ACCforum: Right To A Tribunal Hearing - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Right To A Tribunal Hearing

#1 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 December 2003 - 11:17 PM

Posted by ALAN: reposted.

Right to a tribunal hearing

The general manager of Dispute Resolution Services Ltd acknowledges that he does not know whether the company he presides over carries out in tribunal Hearings or not. He admits that this is a mystery to him. As his position is a very responsible position and the core activity of his business is contract Review Hearings for the ACC I would have thought that there would be very little doubt as to what has responsibility exactly where.

The question that comes to mind is therefore, does Dispute Resolution Services Ltd have a genuine intention to provide justice as part of the justice system in accordance with a contract?

On each and every and counter with a Review Hearing the has been flagrant disregard for judicial procedure. Because this has now developed into a consistent pattern by now believe that the intentions are not honourable as there appears to have been no effort of quality control for the service provided to ACC claimants.
0

#2 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 December 2003 - 11:18 PM

Posted by Alan: Reposted


ACC Review Hearings "Tribunals"

Sorry if there has been some confusion. Are ACC tribunals a judicial procedure? Tribunals are described all through various New Zealand legislation.

The questions are:

Does dispute resolution services Ltd beside the over a tribunal as a judicial procedure?

Is a Review Hearing something other than a tribunal?

If a review Hearing is not a tribunal then how is the matter heard by way of an appeal to an appellate court?

I had posed these questions to the general manager of Disputes Resolution Services Ltd. Being a reasonable fellow I would have expected that he would have known the answers to his core business.

This is a very important question to have answered properly. If anybody knowingly, or by omission, misrepresents information to a tribunal they have committed a criminal offence under section 116 Of the Crimes Act and will be liable to a maximum of seven years in prison. The quantum for the prison sentence will be determined by the losses of the victim. If they victim in this matter is disadvantaged by a lifetime of earnings related compensation, say $1 million, then the perpetrator likely receive something close to the maximum sentence.
0

#3 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 December 2003 - 11:19 PM

Posted by ALAN: reposted.

Review Hearing tribunal's

Both the Dispute Resolution Services Ltd and the ACC, who own them, do not want to accept the legal responsibility for being a "tribunal". Being a tribunal imports legal responsibilities that could involve criminal prosecutions against staff members of the ACC together with the vocational and medical professionals who are engaged to produce assessments used for disentitling high-value entitlements.

Dispute resolution services Ltd would rather have us believe that they have no real authority whatsoever and we all just agreed to whatever is generally described as a decision. Make no mistakes of these decisions are imposed upon us to enforce legislation. At times decisions by review officers will extend out to justification for criminal prosecutions without the judge being allowed to decide whether or not an entitlement exists but merely rely upon reviewer. Such decisions are of course very weighty decisions that must be properly supported by a "tribunal" in accordance with judicial procedure.

I trust you can now understand the importance of these issues. I'm seeking further assistance in this project of properly identifying a decision makers in order that we may properly challenge these decisions we form the opinion that those decisions are wrong.

Sorry about the occasional glitch with my writing as I am using voice software. Occasionally I forget to read my own writing. :wacko:
0

#4 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 December 2003 - 11:20 PM

Posted by Broken: reposted.

Reviewers

It would be interesting to find out what the qualifications to be a Reviewer are. It appears that many are ex ACC so is it that they have to be a B****** or no principles or just downright dishonest.

The reviewer carries a lot of responsibility being possiblly a quasi judge as in the real courts. Evidence given is admissable and relevent in later court hearings so surely they must have some legal qualification. If not then the whole system is a joke as many already believe.
0

#5 User is offline   Sigurd 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 05-January 04

Posted 05 January 2004 - 12:27 PM

I am just starting a review process for the first time. From reading ACC's information sheet it seems to be a complex and threatening procedure. Is there anything I should know about how to prepare myself for the review hearing? I just have no knowledge about this. Please, any advice would be most gratefully received.

Sigurd Volsung
0

#6 Guest_flowers_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 January 2004 - 04:00 PM

Sigurd.
Yes get a good lawyer and be prepared to go to Appeal unless ACC is totally out of line the pets that hear the hearings will allow all ACC evidence and deny you yours as a matter of course.
0

#7 User is offline   Sigurd 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 05-January 04

Posted 06 January 2004 - 10:45 AM

Thanks flowers. My case manager rang me up yesterday. Now she wants to avoid a review and go into mediation. This is because it would be, in her terms, simpler. She wants me to write a statement of all my concerns to start this mediation process.

