ACCforum: Policy - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Policy Consent

#1 User is offline   freefallnz 

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

Posted 24 February 2006 - 12:11 PM

Hot from my CM's hand

Quote

Dear ....

As you know I have been seeking further clarification for you regarding the Corporation’s request for a signed ACC 167 Claimant Authority for the collection and disclosure of information and your own supplementary sheet.

ACC will accept a signed genuine ACC 167 form, even if amendments have been made to it, if ACC considers that the amendments made are reasonable and will not duly impeded the claim from being managed appropriately. The signature should appear on the ACC167.

The criteria for ‘reasonableness” should be applied to conditions associated with genuine ACC167's only, even if those conditions are written into a supplementary sheet attached to the genuine ACC 167. Supplementary consent sheest can remain attached to a genuine ACC 167.

Sections 55 (1) ©and 72 (1) (3) require a person who has lodged a claim for ACC to authourise ACC to pay medical and other records that are or may be relevant to the claim. In setting certain requirements for how that authorisation should be provided to ACC, ACC relies on the broad powers now provided by sections 16 to 18 of the Crown Entitles Act 2004 to discharge its function in a way which is consistent with the purpose of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 (IPRC 2001) (section 3), is consistent with its statutory function (section 262 of the IPRC Act), and meets an overriding criterion of reasonableness.

ACC believes that its status as a responsible Crown entity with specific statutory functions, the specific oversight of the Ombudsman and Privacy commissioner (amongst others). And a prescribed mechanism for redress through review and appeal all obviate the need for a specific policy on ensuring information supplied to providers is true and correct. ACC would certainly reject any suggestion that it would knowingly provide any untrue or incorrect information. As far as completeness is concerned, the requirement to provide relevant details to providers is so entrenched and dispersed in ACC policy as to make it impractical (and potentially misleading) to select specific examples for your perusal.’


I'll let wiser brains than mine discuss the finer points of this statement made by ACC.

What it means to me is that ACC policy has been since November last year that it will accept the supplementary sheet attached to an ACC167 form.

So why then did ACC terminate Gloria's ERC and force her into the drastic action of beginning a hunger strike because her CM wouldnt accept a supplementary sheet contrary to policy? Kind of makes a mockery of the CEO's statements wouldnt you think?

I can only see that the actions of the CM, Team leader & manager of the office which manages Glorias claim have in their actions not only acted in a vindictive and spiteful manner but with deliberate malice & intent in illegally stopping Glorias ERC. Yes folks the CM has to have had the approval of the Team leader and the Manager. The CM did not act alone, the Team Leader & Manager are equally if not more culpable.

Just another example of the abuse of power excercised routinely by Ms White's corrupt crew.
0

#2 User is offline   freefallnz 

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

Posted 24 February 2006 - 12:19 PM

Quote

ACC believes that its status as a responsible Crown entity with specific statutory functions, the specific oversight of the Ombudsman and Privacy commissioner (amongst others). And a prescribed mechanism for redress through review and appeal all obviate the need for a specific policy on ensuring information supplied to providers is true and correct. ACC would certainly reject any suggestion that it would knowingly provide any untrue or incorrect information. As far as completeness is concerned, the requirement to provide relevant details to providers is so entrenched and dispersed in ACC policy as to make it impractical (and potentially misleading)


Well as we all know the ACC completely disregards the Ombudsman & Privacy commissioner, owns and manages the review and appeal process; basicaly does what it pleases.

It is however pleasing that ACC admits that there is "no specific policy on ensuring information supplied to providers is true and correct". Whoop's wrong!!

"ACC would certainly reject any suggestion that it would knowingly provide any untrue or incorrect information." Oh yeah? Well why not have a commission of inquiry into case management practices, I'm sure that more than a little evidence would surface as to the corrupt and dishonest practices of case managers.

"As far as completeness is concerned, the requirement to provide relevant details to providers" (is open to abuse by inexperienced and unqualified case managers deciding the relevancy of documentation. Aided and abetted by the fact that ACC has no specific policy on ensuring information supplied to providers is true and correct) "is so entrenched and dispersed in ACC policy as to make it impractical" (to fix or rectify)"(and potentially misleading)" how convenient.
0

#3 User is offline   yesno 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-February 06

Posted 24 February 2006 - 12:27 PM

"ACC believes that its status as a responsible Crown entity with specific statutory functions, the specific oversight of the Ombudsman and Privacy commissioner (amongst others). And a prescribed mechanism for redress through review and appeal".

None of the facts outlined above support this statement.

