ACCforum: Indepedance Allowance - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Indepedance Allowance

#21 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 21 December 2005 - 10:15 AM

I am aware that people have successfully challanged ACC on backdated IA on the basis that they were not informed they were entitled to apply for an IA. Normally IA is only from the date of application but as I said this has been successfully challanged.
Good luck
0

#22 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 21 December 2005 - 10:20 AM

Fairgo i put in for IA 9 years after injury. I was never told that i was able to claim for the IA. They accepted the claim for IA and had to backdate it until original ACC claim was lodged for ERC. Cost them over 17 grand in backpay. At the end of the day was an easy claim to make to ACC and was hassle free re backdating etc.

Fairgo whats even better when i have things organised here i will be putting in for interest on arrears of the backpayment as they were the ones that failed to notify me of my entitlement to IA. This will also be put forward with the claim for interest on ERC which they witheld for 19 months.
0

#23 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 21 December 2005 - 07:04 PM

way back in 1984 the corporation increased my lump sum from 10% to 15% with out requesting it. the reviewer (no reviewed applied for it) agreed that it should have been 15%

I haven't been paid the 5% increase

I'm applying for a reassessment as my injury (that has been only assessed at 10% ) (the extra 5% is for broken bones that had 100% healed before the 10% assessment).

will I get the extra 5% with intrest and will they do the assessment on the injury thats the problem and only deducting the 10%.

Just to add to the information the review clerk Mrs G Horneman arranged the second assessment and the work history is so far wrong that it must have been modified. there is nothing about the paraspinal musscles and there waistage.

there is medical reports that show that the muscle waistage and problems were there before and after the lump sum assessment.

Just one question Do you think that ACC will be able to cover up there attemp of fraud? Me know they can''t!
0

#24 User is offline   AJNZ 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 22 December 2005 - 07:41 AM

Hi all - I'm followijng this topic with interest (bad pun!)

Husband's accident 28.8.1999. NO ERC (ACC said because he was 66 at time ofaccident). No IA - not told we could apply.

Our GP and ortho specialist instigated IA application on 23 March 2002. Injuries assessed - right hip, neck/upper spine.

29 May 2002 - IA accepted. Whole Person Impairment - 24% - $24.03 weekly. Arrears paid from 3.9.1999 ($3,276.70) - no interest paid.

11 July 2002 - not happy with results of assessment - many meetings/corres-pondence with ACC until October 2003. ACC would not review previous decision because "no mention of head injuriesin medical reports."

21 May 2003 - offered lump sum IA payment - did not request this option.

October 2003 - GP and ortho specialist obtained re-assessment of neck/spinal injuries and assessment for head injury and TBI.

18 March 2004 - new IA accepted - included all injuries. Whole Person Impairment now 46% - $40.31 per week. Arrears paid only from date of re-assessment, ie 22 March 2004. No other back-dating/interest paid.

Our questions:

1 Should interest have been paid on arrears 3.9.1999 to 29.5.2002?
2 Should IA arrears have been paid in respect of increase in WPI from 24% to 46% - from 3.9.1999 to 22.3.2003?
3 If (2) is correct - then should interest have been paid on this sum also?

Your help in this will be much apprecaited.

Have a good Christmas.

:wub:
0

#25 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 02 January 2007 - 10:41 AM

Would the writers on this thread update any info received as I believe
many will benefit. :D :D

Are the amounts still current?..
0

#26 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 02 January 2007 - 04:46 PM

annot understand is that when on invalids benifit one gets something like $70 per week yet ACC manage to reduce that by arsessment to $24. something sucks and it aint sweet.
yes we should ask for a parlimentary inquiry into ACC'c practice of degrading injuries to reduce ia payments from abot 200 they have stolen millions.
Thieves and bastards support then in parliment and they should be held criminally responsible ie ruthy dyson and heklen clark and the rest of the labour executive.
0

#27 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 03 January 2007 - 12:05 PM

AJNZ

You ask three questions.

