ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

... .

#1 User is offline   02rocky 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 07-February 04

  Posted 04 September 2005 - 10:55 AM

.
0

#2 User is offline   gommer krinkle 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 14 September 2005 - 01:48 PM

The assessments for permanent loss of earning capacity under s.114 of the 1972 and s.60 of the 1982 ACC Acts where required to be carried out once a claiments physical condition had stabilised and all rehebilitation options had been exhausted in terms of vocational activities.

A full medical assessment was to then determine the actual percentage of loss of earning capacity.

If for example you where 50% assessed on relevant earnings of $100.00 then you would recieve 50% of the W/C figure which would be $40.00

The Corporation would then have to commence payment at this rate and increase by Order in Council (OIC) but the point is that you would be largly exempt from any further asessments and the provision of med certs that all others receiving payments for temporary loss of earnings capacity are subject to.

This also means that once assessed and you have been granted permanent benefit then you would not be subject to any abatement of earnings if you managed to go back to some form of employed.

There are also some very complex transitional issues relating to cases of further incapacity for a later injury where a permanent benefit has been granted and a further injury has been sustained where someone then recieves W/C for further loss of employment.

Also a consideration that the Corporation must take into account when looking at loss of earning capacity relates to the time they do the assessment.

If for example there was a ten year gap between date of accident and the assessment then consideration must be given to what your income, and position would have been, but for the accident.

You may at the time of accident have been a sales person but ten years later could reasonably expected if you had stayed in that employment have been the sales manager.

What would a sales manager be making at the time of the assessment ? Your 50% would then be based on this which would be fair and reasonable.

However after all that s.138 (1) (a) of the ARCI Act 1992 states that none of these assessments can now be carried out unless the assessment had been completed before the first day of October 1992 or a decision in respect of any such assessment was subject to an application for review under Part 1X of the 1982 Act that was lodged before 1st Oct 1992.
0

#3 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

Posted 14 September 2005 - 03:59 PM

Nessa -

Know how you feel - I had one assessment done - have had several injuries since - and more importantly, when a specialist did an arthroscopy on my knee, it was determined that the initial surgery was a failure. THis was established after having to go through my local member of parliament. ACC simply refused to speak to me or help - alleged case mongrel said she wasn't my case manager.

So, does this mean that the assessment done before I finally fought through the ACC crap to get an arthroscopy done was valid? IE it was based on incomplete/false information (that ACC assumed that the surgery was succesful, when in fact it was NOT). Had someone, anyone, listened - maybe the mess could have been fixed - now it cannot. And because I was forced to try to work, I've had several falls that have caused even mor problems. We're financially destitute as we've used up all our savings. Can't even afford to go to doctor.

I would LOVE to get a new assessment, (but through qualified people that will also look at the numerous subsequent injuries I have since sustained). I have attempted to work, proved that I cannot. Even part time. The lack of treatment led to additional deterioration of both knees, other injuries led to lose of use of ability to write.

Insurance is supposed to be there to put you back to where you were before you got hurt. Had I been under private insurance, I suspect this would have been done, but through a corrupt government monopoly, guess what? We're stuffed.
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