ACCforum: Indepedance Allowance - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Indepedance Allowance

#1 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 19 December 2005 - 10:58 PM

Does anyone here know what the rates are for the independance allowance ???? I have 51% impairment and i reckon im getting shafted by ACC. I found this on the acts site but not sure how it works for independance ??? Acts and Legislations Am i correct in saying that the lump sum is supposed to be divided by 5 years and that is how much your yearly independance should be ??????
0

#2 User is offline   freefallnz 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-June 04

Posted 20 December 2005 - 06:50 AM

My understanding of the act was that the independence allowance was a percentage of the maximum agreed amount per annum.

The lump sum payment was introduced to allow people to capitalise that annual allowance for the remainder of that period. (ie. up to 5 years)

Not a good idea because ACC were given the ability to apportion the entire capital amount and withhold a percentage because you were deemed to be getting better over time.

I'd be very cautious about querying ACC on this matter. Their response will be to send you for another assessment.

As for the ACC mathematics well all I can say is go figga.

Quote

15% combined with 15% gives a final whole person impairment of 28%


Well it aint "Swedish rounding"
0

#3 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 20 December 2005 - 07:21 AM

Freefall funny you should mention the 2 figures. Mine is 44% for hands and 12% for feet yet when they ad the 2 up together they give me 51% in my eyes it should be 56%.

I was on the understading that ratings for your impairment were done every 5 years unless you request for a new assesment if things got worse etc.

So how can they send you for a new assesment especially since mine has 2 years left to go.

What i might do is wait for the new rating to be done in 2 years then query the 51% they done and what there payments are supposed to be. If its wrong they will have to backpay more if i do it that way.
0

#4 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 20 December 2005 - 07:55 AM

maungataniwha i wish mine was that much. At 51% i get just on $50 per week or $600 per quarter. A bit short of the figures that they are stating on that site.
0

#5 User is offline   Chrissy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 25-August 05

Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:01 AM

The lump sum works out slightly less over five years than if you had been paid quarterly...that takes into account interest/inflation you could receive on the money etc. Not sure if this is much help.
0

#6 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:04 AM

Slightly less well work this out. $50 a week would be $2600 a year multiplied by 5 years comes to $13000. Thats not slightly less but ridiculously less than the $32000 lump sum payment as stated in the above schedule in my earlier post.
0

#7 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:38 AM

The problem is that determining whole person impairment requires the interpretation of the AMA Guides and only qualified assessors are able to do this. In the Guides, 1 + 1 does not equal 2, for very complex reasons.
A better way of challenging lump sum/independence allowance decisions is to look at the amount "apportioned" (deducted) for "non-injury factors. I just received a District Court decision on this issue this morning ("Fowler", 367/2005, Judge Beattie), in which the whole person impairment rating (41 + 5 = 44) was restored, after the ACC-doctor wrongly apportioned 10 percent for non-injury factors. The result is worth another $9,000 or so to the claimant.
0

#8 User is offline   mary1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 13-September 05

Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:46 AM

If you recieved a lump sum are you entitled to an independance allowance? The lump sum was a while ago.

thanks
mary
0

#9 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 20 December 2005 - 11:49 AM

yes, but the previous lump sum payment will be deducted from any new entitlement, even if it relates to a completely separate injury.
0

#10 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 20 December 2005 - 12:49 PM

MG and others, I may have been missing something here - if a person had a lump sum assessment and received payment for impairment under the provisions of the 1982 Act are they entitled to an independence allowance in addition to their weekly compensation??????
0

#11 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 20 December 2005 - 03:35 PM

Magnacarta - yes, lump sum/independence allowance and weekly compensation are separate entitlements. You can be eligible for both, or one and not the other. Please note my previous post - if you are assessed for lump sum/IA and you have already received payment for one of these entitlements, it will be deducted from your new entitlement - ie, no "double-dipping".
0

#12 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 20 December 2005 - 04:15 PM

Greetings,
lump sum payment @ 19% disability... plus the pain /suffer etc ... 1993..
under 1972/ 1982 acts... This had nothing to do with I.A.
Blair Christian put it at 5% for Independance allowance in 1999...
Info, given was not accurate or enough...
I had not been given any Info on I.A.... and Wade Biegent, CM at Whangarei...
(Yes Arsehole, I have not Forgotten), gave me none, then..
sent the Review details to the WRONG ADDRESS TWICE, so I missed it Twice...
even tho I had put paper with address Address In his hands, TWICE...
This "Misdirection of mail" was not by accident...
This one will surface soon... None of The ACC Crap is ever to late to be aired...
reviewed, or in court.
0

#13 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 20 December 2005 - 04:26 PM

Refer to IRP as well. my posting
this may help as well/ if you are under the 10% you get nothing now i believe .
these assessors and the AMA guide is a rip off it is going to be chalanged soon.