"all obviate the need for a specific policy on ensuring information supplied to providers is true and correct"

Rule 8 of the Health Information Privacy Code states


"Rule 8 Accuracy etc of Health Information to be Checked before Use
(1) A health agency that holds health information must not use that information
without taking such steps (if any) as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to
ensure that, having regard to the purpose for which the information is proposed to
be used, the information is accurate, up to date, complete, relevant, and not
misleading.
(2) This rule applies to health information obtained before or after the
commencement of this code."

This means that ACC must take steps reasonably necessary before, the fact that there are legislative guidelines to remedy breaches, does not allow ACC to ignore this rule. However beware that if you want the Privacy Commissioner to get involved, you must prove that you suffered because ACC breached the code.


ACC must comply with all privacy legislation, rule 8 of the HIPC is privacy legislation, therefore ACC have breached your rights. Complain, state the remedy you want and state what you want ACC to do to make sure that this doesn't happen to anyone else. If they disagree, review it, if they disagree again, take it to the courts.... (Hmmm any comments on this final point).

Hope this helps.
0

#4 User is offline   watcha 

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

Posted 24 February 2006 - 03:36 PM

Sec 57 of the Crown Entities Act, not to disclose information.

Overheard outside a coffee shop that happens to be next door to an ACC office - two ladies discussing how they were going to engage one of their occupational specialists and one of their physiotherapists to write reports to shoot down a claimant's case at review.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...........!!!!
0

#5 User is offline   RUPERT 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-July 05

Posted 24 February 2006 - 04:07 PM

Very interesting Watcha ! Hope you cited the Privacy Act to them.
Just goes to show you how twisted and entwined they are, to still be plotting and coniving outside the office on how to 'screw' some poor devil.
So be it - There day will come !
Hope you got a good look at them and description as they crept back under their rocks.
0

#6 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 February 2006 - 07:06 PM

my letter just received on consent.....takes a bit longer to get here. dated 15 Feb.

I have scanned it and copied it to here, but I will space it out a bit for easieer reading.


Dear Mrs Mitchell

Thank you for your email of H February 2006, which you referred to Corporate Oiiice due to your case manager's current absence from work. The Chief Executive has asked me to respond to your concerns.

Firstly, you can contact the Wellington Branch Office in the normal manner. Any correspondence will be allocated to another staff member during Mrs Millar's absence. If you wish to correspond by email, you can refer correspondence to the Branch Manager at sallv.bramlcvfc'acc.co.nz.

In respect to your substantive complaint, I can confirm that ACC recently amended its operational policy regarding the acceptance of 'conditional' authorities. ACC noted that it was encountering, with more frequency, operational difficulties with the various requirements imposed on it by the conditions. These operational difficulties were, in the more significant cases, limiting ACC's ability to assist the claimants with their vocational rehabilitation. ACC therefore decided to adopt a strategy which involved the active promotion of the standard ACC167 form (Claimant authority jor the collection &> disclosure of information).
] am advised that the conditions you are seeking to impose upon the provision of your authority will adversely impact on ACC's ability to manage your claim. Quite simply, ACC cannot hold any case management action in abeyance while it awaits a claimant's 'approval' of the action. Such an approach is fraught with issues, such as defining a reasonable period while 'approval' is awaited.

Recognising that an individual is entitled to be informed when information is being sought about them, ACC has adopted a process whereby the claimant is provided with a contemporaneous copy of the letter of referral and enclosures.
ACC considers this process ensures a claimant is informed about the request, and that it meets your expressed desire to "know what is being required to be collected or released in order that I may know that all requests have full documentation".

I should add that the ///////Code of ACC Claimants' Rights reinforces ACC's need to maintain an individual claimants's privacy, and that ACC's considers the Code also reinforces the Corporation's commitment to ensuring claimants' privacy rights are respected.

Having reviewed the contents of the standard ACC167 form, I do not consider it adversely effects the privacy rights you are seeking.

I understand this authority relates to all aspects oj my claim, including any external agencies or service providers (such as general practitioners, specialists, assessment agencies, and employers), and empowers any such organisation to provide the information requested directly to ACC.
The information collected on this form will only be used or disclosed in relation to the purposes of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001. In the collection, use, disclosure and storage of information, ACC will at all times comply with the obligations of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Health Information Privacy Code 1994.
I understand that I have the right to access, and ask for the correction and disclosure of any information that ACC holds about me. I understand that this authority is valid for the period ACC provides assistance on this claim, unless I negotiate a different arrangement with my case manager.

I therefore urge you to re-consider your position. ACC has undertaken to advise you of each occasion when information is sought about your condition, and you will an opportunity to view the material provided. Should you consider ACC failed to disclose some relevant documentation (either inadvertently or otherwise); you will be able to discuss your concerns with your case manager.

