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

#41 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 January 2007 - 12:10 PM

Huggy

You do not say how much lump sum you got paid and under what act.

As I believe ACC do not pay longer than 5 years at one time and using the example schedule you sumplied plus my own weekly IA percentage I calculated that if you got five years lump sum payment of a 51% WPI it would be in the sum of $13260. Would that be close to the mark??

If it is then you are not being shafted. However, simply ask the case manager to put in writing how it is calculated.

I could be well of course, if so you could let me know that as well.

After the five years has gone by and you have still the same % WPI you should be entitled to another lump sum, one would figure.

Cheers Mini
0

#42 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 06 January 2007 - 08:43 AM

Al9lifes

It would appear you need your Doctors assistance to write one of those forms (whatever they are called) requiring you to have a PTSD assessment done by a siutably qualified Psychiatrist.

I don't know where you live, but I got flown to Cr David Codyre in Akld. (No advertising - but he was very good). Mind you I was not going for PTSD, I was going for Mental caused by Physical. (Linking the Mental injury with the Physical).

As I have said previously it is going to be interesting to see when mine is backdated too, if at all.

Everyone who is having trouble now appears to have had a lump sum payment before the introduction of the 1998 Act and the AMA Guides. I never had a lump sum payout under the old system. So my IA was backdated.

Lets face wouldn't I have been happy if I had had use of my money previously to 2001 and 2004, but I didnt know I was entitled, so I didnt apply for it until 1999. Even though I was having operations and w/c to recover from said ops, no one ever told me I was entitled to IA if I had permanent injury. So don't be too sad, at least you had three payouts pre- 1999. Go for the ones you can get now. Never mind about going back too far.

My understanding of the new system was that everyone who was on a IA previous to that date had to be reassessed. Anyhow the law allows you to be reassessed if you think your injuries have worsened, I presume that would also include any new injury.

Have you been reassessed since Dr Milne send you away to heal?? How long ago was that?? If it is over a year one would think you can ask for another assessment as your injuries would be 'stable' now.

You would still need your Dr to put in the relevant paperwork. You tire and stress yourself too much by argueing with ACC. If your Dr asks for it ACC would be remiss in not letting you have an assessment by the relevant person. Only a Psychiatrist can assess your PTSD to my knowledge. Go for that one and the injuries that Dr Milne sent you away to heal.

Sometimes we have to drop some actions as the fight is just too hard. I am certainly not saying you should do that, but be realistic in that a three Judge panel, when there is hardly enough to get the work done now?? Go for what you have a fighting chance of getting in the shortist space of time. You want some quality of life, as we all do..............go for that.

Sorry I can't help you further, but then I am not an advocate.

All the very best to you
Mini
0

#43 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 06 January 2007 - 10:11 PM

3 registered injuries 15% 15% 24.7%

100% - 15% = 85%, - 15% = 72.25%, - 24.7% = 54.4%:

WPI. rating = 45.6% = $ 24.999 - paid $2550 - paid $2550 == $19,899 left.

[lump sum 15% =$2550.]

Is this the correct calc's.?? . :) :)
0

#44 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 06 January 2007 - 10:23 PM

Greg when was the lump sum payment and year of accident
0

#45 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:51 AM

Accident dates 78 & 87 2005.
72 & 82 acts lump sums in 79 & 89 both 15 %= $2550 of $17,000
hearing loss 24.7% latest claim 2005.
0

#46 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

  Posted 07 January 2007 - 10:38 AM

Greg

It looks like the $2550 is five years of the $24,999.

Dopple

Can you confirm this.
That would mean that from five years of the date of payment of $2550, Greg would then be entitled to request another lump sum payment?? Or have I got my wires crossed here, as I said previously, I never got a lump sum payment, so am a little out of my depth.

Having said all this my dear old Mum maybe worth another payment as well.

I have found the caselaw used in court to have Judge Middleton return mine to ACC for another assessment because they hadnt included all injuries in the assessments for the 1999 application. (Bull 168/99). Have a read of that case you will find the Judge is very informative.

Cheers Mini
0

#47 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 07 January 2007 - 05:21 PM

Just one thing the 78 and 87 accidents you were paid the lump sum under the 72 nad 82 Act (that means that they were paid before 1993.

when your assessment were conpleted for independance allowance what were the assessed rates of those injuries
0

#48 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 07 January 2007 - 08:56 PM

Dopple and Greg

I don't know how to work my scanner proberly let alone this system on line here, so sorry can only post the Bull case. Maybe someone who is reading this and has it could post it up in PDF.

