ACCforum: Consent - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Consent ACC 167 form

#41 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:56 AM

Hatikva, S.72 (1) says;

"A claimant who receives any entitlement must, when reasonably required to do so by the Corporation © authorise the Corporation to obtain medical and other records that are or may be relevant to the claim."

The following points are all bona fide and serious arguements.

Any ACC policy or form must be read in conjunction with the principal governing legislation.

In other words, the power to make rules, policies, forms etc, derives from the Act.

Where the Act makes a specific provision, as in this case, to authorise the Corporation to obtain medical and other records, that is all that is required.

There is no power for ACC to demand an omnibus (blanket) time limited consent form.

You are entitled to know what ACC does with your name and in your name on each and every occasion that it does it. That was also a finding in the 1994 Traspki Report.

If there were further powers then one would expect to find them in the Act.

Any policy, rule or form of ACC purporting to extend a provision of the Act may be ultra vires (beyond the powers). The case law is Barraud & Abraham Ltd v Fitzherbert [1915] 34 NZLR 1098.

There can be no power implied to make such demands and any such power must be found in the Act which created ACC.

The Act does not confer a specific power to demand a specific consent form and absent such power in the primary governing statute ACC may well be acting illegally. (See Comalco NZ Ltd v Broadcasting Standards Authority [1996] 9 NZAR 153 (Court of Appeal).

ACC cannot extend the provisions of the Act simply because it might prefer something else or make it easier for it.

S. 72 also requires that the demand must be a reasonable requirement.

If entitlements were declined arbitrarily then that would be unreasonable and s.54 would apply - there could also be a civil case brought against the case manager.
0

#42 User is offline   freefallnz 

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

Posted 21 October 2005 - 10:03 AM

Well of course I will be appealing the CM's decision.

Bit of the story I was in the process of moving when I recieved that ACC letter of the 4'th. And because printer etc was packed up . I signed the ACC167 form as valid for 21 Days..

I have formaly appealed the decision of the 4'th that refused to accept the supplementary sheet. I also replied to the CM on the 17'th, so our letters crossed.

My first reply was as follows.

-------------------------------------

Dear @#$%^&,

With regards to your letter dated 4’Th October 2005.

In Paragraph 2 you state;

“ACC cannot agree to your demand that you will decide when and where a report can be obtained without your being examined. There may well be occasions that ACC needs to obtain, a medical review on the papers, of the existing medical evidence; for example, from a Branch Medical Advisor in relation to advising upon the effect of medical evidence received by ACC. This is necessary to effectively manage your claim.”

I did not make any demands. I simply reiterated the rights I have under existing New Zealand Law with regards to any third party that ACC might wish to consult.

For you to suggest, for example; that ACC requires my consent to obtain an internal report from a Branch Medical Advisor, is ludicrous. ACC as a corporate body holds my information and as such is able to obtain Branch Medical Advisor’s opinions based upon presented medical evidence without any formal consent being required.

On the other hand should ACC seek to obtain personal or health information about me from any source external to ACC I do indeed have the right to give informed consent to the collection of information, based upon the legitimacy and purpose for which the information is required, when requested.

Your statement in Paragraph 3 confuses me. You state;

“Further, ACC will not be agreeing to any of the conditions or liabilities outlined in the supplementary sheet. The conditions and rights that are afforded you with these consents are contained on ACC's "Collection of release of information" sheet sent to you earlier.”

Are you stating that ACC does not agree that it is required to comply with New Zealand Law?

Are you stating that ACC is not an agency within the meaning of sections 2 (1) and 3 (4) of the Privacy Act 1993?

Are you stating that ACC is not bound by the provisions of the above mentioned Act including section 88 whereby damages shall be payable for any breach of the Claimants privacy and as such that ACC does not accept or agree that the corporation is liable for any such breaches?

Will you please clarify as to exactly which conditions or liabilities as outlined in the Supplementary sheet provided, it is, that ACC refuses to accept.