I note that you have referred to other claimants, who you considered are receiving more favourable treatment from ACC. I can assure you that your case manager is not discriminating against you, but rather ACC recently amended its operational policy. ACC's recent request for you to complete a standard authority is in-line with the current policy.

I have also sought advice about your entitlement to weekly compensation. I am therefore able to confirm that your entitlement is continuing. Furthermore, ACC will not "decline to provide" your entitlements under section 117(3) without giving you final notice of its decision. I should add, however, that ACC considers your refusal to provide an appropriate written authority to be unreasonable, and on that basis, active consideration is being given to issuing such a decision.

Any matters regarding this aspect of your claim should be discussed with your case manager, or in her absence, referred to the Wellington Branch Manager.
I trust that this letter has clarified ACC's position regarding its requirement for you to provide it with a written authority, as well as clarifying the current state of your entitlement to weekly compensation.
Yours sincerely.

Kurutia Seymour


Well I used the names of three other claimants with their permission, who had case by case consent accepted and asked why I or any other claimant would be discriminated against by not being able to negotiate the same discretion for our claims. And I am very sorry if this has upset their arrangements.

They just can't help themselves, they have to throw in a threat.

Latest from my cm is....by attaching the supplementary sheet you have hereby negated the consent on the unamended ACC167 form, this is not acceptable, so you are advised you still have no consent on your file.

This despite many ACC167 forms signed with various amendments and always written above my signature....This document signed under duress.

You might understand a document signed under duress has no legal standing. It would be a bit embarrassing for the cm to send that along with request for info.

I have explained ad nauseum, I only want to have some control over info that is presented to treatment providers, so I can be assured that anyone making any further decisions or reports on my injuries does so fully informed. Thats our right which can not be negated.

sorry this is so long.....Gloria.
0

#7 User is offline   freefallnz 

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

Posted 25 February 2006 - 05:55 PM

ACC have NO LEGITIMATE NOR STATUTORY RIGHT to refuse to accept a claimants informed consent.

Policy isnt law..... Never has been.... and never will be.

Quote

adopt a strategy which involved the active promotion of the standard ACC167 form

Good on them.. It is not "yet" a legal requirement to sign an ACC167 form giving ACC blanket permission to access anything and evrything for the duration of the claim...

Quote

Latest from my cm is....by attaching the supplementary sheet you have hereby negated the consent on the unamended ACC167 form, this is not acceptable, so you are advised you still have no consent on your file.


ACC have NO LEGITIMATE NOR STATUTORY RIGHT to refuse to accept a claimants informed consent.

Quote

ACC noted that it was encountering, with more frequency, operational difficulties with the various requirements imposed on it by the conditions. These operational difficulties were, in the more significant cases, limiting ACC's ability to assist the claimants with their vocational rehabilitation.

Because ACC staff are being smacked on the knuckles for breaching privacy with a wet tissue, it is understandable that ACC considers it has operational difficulties.

ACC needs to realise; It must comply with New Zealand law.. and if that means training staff to finally respect privacy then so be it. ACC must realise that it does not have an unfetterered or unrestricted ability to do what it likes with claimants information.
0

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 25 February 2006 - 09:11 PM

take any 167 form to review if they are not complying with the pricacy ect Acts.

doing this is first step in smacking the case manager were it hurts. no wet tissues but be sured that there will be plenty of tears.
0

#9 User is offline   Karney 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 11-March 05

Posted 25 February 2006 - 11:58 PM

Ah Gloria, this response by ACC makes me so mad!!!

Just because they feel they have had 'operational difficulties' with other claimants who have used supplementary authority sheets with their consent forms does not mean that you would cause any problems for them. Hell, you are an individual and you are innocent until proven guilty! I'm sure that you would not act to prevent ACC accessing appropriate and relevant information.

The current global consent in my own case has allowed them (and via them my employer, various lawyers, advocates, reviewers, judges, etc, etc) to see personal information relating to my family, my past history, my psychological state, my sex life, etc, etc. (Incidentally, my family were not asked to consent to the disclosure of information about them.) Are we being unreasonable to request that such information is not banded around to all and sundry without our explicit consent? Not to mention the consent of anyone else whose personal info finds its way into one of these reports. Jeez, the only thing that was relevant to my claim was my bloody sore wrist yet look at all the goss they managed to drag up. And this is a very small town where everyone knows everyone! Among the recipients of this information may well be potential future employers, lovers, etc, etc.

Telling us what information they have forwarded to Uncle Tom Cobbley et al AFTER they have sent it on is really no consolation at all! If anything, it could erode a claimants self-confidence when attending an assessment, knowing that deeply personal info has been seen by this assessor and that, being human, they have already formed a judgement of who we are before ever meeting us.