To one and three I think you will find that ACC have no legislative ablility to pay interest on any 'entitlement' other that weekly compo. However, that is not to say that you could not ask for it from their Head Office under their 'Wrongful Action' now called the "Payments outside the scope of statutory entitlements'.

To question two, I think you should get this to Review and Court as soon as possible as they have made an error, way back, which should in turn be 'backdated' to when you questioned it in the first place.

When is a application an application?................only when it is on a certain form, or when you have brought it to the ACC attention that ithe issue is of concern to you??? Let the Judge be the decider, then follow up with the request for interest under their 'payments outside the scope of statutory entitlements'.

I have another recently diaganosised 'injury' coming up for IA as well, the date they backdate this too is going to be interesting. And no, I have never been given any 'interest' for backdated IA although I have sucessfully managed to have my previous injuries backdated to date of injury, but that was because I proved that the whole impairment was over 10% whole person impairment long before ACC considered it was.

The 'interest' part is getting readied for the Head Office, although I will now have to be reassessed because of this new 'injury', I guess, which should give me a little more income.

IA is important to have as your superannuation is not affected by it and it is non-taxable. It is more valuable as a three monthly payment than a lump sum amount, so try not to change it even if they temp you with offers to do so. As correctly said earlier by others, that makes ACC better off and they don't have to worry about the extra paper work.

Happy New Year all
Mini
0

#28 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 03 January 2007 - 05:33 PM

just to add to mini's post

Interest on late payments of weekly compensation

114.Payment of interest when Corporation makes late payment of weekly compensation—

(1)The Corporation is liable to pay interest on any payment of weekly compensation to which the claimant is entitled, if the Corporation has not made the payment within 1 month after the Corporation has received all information necessary to enable the Corporation to calculate and make the payment.

(2)The Corporation is liable to pay the interest—

(a)at the rate for the time being prescribed by, or for the purposes of, section 87 of the Judicature Act 1908; and

(b)from the date on which payment should have been made to the date on which it is made.

Cf 1998 No 114 s 101
0

#29 User is offline   AJNZ 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 03 January 2007 - 08:11 PM

Thanks Mini and Doppel for your replies. Yes, I accept that "interest" has not been paid.

Back-dating? (For head injuries/worsened spinal injuries' effects and TBI - all atributable to original accident). I wrote querying these items last year. Letter back says that "any increase in IA due to newly assessed injuries (even if found to be caused by original accident) will not be back-dated - but increase is only payable from time of re-assessment, and new, increased IA sum payable from next quarter (after assessment)."

I too, have a problem with this - we unsuccessfully tried (from 2002) to get a referral for head injuries/TBI, etc - did not get it until late 2003. We have been stonewalled on this issue, and

Any suggestions welcomed.

Boy - they are twisters! :ph34r:

Happy New Year mates.
0

#30 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 03 January 2007 - 10:10 PM

AJNZ

You are welcome.

I think you will find that each claimant has differing circumstances. In mine I noticed in a newspaper that a legal firm down south was making known to all and sundry that people had been missing out on their rights to Independence allowance because of ACC lack of explaining that after a certain timelimit, we were entitiled to it. This was in 1999. I fell into the catergory of having had ongoing disability but still working, at that time. Working did not alter the fact that I should have been assessed for permanent injury and would have been entitled to it under the 1992 Act.

We had to have applications in by July 1999 or we would miss out on the way in which the backdating was done. It was all quite wierd from what I remember and all injuries were cut up into neat little slices and dates so that it was very difficult to met the 10% limit on one injury alone. It was only when counting up the percentage of the injuries that the amount was over the 10% mark, and the date of the injury that took the % over that was the date which the payment was made from. (Using the AMA Guidelines).

Having said that, in my case, ACC had forgotten to include an injury which was permenent and dated back to the first accident (as they all did really). This took the first injury over the 10% mark and that meant backdating until the date of the first?? accident!! Judge ordered ACC to do it all again and I recieved a larger amount of IA three monthly b/d to the first accident, so extra b/d monies.