I have never received a “Collection of release of information” sheet from your office! Please provide a copy of this too me.

In Paragraph 4 you state, “Finally, ACC does not accept that it is required to obtain your consent to release information from your file, where the release is for lawful purposes.”

It is true that the ACC is not required to obtain my consent to release information from my file, if that disclosure is directly related to one of the purposes for which that information was obtained.

Please note that on the standard ACC167 form titled “Claimant authority for the collection and disclosure of information”; that ACC has worded the claimant’s declaration “I understand and consent to the collection and disclosure of information in the terms set out above by ACC or its contracted agent.”

I am confused as to why you state that ACC does not accept that it is required to obtain my consent to release information yet you have refused to accept the ACC167 form I signed when requested, which required me to give just such a consent.

Does ACC have a policy for enuring that information it supplies to its agents is true and correct? Please provide a copy of this policy to me.

The supplementary sheet that was attached to my signed consent is a standard sheet used and promoted by several patient and ACC advocacy groups. ACC policy as on the 26’th February 2004 was that claimants did indeed have the right to limit ACC’s ability to collect and release information through the use of this sheet. Please advise me if this policy has now changed and provide a copy of ACC’s current policy re this supplementary sheet.

Further your threat to discontinue paying my ERC because ACC refused to accept my signed consent is just another example of the bullying, misfeasance and bad faith practices of ACC case management.


Your’s

-------------------------------------


My draft reply to this latest threat is as follows..


-------------------------------------

Dear @#$%^&,

With regards to your letter dated 17’Th October 2005 received 20’th October 2005.

You state that the ACC167 form I signed on the 7’th October 2005 is not acceptable too ACC.

I find it inconceivable that the ACC will not accept a signed ACC167 consent form.

Further I am confused as too why you continually threaten to decline paying my ERC pursuant to section 117(3) of the 2001 act, whilst citing that I have failed to meet my obligations under section 72(1)© when it is in fact the ACC that refuses to accept my informed consent.

You have stated that I am required to complete the ACC167 form, which will be updated every year.

It may now be ACC policy that an ACC167 form is updated annually; however The ACC167 form that you require me to sign does not contain any such statement or limitation.

Section 72(1)© states simply and clearly that I must authorise the corporation to obtain medical and other records that are or may be relevant to the claim.

It says absolutely nothing about requiring or giving consent on any ACC form.

I am in fact entitled as a matter of law to provide my consent on a case-by-case basis rather than the blanket ACC167 consent form.

For the past eight years in order to facilitate my rehabilitation and too expedite case management I have successfully worked with ACC by providing consent on an informed basis using the ACC167 form in conjunction with the supplementary sheet which you rejected as being unacceptable to ACC on the 4’th October 2005.

You have again rejected the limited consent form that I signed on the 7’th October 2005 as being unacceptable to ACC yet you have provided no reason for doing so.

In no way do I want to hinder the ACC in your ability to do your job, however I do have the right to have some control of my own information. For example; In the past ACC provided details of my financial situation to an assessor which I consider to be a gross violation of my privacy.

That said of course, I will at all times be prepared to comply with reasonable requests for consent.

Please explain to me what legitimate authority you have used and the reasons why you have rejected as unacceptable to ACC, my signed consent dated the 7’th October 2005.

Please note this matter is of great urgency because you have again threatened that ACC will decline to provide my weekly ERC unless I sign an ACC167 form by the 28’th October.

Looking forward to a very prompt reply.

Yours

-------------------------------------

So of course any additional thoughts suggestions would be appreciated...
0

#43 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 21 October 2005 - 10:06 AM

Magnacata you explained it well.

When the case manager request something like this it is not to gather the information required by the Act but to comply to the case managers KPI's.

the case manager must be looking for specific reports ect ant it this is correct then there is a reason why they are collecting the information.

When a case manager recently threaten to apply section 117( 3 ) to a claimant the responce was to apply for a review to get the case manager to supply rthe Assessor the information

http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...2580&st=100&hl=

this worked and now the claim is progressing slowly.

blanket consent form can not be used to disentitle.
0

#44 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

Posted 21 October 2005 - 11:35 AM

Thank you Magna Carta - suspected that was the case...


