ACCforum: Tv 3 News Man Hands Back Qsm In Protest - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Tv 3 News Man Hands Back Qsm In Protest

#1 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 07 March 2006 - 05:27 PM

TV 3 News tonight. Story about Bruce Gardiner from Hamilton who was a milk tanker driver has PTSD as a result of a teenager committing suicide by throwing himself in front of his milk tanker is handing back his QSM as a protest against ACC. He has no cover because his PTSD is not a result of a physical injury. This man protested ALONE outside ACC in Wellington..... please give your support!

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/67/article...32/Default.aspx
0

#2 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

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

Posted 07 March 2006 - 06:00 PM

This is interesting.

If he is injured (PTSD is an injury) and cannot earn in his job and if ACC does not have the liability in accordance with the global earnings insurance then this employer must be liable for all cost relating to the accident.

I think we can bet the farm that the employer has not accepted liability for the PTSD.

This case will be a turning point for how the ACC apply the ACC act to the earnings insurance decision-making criteria.
0

#3 User is offline   gaffa09 

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

Posted 07 March 2006 - 06:17 PM

this could be related in some way

http://www.accforum....owtopic=178&hl=

worth a read
0

#4 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 07 March 2006 - 07:13 PM

The issue in this case is that the man has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the accident he had when the young man walked into his milk truck. National removed the cover for PTSD in 1992 and labour has not reinstated it. Ruth Dyson's response was that they had looked at it and it was not off the agenda but NOT anytime soon.... translated means " We don't want to reinstate this cover cos it will cost us money. We only want to APPEAR as though we care....." Really they don't give a rat's a**.

He lost his job with Fontera because he could no longer drive at night as a result of his mental injury. The man is in obvious distress as a result of an accident. To suggest he get counselling through victim support is not really the issue here is it?

Is someone able to contact this guy and tell him about the support available to him through the forum? Perhaps a quick trip down to Shamrock house in the morning??? He is from Hamilton and I believe the lawyer's name was Mines.
0

#5 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

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

Posted 07 March 2006 - 07:21 PM

He has a right to sue his employer if he does not have ACC. His employer has very deep pockets. Perhaps he is better off being able to sue given that ACC has failed to insure this man's earnings.

We have a "brother driver" that will no doubt come to this fellow's rescue. I'm confident that the TV 3 will follow this case. Lets watch be accforum.org go to work on this case. This is going to be good publicity.
0

#6 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

Posted 08 March 2006 - 06:24 AM

Here's the text from STUFF this morning ..


Quote

Bruce Gardiner was awarded a Queen's Service Medal for his work as an ambulance driver. Now he has handed it back in protest at ACC's refusal to help him overcome a life-changing ordeal while he was a truck driver.


The 60-year-old Hamilton man cried yesterday as he stood at the entrance to Government House and returned his medal to a police officer stationed at the gates.

The move is in protest at what he says are unjust ACC laws that stop him receiving compensation for mental anguish.

Mr Gardiner, a former Fonterra tanker driver, has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder for nearly four years since a teenager threw himself in front of his truck.

At the end of last year he was forced to stop driving for Fonterra because he had become too traumatised to drive the night shift, a necessary part of the job.

"I've got no compensation for the trauma I have been through. I have now lost my job, so I have no income. Without ACC help I am basically down the tubes, along with a whole lot of other people (in the same position)," he said.

He and his lawyer Quentin Mines said the National government changed the ACC law in 1992, ending the right to claim for mental injuries unless they were caused by a physical injury or a sex crime. In 2001, a Labour government reinforced the law.

There are far more ways of getting post-traumatic stress disorder than the one they accept, just as there are hundreds of different ways of breaking a leg and they accept (them)," Mr Mines said. "But with post-traumatic stress disorder they only accept one. That's discrimination."

Mr Mines said his client's treatment constituted a "grave injustice".

Mr Gardiner and supporters have protested outside ACC head office and Parliament this week.

"I'm going to sit outside the ACC head office with a chalk board, hand out fliers, copies of my story. I'm going to try to embarrass the hell out of them," he said.

An ACC spokesman said the corporation had a "world of sympathy" but it did not compensate people for mental or emotional trauma. ACC Minister Ruth Dyson said a law change covering that issue was "not off the agenda".



