ACCforum: Qbe Workable Vs R H 248/2005 - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Qbe Workable Vs R H 248/2005 for those who have or are about to

#1 User is offline   whoknows 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 10-September 05

Posted 10 September 2005 - 06:15 PM

Has anyone read this judgement.
Massive implications for anyone that has been work tested or is about to, and then post Voc Independent subsequntly improves to be able to work in a job more mentally and physically demanding than what they were found to be vocationaly independent for.
Then their personal injury worsens and they can no longer work
(even temporarily) in their current employment.
Unfortunetly it seems that even though you may be incapacitiated for you current job (lets say a fitter or some other active job) the test for getting weekly compensation is if you are able to do you Voc independent job (lets say a weigh bridge operator).

It seems people are left high and dry and the at risk people are the ones that have long term problems and manage to raise their level of function and independece (maybe through subsequent surgery, new medication, technology change and remission of their symptomology).

I'm sure the state didn't intend for this group of people to be put at risk of significant disadvantage and runs against the spirit of a social legislation.
Does anyone know about this?
0

#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 10 September 2005 - 08:48 PM

I hope that this decision is apealed as the job as a weigh bridge operator is not a job that is done solely as a job in NZ. This job is done as an extra job which a fitter maynot have that experance or qualification to do that Job.

section 91 says thatthe job must be available in New Zealand

91.Conduct of initial occupational assessment—

(1)An occupational assessor undertaking an initial occupational assessment must—

(a)take into account information provided by the Corporation and the claimant; and

(b)discuss with the claimant all the types of work that are available in New Zealand and suitable for the claimant; and

©consider any comments the claimant makes to the assessor about those types of work.

(2)The Corporation must provide to an occupational assessor all information the Corporation has that is relevant to an initial occupational assessment.

Cf 1998 No 114 s 96
0

#3 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 12 September 2005 - 02:45 PM

Will someone please post this judgment?
0

#4 User is offline   whoknows 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 10-September 05

Posted 12 September 2005 - 07:09 PM

hi
looking at it again i think it only applies to the 1998 act.
I'm not a lawyer. wondered if you all had an idea?
0

#5 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:05 PM

work capacity assessment procedure regulations came into effect and 1997. The 1998 Act pretty well redescribed the WCAP regulations. The current legislation is much the same. I had gone before Cadenhead J on the same subject matter.

What matters is an actual work capacity to earn while having regard for the injuries. The basic fundamentals have not changed even though there have been some quite ridiculous decisions along the way.

Remember the basic principle.

If you have had an injury while being an earner and can no longer earn because of the injury, then you have earnings insurance cover.

Forget any other mumbo-jumbo!!!

If a document has been produced to take away the earnings insurance while incapacity to earn remains then that document is a false document. If anybody takes financial advantage for themselves or another person or organisation (ACC) of such a document knowingly then they have committed a criminal offence of the type that will receive up to seven years in prison. To make such a document a fraudulent document you only need to make the users of such a document aware that the document is false and known by them to be false. You do this by obtaining superior information.
0

#6 User is offline   whoknows 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 10-September 05

Posted 16 September 2005 - 04:47 PM

I've looked into it further and even rung up head office.
It seems it has been this way for some time.

If you are no longer eligible for weekly entitlement compensation because you have been deemed to have vocational independence, then the only way you can be eligible for weekly comp (for your assessed injuries) again is if your injury deteriorates and you no longer have voc independence.

So if you happen to be working in a physically demanding job years after been voc assessed, (maybe due to subsequent surgery that has improved you, or the condition settles) and your injury deteriorates or symptoms flare then the test is not whether you can do your current job but whether you can do the jobs you were voc assessed as being able to do.
Whatch out as this could mean you are off work for a period of time with no $$$

If you have a new personal injury that is different.

One wonders that if the writing is on the wall that you are to be voc assessed, then it may be worth while considering leaving the scheme so you don't get assessed.
At least then years down the line the test is incapacity for employment when you are working rather than voc independence test.(don't take this as advice)

Sure is an incentive to get back to some work rather than be voc independence assessed. Who knows where technology is going and what advances will be made over the next ten twenty years.

This seems such an injustice to people with long term injuries and I'm suprised that no one has kicked up a stink.
0

#7 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 16 September 2005 - 06:44 PM

When a Dr. states on an ARC 18 that U are fit for "normal work" 3Hr/ 5 days
with all the restrictions [bending.twisting,no staining;] etc.

Next line you are unable to resume duties for 12 weeks.

Where can I find a judgement which supplies the legal defination
that has been used?. Don't seem to able to locate via forums search engine.
0

#8 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

  Posted 17 September 2005 - 08:44 AM

Ys, the case law would be helpful on this ..

I'm in the category of

1: Having old injury flare up (actually never fixed as surgery failed)
2: Have had several subsequent injuries including the loss of ability to write....
3: Have NEVER been able to return to my working capacity since injury in Apr 2000
4: Incapacity now far worse as a result of deterioration caused by lack of treatment for injury sustained in (1), and subsequent reinjuries as well as new injuries - and have some nasty medical complications as a result

Treatment? Compensation? Reassesment? Forget it. ACC can't even get the claim numbers and claim descriptions right (still fighting with uploading the forms that I scanned - will try different scanner ..) never mind my occupation .. (want to get that scanned and onto the personal stories too - it is a classic especially the dialog with ACC - "they never make mistakes like putting in the wrong job classification => GOTCHA!)

Original assessment fundamentally flawed - did not take into account failed reconstructive surgery.

Nuff said.

:ph34r: My vote is NOT for labour ... :ph34r:

Have a great windy wet day everyone - and get out there to vote!
0

#9 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 07 October 2005 - 05:03 PM

The situation as a common problem. Obviously if the ACC assessors had got it wrong then the medical provider signing of on the ACC 18 medical certificate is going to still declare you and fit for work. The ACC 18 medical certificate has been disputed by the ACC so subsequent certificates must provide the Corporation when new information. This can be the same information provided in greater detail. All in the case of a deterioration the deterioration must be described against the work task activities of each of the occupations described by the Corporation. The problem as the Corporation doesn't want to describe these task activities for fear that the individual tasks will be disputed for safety reasons while having regard for the injury.

Please have a read of S109. S109(3) is a new development of law whereby we had access to instigating a reassessment under S109(2)(B).

S109(1) allows the Corporation to assess a claimant at any time they choose whether they are paying earnings related compensation or not.

S109(2) requires the Corporation with the word, must, reassess the claimant in comparison with the previous disentitling decision. This means the Corporation must compare the information of the old decision with the information you have provided. It might be necessary for you to create far more sophisticated job specifications and medical reports describing your incapacity to do that jobs by way of superior assessors. This may be a report produced by a surgeon for example.


S109 When claimant’s vocational independence to be assessed

(1) The Corporation may determine the claimant’s vocational independence at such reasonable intervals as the Corporation considers appropriate.
(2) However, the Corporation must determine the claimant’s vocational independence again if—
(a) the Corporation has previously determined that the claimant had—
(i) vocational independence under this section; or
(ii) a capacity for work under section 89 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998; or
(iii) a capacity for work under section 51 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992; and
(B) the Corporation believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that the claimant’s vocational independence or capacity for work may have deteriorated since the previous determination.
(3) The claimant may give the Corporation information to assist the Corporation to reach a belief under subsection (2)(B).
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