FreefallNZ - excellent letters - would be most embarassing for ACC to defend against them in court .. these letters are very good examples that the rest of us need and can use to assist us to formulate our responses to ACC..

Please post ACC's reply when they get around to replying ...


PS: I'm still waiting for a reply on a letter I sent several days ago in which I quoted some aspects of the legislation that I believed ACC to be in breach of in their treatment of my case(s). Getting close to the 21 days and no reply. Actually letter sent September 27th. (folks - if you wish to troll through it, it's on my personal stories .. to hell and not quite back ..) It is now October 21. Hmm - wonder what today's mail will bring?
0

#45 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:53 PM

Recently this response was received from Ruth Dyson when responding to a query about ACC's information disclosed by claimants being used for other purposes. Her response went something like this....

Upon requesting further assistance from ACC for prescription reimbursement, travel costs or weekly compensation a claimant must fill out a request for assistance form ACC001. This form incorporates a declaration which states that the claimant has provided correct and full information and ALSO authorises ACC to collect any information neccesary to establish entitlements. It also confirms that the claimant understands that ACC may contact external agencies such as employers and providers.

She goes on to say that fraud investigations typically arise when there is a discrepency between a claimant's observed or reported activities and the incapacity they have represented.

This confirms the suspicion that ACC does use these other "consent"
provisions to justify fraud inquiries. If you do not wish to provide blanket consent the forms need to be amended accordingly each time they are supplied to ACC.
0

#46 User is offline   freefallnz 

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

Posted 28 November 2005 - 12:13 PM

ACC's informed and reasoned response to my questions dated 17 & 24 October

"Firstly I explained in my earlier letter to why why ACC cannot agree to the terms contained in the supplementary sheet provided"

Oh yeah right.. So why did I have questions..

My totally unreasonable reponse..

With regards to your letter dated 4’Th November 2005.

Your statement that you had provided an explanation in your earlier letter as to the reasons why ACC would not accept the informed consent provided by myself as an answer to my questions in letters dated 17’th & 21’st October is not only unhelpful but untrue. You have not answered any of the questions that I put to you.

1. What legal statute, provision, mandate or authority has ACC used to refuse to accept my signed informed consent dated 26’th September 2005.
2. You have stated in your letter dated 4’th October 2005 that “Further, ACC will not be agreeing to any of the conditions or liabilities outlined in the supplementary sheet”. The conditions and rights that are afforded you with these consents are contained on ACC's "Collection of release of information" sheet sent to you earlier.”
a. Are you stating that ACC does not agree that it is required to comply with New Zealand Law?
b. Are you stating that ACC is not an agency within the meaning of sections 2 (1) and 3 (4) of the Privacy Act 1993?
c. Are you stating that ACC is not bound by the provisions of the above mentioned Act including section 88 whereby damages shall be payable for any breach of the Claimants privacy and as such that ACC does not accept or agree that the corporation is liable for any such breaches?
3. What legal statute, provision, mandate or authority has ACC used to refuse to accept my signed informed consent dated the 7’th October 2005.
4. Does ACC have a policy for enuring that information it supplies to its agents is a complete, true and correct statement of facts. Please provide a copy of this policy to me.
5. ACC policy as on the 26’th February 2004 was that claimants did indeed have the right to limit ACC’s ability to collect and release information through the use of this supplementary sheet. Please advise me if this policy has now changed and provide a copy of ACC’s current policy re this supplementary sheet.


Your’s Sincerely


See where this goes shall we ?
0

#47 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 28 November 2005 - 02:05 PM

BACK TO BASICS

It is quite reasonable to provide the Corporation with the relevant information needed for decision-making.