Bruce - we hear you loud and clear. On behalf of claimants you have helped in your role as ambulance driver, and more importantly, to take a stand on behalf of all of us who have had post-injury mental trauma .... we thank you, and should you need us, we are here to help.

Take care and Aroha Nui ....
0

#7 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 08 March 2006 - 09:38 AM

This is his lawyer's contact details. Can a support group in the area please make contact. I don't want this man alone on ACC's doorstep and I can't be there........

Accident Compensation Advocate

Q Mines LL.B LL.M (HONS)
6/223 Grey St Hamilton 0-7-859-3568
0

#8 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 08 March 2006 - 10:26 AM

http://www.tv3.co.nz...32/Default.aspx

What happens to all the train drivers and bus drivers who regularly have to cope with this sort of thing.
I know of one who is unable to drive anymore and has left and have heard of others who have and are suffering.
This is a legitimate injury gained whilst at work and should be covered by the act.
All too often we hear the bleat from ACC that it is not covered by the act when in fact it is debateable and only ACC's interpretation of the act.. and their main priority being containment of costs rather than provision of servises.

BAH!!!!!!!
0

#9 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 09 March 2006 - 08:34 AM

You know I am kind of disappointed at the response to this man's plight. Did anyone in Wellington attempt to support this guy in his vigil? Has anyone been able to make any contact?

The guy makes lead story on the news and it would appear that he is still on his own..........
0

#10 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 09 March 2006 - 08:23 PM

I am not sure about others but I think most did not know anything about this until it hit the news.
The man is from hamilton area from what I have seen somewhere on the site someone in the area is trying to contact him.
The people I know in the Wellington area are spread over a big area and most are unable to easily get about or get involved to the degree that forming and running a support group would require.
Most help where they can and I am sure If we had known about Mr. Gardiners plight and proposed action many would have made the effort to get there and support him.
0

#11 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 09 March 2006 - 08:38 PM

:wacko: Outragious bullshit ACC ...

Does ACC pay for STRESS LEAVE for its own employees ?

:wub: Good on you Bruce Gardiner a real kiwi bloke doing real kiwi stuff getting shafted and caught meat in a sandwich by pencil and paper pushers with no assistance.
0

#12 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 11 March 2006 - 11:03 AM

SEE ODT letter to the editor 10.3.06 in Articles about ACC for another example of mental trauma being refused cover. This time a young child who was involved in a significant accident in which 2 of his friends were paralysed.

http://www.accforum.org/forums//index.php?...550&#entry26372
0

#13 User is offline   yesno 

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

Posted 11 March 2006 - 11:42 AM

Very good point about the right to sue.

The only exclusions on suing are under the section 317 of the IPRC (think number is right). if injury not covered you have the right to sue.

This thought process is a little bit off the wall, but the IPRC only seems to cover mental injuries from crimial acts relating to sexual offences. What would happen if I was a witness to a murder for example and suffered PTSD, but was not actaully injured myself? Would my injury be covered?

If it would be covered then the PTSD in this case could be covered because self harm is usally a criminal offence under most criminal codes (not sure about NZ). The act that caused the PTSD is therefore a criminal offence and the driver would be covered.

If such crimal acts would not lead to cover, then this is very unjust.
0

#14 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 11 March 2006 - 12:07 PM

The answer to that is no you wouldn't be covered. We had this very example in the news a couple of months back where a young Christchurch boy had seen his father murdered. The young guy obviously was traumatised by this and suffered terrible nightmares, mood swings etc and yes ACC declined his mother's request for counselling also.

A very very sad reflection on the current law I believe.
0

#15 User is offline   yesno 

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

Posted 11 March 2006 - 12:14 PM

This is totally unacceptable.

We must bring these things to the attention of public and get them emotionally involved...

It is difficult to do, racking my brain how to...

A few ideas are brewing.

YESNO
0

#16 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 11 March 2006 - 12:58 PM

The case I refer to made national news, both print and TV..... to my knowledge nothing changed.
0

#17 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

Posted 11 March 2006 - 01:36 PM

I was severely assaulted (beaten) and left for dead.

The only support I received was trauma couselling provided by Department For Courts through victim support. The counsellor whom I saw through the Victim Support was absolutely appauled at what ACC had done to me in regards to refusing to treat the injuries sustained (physically or mentally)

ACC accepted cover for the injuries sustained BUT PROVIDED NOTHING.