Has anybody been in a mediation situation with ACC before? Does anyone know what exactly the purpose of such a thing might be and why would a case manager want to go into mediation instead of a review process? Once again, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Sigurd Volsung
0

#8 User is offline   twostickswalking 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-September 03

Posted 06 January 2004 - 01:05 PM

the reasoning behind mediation, is so the review figures don't stack up against the department, and effectively they can shut you up quicker without you having to go to appeal, it also gives them opportunity to see what you have up your sleeve, and
how to be able to better tackle the situation. they simply do not want the review
to go against them.

take someone with you, that has been to mediation before, dont trust the acc
in my opinion
0

#9 User is offline   Tipster007 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-October 03

  Posted 06 January 2004 - 02:15 PM

Hi Siqurd, :)

If you don't mind telling us what your problem with ACC is in relation to, then we may be able to help you put a statement together (with reference to the appropriate use of applicable legislation) which may assist you in resolving that problem at the mediation stage rather than having to undertake the added expense of going on through the review process.

Obviuosly you will have received a letter of DECISION from the ACC that you DO NOT agree with and have originally decided to take that decision to an independent review hearing.

We would need to know the DATE of that ACC decision and the BASIS of that decision. In otherwords, what the decision relates to and why you DO NOT agree with it.

If you can provide us with that info then we can help you prepare an appropriate statement to take to Mediation.

Mediation and/or Review is NOT a scary process, it is just a group of people sitting around a table discussing the problem and the appropriate legislation that applies. It is a very informal process and nothing to worry about whatsoever.

I will leave it up to you as to whether you want to discuss your problem on this thread/forum as I can appricate that some issues may be sensitive and this would then not be the ideal place to post that information. If that is the case then you are more than welcome to email any of us otherwise I will look forward to your reply with some further information attached.

Cheers


Tipster007
0

#10 User is offline   Kiwee 

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

Posted 06 January 2004 - 09:46 PM

DRSL also do mediation.. check out their website at
http://www.drsl.co.n...ation.php?id=12
for some information on the process
0

#11 User is offline   Sigurd 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 05-January 04

Posted 07 January 2004 - 11:14 AM

If this will help someone to help me, then here is a draft of a letter I intend to send to my case manager (excuse the length). It has all the issues involved in it. However, my main concern is that, if it is only by review something can be changed, why have the mediation meeting?

Dear (case manager name)



As I have expressed to you over the telephone, I will not accept the 33 percent reduction in rates for hiring persons outside of ACC 'accredited' agencies. First, your predecessors guaranteed that this reduction would not affect me. On many occasions they had said, with undiluted clarity, that I would not be subject to any negative consequences of changes enacted after the legislation and policy that was in jurisdiction at time of my injury. In a word, they said I would be 'grandparented'. As you know part of the legislation in jurisdiction over my case were the Complex Personal Injury regulations. These regulations were actioned to counteract the extreme austerity of the 1992 accident compensation legislation. The Complex Personal Injury regulations were purposely vague so as to accommodate the rehabilitation needs of those who are now under the umbrella term of 'Serious Injuries'.

Second, to reinforce this, assessments have been carried out with rates equivalent to that which I was receiving at the initiation of my decision to obtain private personal assistants. This rate was, and is $15.00 per hour. Importantly, these were after the $10.00 policy was put in place.

Third, from experience ACC accreditation appears to have very poor standards. I will not be subjected to the dehumanisation and indignity that is inherent when dealing with nursing agency culture. The employee standards of such agencies are often very low and the staffing profile is transient. From experience the culture within these agencies is condescending and patronising with the 'client' perceived as a dismissible subordinate. Often agency clients a by the day re the subject of gossip, exaggerations and half-truths. In sum, clients are treated as tasks or jobs before they are treated as equal and rights bearing human beings. In my opinion and experience, this is less likely to be the case if care workers are employed by the client. Generally, rapport, trust and most important loyalty are born between the private employer and worker as an interpersonal relationship history evolves.

Fourth, the private hire rate of $10.00 per hour is not commensurate with the 'market rate'. I know of instances where agency personnel are paid at far higher rates for 'high needs personal care' than ACC offers. However, since the date of the mediation is the 14th of this month, I do not have time to find specific examples of this actuality. In any case, over the phone, on the fifth of this month, you seemed to be aware that this was the case. The $10.00 rate does not allow for payment for working on public holidays, weekend rates and other sundries that even nursing agencies are funded for. By proxy then it will be hard to find people willing to work for me privately since agencies offer better conditions and more flexibility than ACC enables myself to. Therefore, it will be by proxy duress that I will need to an engage an agency since no one will want to contract themselves to me under such uncompetitive circumstances. Another result of this unequal situation is that you will, again by proxy, be inhibiting my right to engage with a health and disability provider of my choice.