My only other option is to take time out of the busy schedule to learn how to do it rather than researching the issues at hand. Would be a shame to waste such talent eh?? :lol:
0

#49 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 07 January 2007 - 09:15 PM

I don't believe I ever was, only 15% disability and loss of enjoyment $6,500 each. I didn't know
U. could appeal and they [ACC] added an extra 50% to your payout for loss etc., up to $10,000.

We are talking about 72 & 82 ACC Acts here; $17,000 injury and $10,000 loss of enjoyment. max..

The acts and legislation table used are from the 2001 ACC Act.
0

#50 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 07 January 2007 - 10:10 PM

Greg,

Now need to know what injuries were you assessed for in your IA assessment and what percentage in each case.

This will be in your IA assessment from the assessor.
0

#51 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 08 January 2007 - 03:19 AM

Has never been done
0

#52 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 10 January 2007 - 10:42 PM

Greg, thanks for supplying your information

The history of your case is that you have 3 claims that could apply to the IA assessments.

You have two claims that each have been assessed under the 72 and 82 Acts The permanent disability for those 2 claims is 15% each

These two claims were not included in the assessment so they could not be included in the allowance

The third claim for your hearing loss is for a 24.7% Independence allowance.

The Act is clear that to have a assessment of the injuries under the earlier Acts they must have deteriorated. In your case those two injuries had not deteriorated to warrant a IA assessment therefor those two injuries were not included.

I want to read that decision Bulls v ACC to see what is in all that decision.

What I understand is that because you had no deterioration and your GP did not recommend them for the assessment these two injuries do not count.

This leaves the hearing injury that has a 24.7% Independence Allowance incapacity.

With the current maximum amount of $78.84 per week your quater payments should be $253.85 per quater

In maths

$78.84, x (times), 13.0357 (Weeks), x (times) 24.7% (.24) = $253.85

But from the above figures there seams to be something wrong

What is the date of your injury causing the 24.7% incapacity was on and what date was your assessment done on
0

#53 User is offline   AJNZ 

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

Posted 12 January 2007 - 08:15 PM

Just a question - apart from IA which my husband already has, what about hearing loss? ACC has agreed to purchase hearing aids (and maintain them) for industrial deafness - caused by many years in heavy construction work and in territorials.

Is this a case to reapply for increased IA!

Just asking! :P
0

#54 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 13 January 2007 - 10:00 AM

Tinntis get your hearing tested I got 2 hearing aids . ACC does this type
of rehab well as there are known hearing loss % [Standard test] not a opinion which can be bought.
0

#55 User is offline   AJNZ 

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

Posted 13 January 2007 - 12:49 PM

So - if the hearing loss is due to industrial noise exposure, (already assessed, confirmed and covered) and claimant already gets IA because of an accident - which includes a TBI - is the hearing loss (permanent disability) eligible to be added to current IA? I haven't asked the cm this yet.

Advice welcomed.
0

#56 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 22 January 2007 - 10:35 AM

Check out dates IA can't start until 1 year later I think??
0

#57 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 04 February 2007 - 11:37 AM

 maungataniwha, on Dec 20 2005, 03:06 AM, said:

huggy1, on Dec 19 2005, 11:58 PM, said:

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 ??????

Good question. Does that mean your 51% disability is worth $32,367? Mine is a 39% incapacity which from that same table, means I ought to get $19,005 then?


I had a look yesterday at the library here in new plymouth & i had to look at the repealed regulations the rate for an independence allowance starteed at $10.00 & increases after an assessment is completed also to correct you on the % of your independence allowance there is a thing that acc has to use to combine the claims if you have more than one claim so for example 15% + 15% = 30% not 28% in my opinion you are getting ripped off by those money hungry bastards. They said to me one time that 5% + 5% =8% but said them that you cannot even add up properly i said that 5% + 5% =10% therefore they had to start coughing up. Those bloody morons went to court & set me up & they reckon everything was carried out correctly so i said to them that was bloody bullshit.
Hope my opinion is of assistance.
Regards
Darrell Pearce.

 maungataniwha, on Dec 20 2005, 03:06 AM, said:

huggy1, on Dec 19 2005, 11:58 PM, said:

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 ??????

Good question. Does that mean your 51% disability is worth $32,367? Mine is a 39% incapacity which from that same table, means I ought to get $19,005 then?