This whole mess is now being subjected to review.
0

#18 User is offline   yesno 

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

Posted 12 March 2006 - 09:29 AM

I have been looking through the legislation, and I think I have found a hole. Not sure, probably wouldn't work, but worth a shot. I would try this if I was in the same situation, but I am not very risk adverse.

20. Cover for personal injury suffered in New Zealand (except mental injury caused by certain criminal acts)

(1) A person has cover for a personal injury if--

(a) he or she suffers the personal injury in new Zealand on or after the 1 April 2002; and
(B) the personal injury is any of the kinds of injuries described in section 26 (1) (a) or (B) or © or (e); and
© the personal injury is described in any of the paragraphs in subsection (2).


What this means is that there is a three stage test…

In the case of Bruce Gardiner. He has a mental injury. There is also an issue of the teenagers death, which is also tragic.

The teenager, technically has cover of a personal injury because the accident (remember it is no-fault accident insurance) caused physical injury and death under section 26 (1). The teenager specifically has cover because that accident occurred in new Zealand, causing an injury set out in section 26 (1) and it satisfies section 20 (2) (a) which is a personally injury caused by accident to the person.

In the case of Bruce Gardiner.

Facts: Mr Gardiner was also involved in the same accident and this caused Mr Gardiner a mental injury. There is little doubt that Mr Gardiner has a mental injury as defined under section 27 of the IPRC.

The three stages to satisfy section 20 are:

STAGE 1.
The accident happened in New Zealand. It did so this is satisfied.


STAGE 2.
The personal injury is any of the kinds set out in section 26.

Here: specifically, “A person has cover for a personal injury if- the personal injury is any of the kinds of injuries described in section 26 (1) (a) or (B) or © or (e);

Section 26 states:

26 Personal injury
(1) Personal injury means---
(a) THE DEATH of a person; or
(B) physical injuries suffered by a person…; or
© mental injury suffered by a person because of physical injuries suffered
by THE PERSON.

It is possible to create doubt over which person “the person” refers to when there are two or more people involved in the accident.

The legislation is not very clear as to whether a mental injury suffered by one person because of the physical injury or death of another person is a kind of injury described in section 26 (1)…

In this case, “the” means one or more people and “that” means a specific person.

Naturally, I would certainly argue that it is the correct interpretation, and that the reference to “the person” here refers to the person who suffered the physical injuries and the reference to “a person” refers to the person who suffered the mental injuries, and therefore it is possible that there are two people who suffer different injuries from the one injury.

Otherwise, parliament would surely have said “mental injuries suffered by a person because of physical injuries suffered by that person.”

If you could create the doubt, and the second meaning of section 26, the test would be satisfied. Once the doubt is established in the mind of the judge, it would then be down to interpretation. This is where the purpose may be important.


The Accident Insurance Transitional Provisions Act 2000 sets out it’s purpose at section 3. It stated:

The purpose of this Act is to remove the competitive provision of workplace accident insurance that was introduced by the principal Act and, instead, provide for the entire scheme to be delivered through a single public fund model,

When they did this, it seems parliament overlooked to reinstate cover for PTSD because of crimes.

The purpose of the IPRC was to return to the principles of the original scheme… This would cover mental injury such as PTSD when caused in such circumstances. The IPRC states:

"The purpose of this Act is to enhance the public good and reinforce the social contract represented by the first accident compensation scheme"

So it appears that maybe there was never an intention of parliament to deny cover for mental injuries caused by criminal acts…

Therefore the interpretation in favour of the claimant should apply.


STAGE 3.
the personal injury is described in any of the paragraphs in subsection (2).

The final test to have the injury covered would be to satisfy part 2. It was a personal injury caused by an accident to the person, because it was a mental injury, caused by an accident to the person.

This may also require some interpretation but it is an idea.

If all these three things could be shown, then cover may be applied.
0

#19 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 12 March 2006 - 10:26 AM

What has happened to Bruce Gardiner?

Is he still plauging shamerock house?

Has anybody heard anything since the tv3 thing?

KLIKINZEEHERE

And it would seem that drivers in similar situations elswhere at least get an acknowledgement of trauma and at least councelling.

KLIKINZEEHERE Fur Zis

Attached File(s)


0

#20 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 12 March 2006 - 06:17 PM

And more comment here:

http://groups.msn.com/XtraNewsCommunity2/g...563756326225888
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