S.72 (1)
"A claimant who receives any entitlement must, when reasonably required to do so by the Corporation authorise the Corporation to obtain medical and other records that are or may be relevant to the claim."
The relevant portion of the act sets down the conditions for this information. The key elements:

REASONABLY REQUIRED
OBTAIN MEDICAL AND OTHER RECORDS (ARE) OR (MAY BE) RELEVANT TO THE CLAIM.

REASONABLY REQUIRED
Reasonable is a word that requires their to be reason. This means the Corporation must actually have a reason. The word reasonably required does not permit a fishing expedition. For this reason it is appropriate to ask the Corporation to particularise the reasons.

ARE OR MAY BE RELEVANT
The meaning of the word "ARE" is quite plain and easily identified. If the Corporation doubts the integrity of your doctor's medical certificate then the x-ray report is relevant.
The reason given to claim relevance the Corporation must be able to identify why they think something is relevant RELEVANT. For example your doctor might have been committing fraud and it is relevant that the Corporation gain access to the information he has relied on. The Corporation can't however claim relevance when there is no reason to suspect the doctor is wrong.

MAY BE
the main issue surrounding the consent issue is this wording "may be". It would appear that the ACC are suggesting that this gives them a fishing licence to prove various hypotheses. Typically a case manager might want to find out if you are fit for work in opposition to the doctors Medical Certificates stating that you are not yet fit for work. May be in these circumstances is not the reason and therefore not reasonable use of this portion of legislation.


ABUSE OF POWER

What do we do in New Zealand when the state servant abusers their position of power? Do we let them make Rules to their own liking and then obey them? Of course not. In America they have the " right to bare arms" so the state servant will be too afraid to make up nonsense interpretations of law.

In this country we have the Bill of Rights in conjunction with the relevant ACC legislation. Our remedy is through the courts. The ACC appoint Reviewers to hear our concerns at Review Hearings.


THE PRIVACY ACT

The Privacy Act is designed to protect us. The ACC do not have to have information to receive information as the privacy act does not apply to a person receiving information. The privacy act only protects us from people giving information about us. The privacy act issue is therefore with the assessor.


STRATAGEM

To outmanoeuvre state servants who abuse their power and in the face of a lack of real remedy in the overburdened Review Hearing process we need to think a little but outside the square as to where our remedies lie.

Control the information at source.

The ACC is not in a position to make information out itself. The ACC must rely upon various other expertise outside of the ACC, such as Independent Vocational Assessors. Quite simply notified the assessor that under the privacy act they may not pass on any information to any other person without your permission. The information will be checked for accuracy and completeness and if it meets with the standards for its purpose then they will be given a written permission to pass that information on to the likes of the ACC.


CONSENT

The issue of consent and the privacy act in relation to the ACC has nothing to do with the ACC receiving information but only to do with the ACC giving information. Provide a letter to the ACC that their agents does not have information to give the ACC information to it but you will provide consent to each of their agents in each and every instance the ACC seek information from such an agent or information provider that has possession of your information.

If the ACC sought a global consent that they could take to any information provider they wished to obtain information from that information provider that would be a very dangerous instrument. The principal use of this instrument is to the effect of that we would be granting the Corporation inability to fund private investigators to watch us at all times, obtain information from friends and families, work colleagues and others. This is something akin to what happened in Nazi Germany, Russia and China and other countries where human rights were abused.

It is very important to jealously guard our privacy because if we lose our privacy we and then open to all forms of abuse has people in power a more likely to act in their own interests than ours. This is the reason why we have an entitlement to consent regarding our privacy.

If consent was in false rape in all matters then there would be no reason for us to have the Privacy Act. If the Corporation's viewpoint regarding privacy was correct then the Act would have provided an exemption clause with in the Act.
0

#48 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 28 November 2005 - 09:59 PM

Here is some info. They are trying to collect information from my supplier and they arent using any consent from me. This pasting is regarding PI or company eg; ACC, that they cannot use there authority to go and get information. From the site NZ Legislation and under (p) private investigation, section 66

66. Licence or certificate not to confer additional powers on holder—

(1) No person shall, by virtue of being the holder of a licence or certificate of approval, have any power or authority that he would not have if this Act had not been passed.