Fifth, there is a psychological dimension of which there are two aspects. The first aspect is one that concerns my well-being with regard to the effect that if I do engage an agency I will lose control over a vital part of my life. The personal appointment of persons regarding personal care and other tasks concerning my life is extremely important to me. If I relinquish the decision as to who does what and under what conditions my perception of my self efficacy as a functioning and 'in control' human being will be catastrophically diminished. As a result I can see my self-esteem plummeting because of the drudgery of having my life arranged for me. In circumstances such as these I am prone to the stagnant odium of a form of depression that leaves my life, for all intents and purposes, lifeless. I can honestly see I will need counselling in order to deal with these circumstances.

The second psychological aspect is the power dynamic established when it is the 'client' who is also the 'paymaster'. Theoretically (as my understanding goes), a contract with an agency leaves the 'client' to prescribe the day-to-day requirements of personal care and home maintenance needs. It is acknowledged that these needs are, nevertheless, predefined by assessment through ACC accredited therapists. However, these directions are passed on to the care workers through an agency employed coordinator who is seen as the authority figure by said care workers. This dynamic seems to defuse the authority of the 'client' who is actually the prime director of what should happen regarding requirements on site at time of need even if a variation of contract is required. Believe me, it is a subtle yet powerful dynamic when sole responsibility for job description and payment is left to the claimant employer. Tasks are completed properly and with care, staff often stay for long periods of time, and extremely healthy interpersonal dynamics are developed. Moreover, the claimant's life is not complicated by any dissatisfaction the agency care worker may have with how the agency itself manages payment and working conditions. All in all, this allows for greater efficiency in the job, greater continuity of care and the saving of money by not having to consistently train new contractors/employees. In the long run then greater cost benefit may be achieved by less expenditure on training through low staff turnover rates and perhaps more importantly the eradication of the need for ACC to pay for counselling.
0

#12 User is offline   twostickswalking 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-September 03

Posted 07 January 2004 - 11:32 AM

siquird, I am just going to read through your letter and will suggest changes
to the format
0

#13 User is offline   twostickswalking 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-September 03

Posted 07 January 2004 - 11:59 AM

I no way want to pick your letter apart, but would like to add a few suggestions to the format.

Dear Casemanager

Re: subject title

Further to my telephone discussion with you on ........ at............

I wish to make the following comments, I will head the comments in the following way.

[B]1 Negative Consequences
2 Rates Equivalent
3 ACC Accreditation
4 Private Hire
5 phychological dimension

followed by a summary:

1 Negative Consuquences:

Firstly I wish to say that I donnot accept as suggested the 33% reduction in rates for hiring persons from outside agencies, unless the Department of ACC can
guarantee to me that as a result I will not suffer negative consequences

I quote 1992 Act and personal Injury regulations: which state.

2 Rates Equivalant:

etc etc, I hope this helps
0

#14 User is offline   Tipster007 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-October 03

Posted 07 January 2004 - 02:16 PM

Hi Sigurd, :)

You appear to have a very good understanding of your overall situation and I feel you will probably have little differculty in upholding your point of view at either mediation and/or review based on the concise information you have provided above.

A current ACCforum member (Gemini) has just been through something of the same problem recently (re: Attendant Care RATES for private sector employee's). Gemini was successful at review in estabishing that (as a surrogate employer) he had the right to be paid at the private sector rate so that he could employ attendant care (of his choice) at the GOING MARKET RATE and not the rate that ACC had elected to pay as a base rate (being considerably lower).

I would also direct you to IPRC Act 2001, s390. (current legislation)

This section is headed "Revision of decisions under former Acts".

At section 390, ss(3) the following applies...

'In revising a decision, the Corporation MUST apply the Act (in your case the 1992 Act) that applied at the time when the decision being revised was made.'

In other words the rates for attendant care that they agreed on back in 1992 should continue to apply (subject to the appropriate increases by way of Orders in Council etc) and those rates are in fact protected by the transitional provisions of the 1998 Act, (s420 to s453) and 2001 Act, (s352 to s400) in relation to references to FORMER ACTS.

Hope this is of some assistance in the meantime.


Tipster007
0

#15 User is offline   waitakerej 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-July 14

Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:30 PM

thank you for this thread, my review comes up on the 26th September and I have been looking for something like this. Your letter is awesome, and I will use it as a template to shape my own letter around if that is okay?. I will search to see if there are any other threads like this on here
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