ACCforum: Has Your Irp Been Covertly Altered? - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Has Your Irp Been Covertly Altered? legal or what?

#1 Guest_lorilye_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 January 2006 - 12:56 PM

From a letter from the watchdog of the UK Dept of Welfare I quote:

Our top story this month looks at the probability that DWP staff are leaving themselves open to criminal prosecution by covertly altering computer generated incapacity medical reports to cover up errors.

Now I have a "NEW" IRP sent to me to sign which has previously computor generated, dated and signed IRP paragraphs changed to read something entirely different. If I signed the one presented to me, the different outcome would be that my District Court hearing would have a significantly different outcome....because I would have signed up an entirely different animal and thus agreed against the very thing I am fighting for in the District Court.

Could this be construed the same, considering "they" call the IRP a "living document" and a Legal document." ?

Could this be considered to be "covertly" altering a computor generated document in a manner designed to pervert justice?

Lori.
0

#2 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 12 January 2006 - 01:21 PM

Greetings,


http://www.benefitsa...ite/updates.htm


BEWARE OF THE "BLANK PAGE" sometimes inserted in the "NEW IRP"...
(No details filled in)
whether intentional or by accident,?!
Remove it, or write "Not Applicable" all over it. and ask why?!
0

#3 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 12 January 2006 - 05:54 PM

think that IRP's are being used for many things but for the purpose that they are required for by legistation.

your IRP must have in it all requested and supplied rehabilitation. if it doesn't contain that information then it is not the document that it's meant to be.

becareful when presenting an IRP just like the IOA and IMA it will contain the needed rehabilitation and the IRP will be modified after each of those assessments.

remember that an IRP should not contain a work trail but should contain work expereance if needed.
0

#4 User is offline   freefallnz 

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

Posted 12 January 2006 - 07:00 PM

But of course it has.. Everytime I get a new IRP it has a new injury description and diagnosis..

Well of course you have the copies of the IRP's you have signed..

A full copy of your pathways log will show the date and time the document was altered, mayhap for "purely administrative purposes" and of course if it doesnt then the entries where the IRP have been changed have been removed from the pathways log...

Document everything. Query everything, Cross check everything.. Because one day you will be able to prove fraud.

I presume of course that your'e consulting with your GP over the IRP and getting his input and signature on it. Leaving the GP with a copy of IRP too.. Afterall having two copies of the same IRP from two sources is much better than your word against theirs isnt it!
0

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 12 January 2006 - 10:14 PM

I here it in business that they have to get smarter in making a profit.

Freefallnz it looks like that you are already smarter than the case manager.

By working smarter it is not about what you can get away with it is what you stop the others doing.

here we are stopping the ACC lying, cheeting and misleading the comunity.

Keep it up

Claimants year.
0

#6 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 13 January 2006 - 12:38 AM

Anyone who signs an IRP in isolation and posts it back is a bloody fool. Would you sign a house purchase agreement, leave the price blank and give to the agent or vendor to sign later? I think not, nobody is that stupid.

The same principle applies to an IRP, it must be signed by both parties at the same time, providing, that is, you agree with it and if you don't agree with, don't sign it, let ACC deem it and the review process kicks in. Don't forget to initial every amendment and/or addition and put lines through blank spaces. Customs officers do that to discourage "alterations" to declaration forms listing items over and above allowances, sods!
0

#7 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 13 January 2006 - 08:21 AM

This extract below from the Australian case - Pollen v Comcare (2004) AATA 134 (12 February 2004) - describes how workers compensation legislation should be construed and applied.

Our IPRC Act should be construed and applied by ACC, the reviewers and the Courts in the same way.

Our IPRC Act 2001 is also beneficial legislation and should be construed liberally - not in the restrictive way that it is.

The definitions and words in the IPRC Act relating to rehabilitation are plain and effect must therefore be given to them.

The s.6 definitions of "Individual Rehabiliation Plan" and "Rehabilitation" ought not to be so narrowly construed particularly when the Purpose of the Act and the s.6 defintions is to restore health, independence and participation to the maximum practicable extent.

There are many ways in which an injured person may be rehabilitated.

____________________________________________________________________

46. The fact that remedial legislation such as workers' compensation legislation should be construed liberally is frequently repeated by the Federal Court (see Brennan v Comcare (1994) 122 ALR 615 at 621, Comcare v Levitt (1995) ALR 645 at 649, Whittaker v Comcare (1998) 28 AAR 55 at 67).

47. In Esam v ASP Ship Management (1998) 28 AAR 78 at 81, Tamberlin J raised that issue when rejecting a submission that the words of the Act should be read in a more restrictive way than they themselves required. He said:

The Act is remedial in nature and ought be given a beneficial construction: see Wilson v Wilson's Tie Works Pty Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 328 at 335; DC Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (4th ed), para 9.2 ff. A statute conferring entitlements to workers' compensation benefits is not to be narrowly construed, nor are its terms to be restricted or denied because of the difficulties that may arise in the wide variety of circumstances involved in its application to particular facts.

48. We can see no reason why the ordinary meaning of the words of the definition of "rehabilitation program" should be restricted or denied.
0

#8 User is offline   batman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 17-September 05

Posted 14 January 2006 - 07:26 AM

Magnacarta, good find. If we gave up the right to sue and that was the trade off for getting 80% of your former weekly income then lawyers should be arguing that it is not appropriate if ACC makes you take a job that gives you less than the 80% unless they make up the difference. The Act was established to protect people from hardship associated with the result of an accident as it was only the well off who could afford to take legal action for compensation. The Act was supposed to put everyone on an even footing but it has been distorted and the situation remains that only those who can afford to fight can expect to receive their rightful entitlements. We cannot continue to have a lose/lose situation for injured people. The Act was changed so that you don't get 'make up pay' if you can do 35 or more hours work a week. What did Parliment mean by this change? Did it mean that the work was not appropriate or suitable if it paid less than 80% of your former income? or was it just another way to screw the poor old worker? We need to get lawyers to start asking the courts these questions.


YOU CANNOT HAVE A LOSE/LOSE SITUATION WHEN YOU RELINQUISH ONE RIGHT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE SOMETHING THAT IS 80 PERCENT OF YOUR WAGE AND IF NOT THEN IT CANNOT BE SUITABLE OR APPROPRIATE. THE ACT WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT NOT TO DENY.
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