Sorry to bring up my own personal issues here Gloria, but I'm sure we all have similar stories of such abuses of "consent to the release of information". Do they think we go to the trouble of attaching supplementary instruction sheets for the sheer hell of it?!!! So what do you plan to do now?
0

#10 User is offline   Karney 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 11-March 05

Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:01 AM

Oops! Apologies Freefall NZ. Don't know why I got it into my head that the original post was from Gloria. Please substitute your own name every time that I wrote hers!
0

#11 User is offline   yesno 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-February 06

Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:15 AM

I have taken this from a post last year.


Firstly, Kurutia Seymour has breached the ACC code of claimants rights, right 1, obligation 1, b, and right 5, and 6.

His/her opening paragraph is


"Thank you for your email of H February 2006, which you referred to Corporate Oiiice due to your case manager's current absence from work. The Chief Executive has asked me to respond to your concerns.

Firstly, you can contact the Wellington Branch Office in the normal manner. Any correspondence will be allocated to another staff member during Mrs Millar's absence. If you wish to correspond by email, you can refer correspondence to the Branch Manager at sallv.bramlcvfc'acc.co.nz."

Kurutia Seymour is ACC Privacy Complaints officer whose task it is to liase between ACC and the Privacy Comissioner. The reasons which it was forwarded to Coprate office was not because of the case managers absence from work. If this was the reason it would have been dealt with in branch. This comment is dishonest, misleading, does not fully inform the complainant as to why their complaint was foraward and does not effectively communicate this either.

I refer to a statement which I found in the archives on this site...


He wrote back:

[QUOTE]"The Health Information Privacy Code contains 12 Rules that gennerally deal with the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information, by what the Act defines as a health agency. Your enquiry [sic] may rais issues under Rule 11 and section 7 of the Privacy Act 1993." [/QUOTE]

Then further along:

[/QUOTE] "If ACC have requested your information from a GP under the laws that ACC work under that other law would override the Privacy Act and your GP may be legally obliged to supply the information to ACC. You may wish to contact the Privacy Officer for ACC to discuss your concerns and request advice as to what authority ACC has to demand your information from your GP. The contact details are, Mr Kurutia Seymour, Priacy Officer, ACC, tel 0 918 7700" [/QUOTE]

The statement above has no basis in law, the IPRC overiding the Privacy ACT. I have never heard such rubbish in all my life. This is completely unacceptable...

The time has come.
0

#12 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:04 AM

Hi Karney,

This thread contains letters of reply posted by both myself and Freefallnz as we currently fight the same battle.....that of consent via the unfettered consent of ACC167 form.

As the letters are both current they give you all a picture of how the battle is forming....and running. This battle is of concern to you all.

Never apologise for putting a human front and example of the issues in question. Thankyou for replying in this manner. This is the type of thing we hope - well I hope anyway - to stop. I suggest your family and/or friends who have been named, would put in a complaint that their privacy has been breached.

At any time a claimant can officially withdraw any consent that is on file by a simple letter stating, I formally withdraw ny consnent for collection and/or release of any of my personal information held by ACC.

So guys and gals....go for it, join the fight.....add your weight to the battle. Use personal examples like Karney has, as they come to hand.

I for one do not mind what name you reply to, am happy to have you replying.

Yes/No Thankyou for the points you make also. It all helps, its all grist to the mill.
sigh...another letter to write.

Gloria
0

#13 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 27 February 2006 - 07:54 AM

Greetings,
Yes... Judge Cartwright has found in favour of claimants on this issue many times... specially those covered under the 1972 and 1982 acts.
At the time of application, this "review", 15 years out of time, reviewer said it was prejudicial to the commission to allow, and did not take into account any of the well established medical evidence... and still took another 10 years to get justice... GRRRR !

http://www.accforum....hp?showtopic=99
0

#14 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 February 2006 - 03:11 PM

This letter about "OPERATIONAL DIFFICULTIES " crap, comes from McGreavy and is part of a memo issued to all staff.
What a whimpish outfit to have "operational difficulties" observing the Privacy Act!
I know of one CM who was repremanded by myself over Privacy matters said, "If I had to observe the Privacy act, I would never get any work done"
So there lies the crux of the matter, difficulties in obseving privacy codes as it is too hard for them!!
0

#15 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 27 February 2006 - 05:21 PM

Ask the case manager for there credit card and access information.

when refuse explain that you are not giving consent so that you may use your money.

just remember that the longer that you waist time on this the worse off you will be.

ask what information that they want consent for and if there is no information then review the delay of the entitlement.

then when the case manager delays any further and you want to sort it out contact me off the board.

take control and forget about that 167. form
0

#16 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 07:37 PM

Refresh
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