ACCforum: Albert V Acc 238/2000 Ai 11/99 - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Albert V Acc 238/2000 Ai 11/99 Work Capacity, ACC KPI, referred provide

#1 Guest_Read Me_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 18 November 2005 - 12:32 PM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON

Decision No.
238 /2000


UNDER

The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992

AND

IN THE MATTER
of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act

BETWEEN
SONNY ANGUS ALBERT of
Carterton
Appellant
(Appeal No. Al 11/99)

AND

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act
Respondent

HEARING at WELLINGTON on the 19th day of May 2000

APPEARANCES/COUNSEL
C A Garstang for appellant
N Dentice for respondent

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A W MIDDLETON

The issue in this appeal is whether the respondent was correct in ceasing further entitlements of weekly compensation on the grounds that the appellant had a capacity for work.



page 10:

a hint that "there may be some truth in the submissions which i have heard both in this case and in a number of others.
For example:
1. What is meant when it is said that the "team structure allows for clear objectives
and measurements to be in place for staff which impacts on their
remuneration?" Does that mean that by creating a certain number of "exits"
staff will receive a bonus? That would appear to be the implication.

2. What is meant by the statement "The Referred Providers programme involves
the obtaining of second opinions from appropriate providers where medical
certificates are being unreasonable (sic) extended?" Does that mean that a
direction to a "tame" provider will produce the required report to enable an "exit"
to be made? It certainly has that appearance and it would follow that the
"appropriate provider" would be suitably recompensed.

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 18 November 2005 - 03:07 PM

An unfortunate sequel to this case. ACC appealed it to the High Court and argued that the "tail management" paper showing case managers were not paid bonuses to kick claimants off the books could not be proved to be official ACC policy. Justice France (ex Crown lawyer) said, because the paper was not on ACC letterhead, she did not recognise it. A triumph for form over substance, IMHO.
The "Sunday Star Times" picked this issue up and asked ACC about the origins of the paper. ACC initially tried to bullshit its way out by denying knowledge of the paper. Up popped Murray McCully, the Minister at the time the paper was written, and who said that it was written for him.
So what is the position today? A document claims staff are rewarded for disentitling claimants. The District Court expresses concerns about apparent bias. The High Court turns a blind eye to it. The media confirms that the incentive to bias actually exists. Meanwhile ACC steams on shifting the costs of personal injury on to victims and their families. Trebles all round at Shamrock House? Perhaps the new management will think differently. Time will tell.
0

#3 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 19 November 2005 - 10:37 AM

Time will tell.... let's hope so... I remember this well and was absolutely gobsmacked that even though the SST proved the briefing paper was written for the minister and it was REAL, nothing was done about the actual process of exit or KPIs. Shame, shame, shame. Injured people shafted once again for the all mighty dollar.
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