This took a lot of fighting and hanging on in there, gathering information as I was very unfamiliar with the ACC law. Over five years of questioning, wrangling and research, I have sucessfully made huge inroads into gaining my rights for IA and w/c and understanding of other entitlements. The one just covered, is 'mental caused by physical', which was caused by the loss of my employment. As I said it will be interesting to see what date they use as the beginning date for payment for that one as my Doctor has it mentioned in the original application I put in to ACC in 1999!!?? :)

I will keep you abreast of the situation, but it is easy to see, that each claimant has differing circumstances that must be taken into consideration when decisions are made concerning their entitlements.

It is pure good luck on my part that I have seen these anomalies and have taken the ACC up on them. There has been nothing planned on my part that I would do this or do that. It is pure bumbling along and using their own methods and tactics to win the cases.

This forum is fantastic for getting information. Especially from those who have taken their own cases and won. Maybe one day I can do or post something here which will help a lot of you. That will give me great pleasure, as I know how hard it is to fight alone.

Good luck
Mini
0

#31 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 04 January 2007 - 12:15 AM

The whole thing is why is the claimant not automatically notified that they qualify for the allowance when acc accept his claim and start paying erc. if they have enough medical evidence at that time to accept the claim then they have enough evidence to determine elligibility and determinedegree of incapacity. Why should the claimant have to be aware of it to claim it?
How many millions have they stolen here in the name of efficiency and fairness?
0

#32 User is offline   AJNZ 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 04 January 2007 - 08:04 AM

Yes, Mini I can see how the situations evolve (to ACC's advantage!). In our case (my husband is the claimant) like you, I researched and took reviews - won them both. Like you, I now have quite a good knowledge of the law - although reviewers continue to tell me that they adjudicate under the 2001 Act (our accident was in August 1999 - so 1998 Act applies!).

It is nothing short of outrageous when a corporatrion set up to "administer" the law, forms its own policies and guidelines to work from, that are adversial towards the claimant, that promote non or mis-information and actively prevent claimants from obtaining their entitlements.

Having said that - and we all know it, I will stop my moaning for the day. Good luck to you and all of those on this forum who continue the good fight.

:wub:
0

#33 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

  Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:22 PM

Al9lifes

What does IMHO mean?? Mine was done in Dunedin or down south somewhere. They were a bit sneaky that is for real!! But I kept on hammering away until I got an opening to swoop and the outcome was in my favour. (after 4 Reviews and 1 D/c case covering five years, 1999-2004). So it pays to be vigilant and listen but get everything in writing as well. Research and understanding of past law and changes is most important.

AJNZ - The law that is used for IA is the law that is in place when the application is made. That is why it was so important that mine was in before July 1999, or I would miss out on the old law. There was some big change at that date. I think it was the introduction of the AMA Guides but can't quite recall. Besides I just left it to a lawyer as I wouldnt have known which end was up with ACC law at that time. And he was no win -no fee, so I was not losing anything. From the time I knew I had P/I I also knew I had a right to 80% of my wage.

Flowers - If I am correct you have to have a letter from your doctor saying that the injury is stable and permanent disability needs to be assessed. This can only be done a certain number of months after the accident happened. My last operation was a year old before I was considered 'stable'. That is not including the 'Mental caused by Physical' of course. That is why ACC cannot tell you or assess you for IA at the time you get w/compo. When the accident happens of course nothing is 'stable' and that is understandable, but I agree they have the mechanisisms in place to prod them into life when your time has arrived for an assessment of permanent injury.

Under the 1992 Act and before it was up to you to recognise everything. Don't I know it much to my lose and disgust!!! However now ACC must let you know of your entitlements under the legislation and if they do not they have broken your 'claimants rights'.

This IA business alone can keep one continually 'busy' eh. There is also heaps more going one.

All the best little buddies

Mini

It is very difficult for long term sufferers, just keep reading here, query what you don't understand and follow up on leads you think may be useful in your position.
0

#34 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:54 PM

IMHO = In my honest opinion.

the form for the Independant Allowance forms can be down loaded from the ACC web site Take them to your Dr to have him fill them out.

Its under providers/ resources.

While there look fot the providers guide lines as very interesting.