Assessors are trained to exit you and they are only bloody GP that know nothing

In one case i know where the person almost lost his legs, Had to rebuild him , can hardly walk got $4 per week only with no ERC after 6 months.
that is hard to swollow .

On TV today a judge made a statement

some where ---- some way ------some day ---some one ----must pay ,

that is also a fact
0

#14 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 20 December 2005 - 05:01 PM

MG, thank you kindly for that info - there is a hell of a story here which I will add (in brief) to my statement of facts in support of an inquiry into ACC.
0

#15 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 21 December 2005 - 05:48 AM

Quote

MG, thank you kindly for that info - there is a hell of a story here which I will add (in brief) to my statement of facts in support of an inquiry into ACC.


Me too as there are issues here that need to be corrected.
0

#16 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 21 December 2005 - 07:16 AM

Flowers, you are so right that things do need to be corrected - and urgently.

Not least that by ACC staff failing to tell claimants, their GP's and their specialists about independent allowances vastly improves ACC's fiscal performance at the direct cost to claimant's.

Unless ACC tells them about these entitlements they don't know the process and procedures. How could they????

As it stands, here we have a Labour-led Government, which presents itself as fair, honest and looking after the interests of the less well off in society, deliberately filling Treasury coffers with levy money unlawfully withheld from injured people which it has absolutely no right to retain.

I have an expectation that my Government, whatever its social leanings, will follow the law and not knowingly exploit the public's ignorance of that law, for profit.

Faced with ACC's adverse conduct, which again is to deliberately act to deny claimant's their lawful entitlements, there is no alternative left than to raise this issue in Parliament by way of a petition for an inquiry.
0

#17 User is offline   Noddy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 10-April 04

Posted 21 December 2005 - 07:30 AM

5 years on ERC, 3 spinal operations, numerous meetings with Case Managers - I have NEVER been informed of my entitlements - including this.... I have only been denied what I have asked for and threatened with loss of ERC if I don't comply with ACC's demands.

I will sign an affidavit towards this.........

Noddy
0

#18 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 21 December 2005 - 09:52 AM

Quote

Me too! Mine was around $500 quarterly, until I opted to take the five year's worth in one lump sum ($500 x 4 = $2K pa over 5 years). Maybe that was a way for us to sign away the full amounts above?


Did the lump sum equate to more than your quarterly payments multiplied by the years ???? The figure i stated earlier were set down in the 2002 act so should be current figures from what i can make out.

Thats why i think but probably am wrong but why i think we could be getting shafted on this.
0

#19 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 21 December 2005 - 10:05 AM

a couple of years ago when this subject was a hot topic I recieved a letter from ACC telling me about the lump payment thing but after looking at it realised that the lump sum did not equate to the three monthly figure but would be adjusted thus having the effect of further reducing what they pay.
I do not Know the current sutuation but in my deakings with those LIARS have always found that any initiative on their part was and still never to my advantage but somhow results in some sort of reducrtion.
I expect this practice is instituted so as to provide bonuses for the mongrels at our expence.
0

#20 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 21 December 2005 - 10:14 AM

Yes i can recall getting a letter asking if i wanted it as a lump sum and yes it was less. The reasoning i believe is that if you invested that money the interest you get would bring the total up to similar as what they pay you in the quarterly payments.

Whats getting to me is, if thats how they work it out, in a way thats understandable, but the figures i found on the acts site re the lump sum is treble to what they are currently paying. So even if you deducted some off the total because you take it in a lump sum it works out thousands more than what they are actually paying. Wether there is new rates that were introduced in 2002 and i just missed out or what i dont know. I suppose we will only find out when it comes up for renewal.
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users