complaints relating to their scam, they must have heaps of people in the back room thinking of all the different senarios, angles etc and entering the appropiate response in their (the ACC's) "ACC's answer for every occassion" database!

BLURB :-)
0

#14 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 July 2006 - 08:50 PM

Were you booted off? It is my understanding from good authority that the Assessing Doctor gets a Bonus of $10k if you are EXITED. Case Manager also gets handsome bonus.
Big business, exit business!!
0

#15 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 29 July 2006 - 09:39 PM

this goes to show that spending money is no problems to case managers

Think the above claimants Medical Reports number around 43 Not bad to comfirm the injury tat was accepted at the beginning

check out section 30 2001 Act Sub Section 4 and see that staff are alowed to go out side the legislation

Another case were Ray Wilson is calling the shots as Technical Claims Manager
0

#16 User is offline   Warren Forster 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 29 July 2006 - 09:42 PM

Hi,

It would be an interesting exercise to exaimine the amount of money that ACC spends on "rehabilitation" related to medical fees, examiniations, assessments etc with the purpose of exiting claimants.

I think that in some cases ACC may be spending more on this than they do on treatment.
0

#17 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 29 July 2006 - 09:56 PM

I can tell you that last year they spent $23 million and that went all to providers for the assessments for free Computer Courses and work trails.

there was nothing spent on reducing the lialibility to the community as section 3 states.

then the Act is written in such a way that Vocational Rehabilitation will be affective as the assessors and pridvers are being paid large sums.

there is nothing paid for the claimant to receive training.
0

#18 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 29 July 2006 - 10:12 PM

Ay Percy, it was/is a very big boot n all mate! Still got the boot, its stuck up me backside ... I won't let go of it because I need it for evidence mate!

Its been there since 12 july 2002. (i wonder if they cover "ACC boot up the bum" injuries?

Looking at it through the mirror, it looks like a size 23 nazie type hob nailed boot with what looks like teflone coated over it ... gues the "non stick' layer didn't work to well for them this time, the compound must be break down, unstable is the word im looking for!

I recone theres enough room in that one boot to fit both feet of the following people ... Leanne MacDonnell (cm-ltcu), Dr Robert Percival (Ak- bma), Valerie Jamieson, Lorraine Cooke, Linda Watling, Steve Wagner (long gone yahu!) Susan Carlye, Sandra Mechen, Toni Izzard, Judy Dearsley, Mike Dunne, David Woods (GM AON) Gary Wilson, Gerard McGreevy, The Auditor Generals, Helen Clarks and Ruth Dyson, just manageing to get one boot securly planted!

THere appears to be some "hanger oners" as well ... who dat i can see ... oh its them, tim, chris and ewen (Sprott, Dryson and close behind them both is Walls) ... now who is ... ah its Tony Chew and the two pi dorks who were prespassing on the land where i live!

As for the prepay assessment service Aon seemed to be involved in, I shall fire up the old copier and we'll see if i can get a pict of it here for everyone to admire.

Won't be long, i hope.

BLURB
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 30 July 2006 - 06:09 PM

a we birdie told me that this invoice was brought up in front of the CEO and Chairman.

McGreevy didn't say much.
0

#20 User is offline   Fisher 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 22-August 04

Posted 09 August 2006 - 02:27 PM

Some interesting updates on this report have come about in the last six months.

1. Most of the misleading/inaccurate information that ACC were firmly holding to in this original report, has now been over-ruled by three subsequent reports from respected professionals (Non-Toadie) and some of the original diagnosis that was trivialised and taken away by ACC has now been given back, much to the chagrin of this claimants C/m(Ms McRae).

2. This claimants same C/m discontinued his medication mid-last year, he had to take ACC to review over a $22.95 nasal spray (3-4 times a year) that had been supplied for 13 years previously without question, until Ms McRae turned nasty. The claimant who has neurological damage (accepted by ACC since 1991) turned up at review and found himself up against his C/m and an accompanying barrister! This hearing went from review to written submissions over a six month period and finally justice was done, when the decision came through, this claimant had won his case and ACC were ordered to continue reimbursement of the $22.95 x 3-4 times a year for this claimants nasal spray, because his sinus condition IS occupational. This was a great day for the claimant, but a waste of time and money, as ACC had previously accepted this claim, but later insisted that ACC had not.

3. This victory was particularly interesting for the claimant, as the review started out with the barrister representing ACC, not knowing the difference between an asthma inhaler (flixotide) and a nasal spray inhaler (flixonase). Seven submissions on paper from each side and a review with ACC using a barrister, must have cost ACC thousands. It is estimated that this claimant could have been provided with enough nasal spray to last him for over 150 years. :ph34r: You just have to wonder at the logic behind MsMcRae and ACC, don't YA! ;)
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