I had a look yesterday at the library here in new plymouth & i had to look at the repealed regulations the rate for an independence allowance starteed at $10.00 & increases after an assessment is completed also to correct you on the % of your independence allowance there is a thing that acc has to use to combine the claims if you have more than one claim so for example 15% + 15% = 30% not 28% in my opinion you are getting ripped off by those money hungry bastards. They said to me one time that 5% + 5% =8% but i said to them that you cannot even add up properly i said that 5% + 5% =10% therefore they had to start coughing up. Those bloody morons went to court & set me up & they reckon everything was carried out correctly so i said to them that was bloody bullshit.
Hope my opinion is of assistance.
Regards
Darrell Pearce.

Who is your case manager. Any particular person in the hamilton branch
0

#58 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 04 February 2007 - 05:07 PM

Darryl

They didnt rip you off. They were simply adding %5 + 5% = 8% using the charts in the Americain Medical Assn Guidelines which is the method they have used since July 1999 to calculate Indepence Allowance.

It took over from Lump sum payments, until the 2001 Act came back in with the Lump sums. In between the July 1999 and the beginning of the 2001Act, which is April 2002 (off hand), they used the method discribed in the AMA Guides which meant no lump sums.

Even now if my injuries progress and need reassessment they would be done under the old system of 'no lump sum', however I am kindly offered a 'lump sum' if I would like it, however it would mean less money in my hand than getting it quarterly, depending on when I die of course.

The younger you are the better it is that you stay on the quarterly amount if you can as it would mean more money in your hand if you live a nice long time and also you have the added benefit of have a reasonable lump sum four times a year to pay those pesky bills that are a bit over the top, or give yourself a treat every now and then.

Keep studying and asking questions, you will get to the bottom of it. With a little help from on-line here.

Cheers Mini
0

#59 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 05 February 2007 - 11:08 AM

 mini, on Feb 4 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

Darryl

They didnt rip you off. They were simply adding %5 + 5% = 8% using the charts in the Americain Medical Assn Guidelines which is the method they have used since July 1999 to calculate Indepence Allowance.

It took over from Lump sum payments, until the 2001 Act came back in with the Lump sums. In between the July 1999 and the beginning of the 2001Act, which is April 2002 (off hand), they used the method discribed in the AMA Guides which meant no lump sums.

Even now if my injuries progress and need reassessment they would be done under the old system of 'no lump sum', however I am kindly offered a 'lump sum' if I would like it, however it would mean less money in my hand than getting it quarterly, depending on when I die of course.

The younger you are the better it is that you stay on the quarterly amount if you can as it would mean more money in your hand if you live a nice long time and also you have the added benefit of have a reasonable lump sum four times a year to pay those pesky bills that are a bit over the top, or give yourself a treat every now and then.

Keep studying and asking questions, you will get to the bottom of it. With a little help from on-line here.

Cheers Mini

Have you been assessed under the ama guides & if so what was your % i can tell that 5% + 5% =10% not 8% as acc can't even do there maths maybe further education would dam fine for the clowns because 5% + 3% =8% which is below the 10% threshold before they even start paying out dumb way of assessing a claimants whole person impairment.
0

#60 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 February 2007 - 02:38 PM

It depends what your injury is. Mine was shoulders neck spine etc. Left shoulder came to about 8% off hand and right one came to about the same, however assessors forgot to include neck etc, so Judge sent them back to do it again.

Adding the 8% for left and extra 5% for neck bought the left shoulder up to 13% (one would think!!) add the same for the right shoulder and neck and you would think it would add to 26% but it does not. It only adds to 17% WPI as the 13% were UEI for each shoulder which then had to be put through the table in the AMA guides.

Now these figures may not be exactly what mine equate too as it was a long time ago. But the principle is correct.

If you dont have the AMA Guides you should get it from the Library. I have to have ours brought in from outside the region as there is none in our Local Library and I have been doing this since 2001. While going through Reviews and Appeal.

Then you have to learn to read it.

UEI = Upper Extremity Impairment
WPI = Whole Person Impairement which is what equates to $$$$ for your impairment.

Your injury will be set out in the AMA Guides so you can follow the Range of Motion guides etc to get to 'degrees' which are then changed into %.

I had a letter from my Orthopedic Surgeon who explained some of the principle of this being the closest they can get to anything that even looks suitable. Although I think it is mighty unfair as it does not take 'loss of strength' into account. You might be able to do things with one leg missing or even two but try doing much with two arms with massive loss of strength and limited range of motion.

Thank god the operations took again a lot of the pain.

Potting plants is even a struggle.

Anyhow mustnt groan as am still here.

Cheers
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