Just getting through the process now.
0

#35 User is offline   Chrissy 

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

Posted 04 January 2007 - 09:12 PM

What does one do when the assessor for IA does not take into account all injuries or affects of injuries and appears not to do the assessment properly or consider all information given or shows no interest in what the claimant has to say...and then gives what appears to be a very low wpi rating considering the extent of the injury and actual loss of bodily function, i.e. movement etc?

Can this be challenged and if so, is that at review and does said claimant need further medical assessment/evidence to have the rating reevaluted?

If the injury/injuries occurred prior to 1999 but claimant was not told about IA, how does one go about getting that back-dated and if it is possible does the old assessment formula apply or the newer AMA guidlines?
0

#36 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 04 January 2007 - 10:16 PM

Chrissy yes it can be done at review.

it also involves a assessment that will be honest and include all injuries.

if you go to http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ost&p=37374 up one post you will see what I though of the assessment.

what really surprised me was that the Dr seamed to have a per written history of my injuries. I went off at the assessor when he went strait to an assessment which did not cover the injuries giving the incapacity. I think that this may have been written by the ACC so that the history looks the same as the lies in the file. I gave him a writen history which I don't think that he will read.

there will be a review becaus ethe Dr did not examin the injury that caused the disibility but must admit that he did feel the distance between the vertbra in the spine.
0

#37 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 05 January 2007 - 07:03 AM

This thread opens a massive can of worms after 'mg' answer in post 10 to 'mary1' post 9.
When reading post 12 onwards answers are needed.

Is the following statement correct ,?If not why .
WPI. [whole person injury] this rating is done as a % AMA4 [american medical association volume 4].
This % is then applied to the 'act and legislation table in post 1. :wacko: :wacko:
0

#38 User is offline   gaffa09 

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

Posted 05 January 2007 - 10:07 AM

this thread is open and there are other threads open and working that should be all linked ,
There is more to come on this topic where do I post it .
Also more between the ACC staff The DRSL, the aMA guide

This ACC system is a sham, I wonder who has caused it all .
It is also an insult to the human race as is the DRSL System .

The medical Hospital system is in a mess I know as i arrived home from being at the hospital until 2am this morning .
What has got me is the children 3 in total waiting for 4 hours and longer to get treatment One bitten by a white tail spider with her leg in a mess and getting worse by the minute a 5 year old .
As for me well i have layed a complaint .
then a 14year old fell off her horse and had head injuries , sent home to the HarksBay,
She couldn't hold her head up .
Then this hospital is loosing doctors to overseas Good Doctors i may add,

Think it says it all
0

#39 User is offline   gaffa09 

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

Posted 05 January 2007 - 10:23 AM

Will try and add all links pertaining to IP and AMA, and DRSL

http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ic=4450&hl=

http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ic=4438&hl=

http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ic=3570&hl=

http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ic=4052&hl=
0

#40 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 January 2007 - 11:15 AM

Jeeze Gaffa thats a lot of reading. Still if you need the information it will be read.

You are right that there needs to be a meeting of the minds, experiences and cases won etc and posted to allow those out there that wish to understand and take their own cases.

It is not easy. It is very time consuming but most on line are will ing to spend that time to understand and stand up for themselves. IMHO!!?? it is the only way that ACC will stop taking advantage of individuals.

In numbers we are strong. Individually we are weak......alas some weaker than others through no fault of their own. No one should be expected to stand alone and fight the powers that be for the entitlements which are rightfully theres.

ACC is a fabulous idea for the people of NZ, if only it were not so conforntational when needing and wanting your rights. I find it difficult to think there is a big boogie man out to get us, on the other hand that would mean that the ground level staff do not know what they are doing.

Chrissy, there is a way to get your pre 1999 accident injuries all assessed together as they should and that is to get your case to the Court. Use mine as a precendent if you wish. Send me a mail I will give you its number etc.

Firstly, you would have to fall into the category which I have said previously: that your first application for IA was pre July 1999 and it was for all the injuries that happened in the original accident.

Well thats me for now. If you need me to do the IA stuff Gaffa, I am here.

Good Luck
Mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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