(2) No person, being the holder of a licence or certificate of approval, shall—

(a.) Either orally or in writing claim, suggest, or imply that, by virtue of his licence, certificate of approval, occupation, or business, he has any power or authority that he does not in law have; or

(b.) Use or attempt to use his licence or certificate of approval for the purpose of exercising, claiming, suggesting, or implying such a power or authority; or

(c.) Either orally or in writing describe or refer to himself as a detective or by any other expression or term containing the word ``detective'' ; or

(d.) Wear any article of clothing, badge, or other article, that is likely to cause any member of the public to believe that the holder of the licence or certificate of approval is a member of the Police.


[(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (2) of this section commits an offence against this Act.]
0

#49 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 29 November 2005 - 05:03 PM

Bob Cheetham formerly of ICIL Group Ltd now of Investigation Bureau, a private investigator for ACC, routinely called himself a detective to the people he was interviewing while saying he investigating ACC criminal fraud. He then went on to say that if they did not sign the statement he had prepared for them that they would be prosecuted as well. Bob Cheetham was caught red-handed breaking and entering my home and left taken possession of personal property.

Bob Cheetham obtained a business card and when the investigation was complete and after demonstrating by review hearing that he was wrong some years later he released the business card to the so as to relaunch the investigation. In due course he will be prosecuted for committing perjury. The perjury as well documented by way of his sworn statements, the statements of others and the paper trial, not forgetting theft.

The ACC claim that this fellow has nothing to do with them in the way he does business but of course they have relied upon him. Obviously Bob Cheetham knows full well that he is no match for the average invalid.

The ACC are worried that there was no consent signed for Bob Cheetham to breach. ACC want to these signed consent forms to enable their private investigators to do pretty much as they please.
0

#50 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 29 November 2005 - 05:16 PM

But then we will need to go back to the privacy Act were a consent form supplied to obtain entitlements can not be used for the fraud investigation. ACC must get a new consent that shows that they are using the consent to procute for fraud.

the consent form was obtained under section 55 and or 72.
0

#51 User is offline   freefallnz 

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

Posted 30 November 2005 - 09:45 AM

Another Small victory perhaps!

With regards to my letters posted previously in this thread...

From my CM 4'th November (for limoges)

"You have in your letter of 21 October 2005, advised that you prefer to provide consent to ACC on a case by case basis. Having regard to the circumstances of this particular request, ACC considers that your request is reasonable"

-----------------

Reasonable and legal and now ACC is stuck with me signing consents on a case by case basis.

-----------------

And from the DRSL - Two reviews. Of the decisions where the case manager refused too accept my informed consent..

Be interesting to see where these go too !

Bets accepted.. - The reviewer will try to duck the decision over juristicional matters..
0

#52 User is offline   Limoges 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-November 04

Posted 30 November 2005 - 10:28 AM

Freefallnz,
Congrats! What date was your letter from ACC written?
0

#53 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

Posted 30 November 2005 - 10:33 AM

FreeFallNZ...

Good on ya! :)

We need victories however large or small - as it helps pave the way for the rest of us ...
0

#54 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 30 November 2005 - 11:40 AM

good on you

Now for all you can use his letter as a template and apply the same to ACC.

remember keep ot so that you can use it again and again.
0

#55 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 30 November 2005 - 12:01 PM

wooohooo i wonder if they accept my new modified consent that i have had to resend in.
0

#56 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 30 November 2005 - 10:05 PM

doppelganger

both the ACC and their agent, the private investigator, had absolutely no regard for the rules and in particular consent forms. Your defence must be absolutely practical by preventing wrong information ever appearing on your file in the first instance. Don't allow the creation of wrong information only to be forced to fight that information at a later stage. It is far easier to fight wrong information from ever going onto your file. This means you fight the assessors and not the ACC.


Read me

The ACC like to mix it up and create lots of complex arguments. If you have lots of money to burn with expensive lawyers then you can fight a complex arguments but if you don't have lots of money and decent lawyers it is best to keep things simple by restricting information to the Corporation's possession to only simple facts supplied by appropriately qualified experts after the information has been checked for integrity. A stitch in time saves nine. But don't get caught up sh1t creek without a paddle.


Huggy

Don't ask what they want. They are your servant tell them what to do. You tell them what information relates to your incapacity and how much they owe you. You don't go to them with cap in hand begging. We have paid out premiums (levies) and now we want our money.


To all

The site was set up so as to poke and prod at the Corporation's defensive mechanisms. In the case of the consent forms we have a variety of approaches. Progressively we are dismantling their defence mechanisms. Remember there are many thousands of us and just sheer weight of numbers and repeated testing and manipulating their defence as we will break them down.

Yes we will establish templates for such issues as a suitable consent form. I still follow the advice of the New Zealand's most senior legal professionals who stated that an omnibus consent is not consent when demanded with ultimatums or menace. Consent should be given for each individual issue and under no circumstances should the Corporation have access to information that is not under our direct control.


Next they will be wanting to have operations performed without our permission. We will be rendered unconscious and even have completely different operation is performed. Why fix it if it can be amputated relabelled and liability transferred to social welfare? Think safe
0

#57 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 30 November 2005 - 11:01 PM

PS I was refering to the privacy Act in that the ACC can not use a blanket consent form to go snooping

The privacy Act is clear that when obtaining permission that permission can only be used for the intent that it was obtained. The Act does not allow the corporation to produce false documents for there own purpose.


I agree that fighting the assessors is easier than fighting the ACC. getting the assessors to abide to the legislation is the next battle. will be testing this again in the near furture and can see some improvement already at ACC.
0

#58 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

  Posted 01 December 2005 - 06:50 AM

Quote

Next they will be wanting to have operations performed without our permission. We will be rendered unconscious and even have completely different operation is performed. Why fix it if it can be amputated relabelled and liability transferred to social welfare? Think safe


Oddly enough, Paradigm Shift, this is one that really WORRIES me. Seriously. My surgeon recommends double knee replacements, with urgency as both knees extremely bad now. BUT, as we can't afford to rebuild our house to accomodate, what happens if it goes wrong (and there is in my case a significant risk that it COULD go wrong).

Through extensive personal rehab, I can manage for now - I do have some good moments .. but what limited enjoyment I do have would be contraindicated once the knee replacements done, and even then at best I was given another 10 years WITH the replacements. When I was advised that some of the instability/falls I have may also be due to brain injury and not solely due to the knee instability - now we really have a problem. I may still fall after the replacements, and if I loosen one then it's not a pretty option as it apparently can't be redone. Got a STERN warning from specialist on this one ...

Can ACC force me to have the surgery in order to force me to go back to work (albeit in a lesser capacity due to the brain injury, and after retraining to find something I can do that doesn't require sharp thinking, writing, concentration, etc etc?)

My options are limited - VERY limited in this, and I'm just waiting to see if ACC force me into surgery for the knees. If they (ACC) get to the point that they can demand surgery and if you don't have it cut your entitlements - well, it becomes an extremely dangerous precident.
0

#59 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 01 December 2005 - 08:48 AM

Hatikva, we have a Bill of rights in this country and ACC cannot, I repeat, CANNOT force anyone into surgery. They will try and people just crumple and obey. It is against the BOR to force anyone to have an op,against their will.
They tried it with me and I told the CM to go ahead and TRY!!
He backed off real quick.
0

#60 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 01 December 2005 - 08:53 AM

Look at section 279 of the IPRCA - purposes for which Corporation to collect information. Also s309(2) and(3) - creates offence if person does not supply requested information to ACC, without reasonabe excuse, for variety of purposes including detection of fraud.
However s309(4) provides that the section deos not apply unless the claimant authorises the request and the person asked to supply the information has notice of that authority.
IMHO, this is where a lot of ACC fraud inquiries go wrong.
0

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • 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