ACCforum: Tail Management - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Tail Management Have a read of this

#1 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 03 January 2004 - 12:08 AM

Page 1

Attached File(s)


0

#2 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 03 January 2004 - 12:22 AM

page 2

Attached File(s)

  • Attached File  to.jpg (58.33K)
    Number of downloads: 59

0

#3 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 03 January 2004 - 12:29 AM

Page 3

Attached File(s)

  • Attached File  in.jpg (51.56K)
    Number of downloads: 53

0

#4 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 03 January 2004 - 12:38 AM

Page 4

Attached File(s)

  • Attached File  sig.jpg (72.57K)
    Number of downloads: 46

0

#5 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 06 January 2004 - 08:49 PM

David Caygills speech on the
"Reduction of the Tail"
Reduction of the TAIL
0

#6 Guest_flowers_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 06 January 2004 - 09:16 PM

This says it all.

Attached File(s)


0

#7 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 March 2004 - 12:22 PM

Remember this document written by some far right wing piece of trash???



Editorial: ACC is on the right track

The business community lamented the loss of competition in the workplace insurance market after a Labour-led government was elected in 1999. There was a genuine fear the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) would revert to its former cost-plus mentality and sock employers hard.

But ACC, having learned and listened during the brief period when competition was allowed, clamped down on the employer-funded "tail" of ACC clients those long-term claimants who could not or would not be rehabilitated.

That the corporation provided incentives to staff to get people off business-funded compensation and back to work should be applauded. But the Sunday Star-Times thinks otherwise. Its sustained attack on the corporation for its management of the "tail" shows an appalling insensitivity to the compliance costs employers have to bear.

Accident compensation, introduced by the Marshall National government in 1972 and operating from 1974, was never intended to be part of the welfare net. It was designed to bring certainty and fairness to the accident market, extending the no-fault approach of workers' compensation over the full 24 hours. The tradeoff for this certainty and fairness was that victims of accidents would lose the right to sue for personal injury.

It did not take long for welfare spongers to identify accident compensation as another trough to drink from, although not one funded from the public purse.

The rehabilitative aspect of accident compensation was lost and the corporation required a series of restructurings and name changes to make rehabilitation and injury prevention key functions once more. All this time, the "tail" of people locked permanently into accident compensation remained and business continued to pay dearly.

It is, therefore, only right and proper that ACC should get able-bodied clients back to work. If this requires incentives, so be it.

What is unacceptable is that business should have to pay for a welfare lifestyle of others that grew as a result of past bad case management at ACC.

Politicians have not helped. Governments have not infrequently crowed about reducing the dole queues while turning a blind eye to large numbers of the workshy claiming sickness and ACC benefits.

Barely a week goes without headlines of a sickness beneficiary or ACC claimant someone presumed by the authorities to be too ill to work raping or bashing someone else. These people are, apparently, too ill to contribute to society but sufficiently robust to commit ghastly crimes.

The majority of ACC claimants are decent and law-abiding. They do not deserve to be stigmatised or treated as fraudsters.

Unfortunately, ACC fraud is far too common and prevalent among the "tail." Past ACC administrations allowed fraud to go on unchecked. The present management takes a much tougher line, hence the use of private agencies and incentives to manage the "tail" actively to get people back to mainstream life.

Why the Sunday Star-Times condemns this proactive approach by ACC is beyond the reasoning of this newspaper. Full rehabilitation embraces a return to the workforce and should be encouraged whatever the cost. Innocent employers should not have to pay for the welfare addictions of ACC's long-term clients. The sooner people recognise that long-term welfare is corrupting, the sooner it will come to an end.

The Sunday Star-Times' approach is as misguided as it is damaging to business. But then this was the newspaper that cuddled up to MMP and has continued to support this rotten voting system ever since.
The National Business Review

Visit http://www.nbr.co.nz and you'll find an increasing selection of the best business information available online, with in-depth analysis of the issues critical to your success. You'll get a genuine added value experience as the unique online content complements and builds upon the integrity found within the print edition.
0

#8 User is offline   accvictim 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:03 AM

Why the Sunday Star-Times condemns this proactive approach by ACC is beyond the reasoning of this newspaper. Full rehabilitation embraces a return to the workforce and should be encouraged whatever the cost. Innocent employers should not have to pay for the welfare addictions of ACC's long-term clients. The sooner people recognise that long-term welfare is corrupting, the sooner it will come to an end.

HOW ABOUT THOSE ACC BASTARDS FIXING UP SOME OF THE PAST INJUSTICES DEALT OUT TO INJURED CLAIMANTS, WHO`VE LOST THEIR HOMES , FAMILIES AND THEIR DIGNITY, THESE ACC PIGS ARE NOT LOOKING AFTER THE INNOCENT EMPLOYERS SUBS, THE REASON IS THEY HAVE BLUNDERED CASES, LIED AND CHEATED CLAIMANTS, AND WILL SOON BE PAYING OUT EVEN MORE FOR ALL THESE MISMAGEMENT OF CLAIMS.

SACK THE LOT OF THEM AND GIVE THE BASIC DOLE
SEE HOW THOSE WHACKERS LIKE IT!
0

#9 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 19 April 2004 - 07:39 PM

I am fairly certain ACC has shares in NBR or the company that owns it. A stupid, unresearched and inaccurate piece of journalism. Obviously supplied by ACCs PR department.
0

#10 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 24 August 2004 - 10:43 AM

I asked for all relevant information about KPI's and this would include any extra information that is not on the board. this is just one of the responce

Mr Smith
I refer to your letter of August 2004, in which you replied to y letter of 30 July 2004. I will deal with each point you raised separately, as outlined below:

Ministerial Correspondence

I have forwarded your letter to Mr Kelvin Olds, Team Manager Dunedin Branch, regarding a postponement of your review of 23 September 2004, as this is a matter you need o discuss with him.

Also, please note that in my letter to you of 30 July 2004, the extension of time was required to determine firstly whether the information you requested exists, and secondly if it exists, to collate that information for you.

Branch KPI's

In your Official Information Act request, you request a list of KPI's for each individual branch, with their goals of exits for all previous years and current year.
KPI targets are a form of management decision applied to units for each financial year, specifically for performance reporting purposes with in that year. While claim results are easily retrievable from ACC operational source systems, the actual targets that were set were not previously retained in this system. ACC has only undertaken electronic archive of management reports in the past 2 years.

Therefore ACC determined that it would take 30 (60 ) to collate the historical management papers and other paper records to determine whether the information relating to historical branch targets still exists. As this information relates to 30 branches, it is unlikely that this information is retained in a central location.

Under s15(2) of the official Information Act, ACC is able to impose a charge to cover the cost of the labour and materials involved in making this information available to you.

ACC's rates for charges are established in the Ministry of Justice Guidelines for Charging under the Official Information Act. While the information is available from the ministry web site, I have attached the relevant pages for your information.

Where ACC seeks to impose a charge to cover costs of making the information available, you can not decline these costs. If you choose not to pay the charges imposed, ACC will not provide you with the information you requested. On this basis, can you please confirm whether you will accept the charges ACC has imposed.

If you disagree with ACC decision regarding the costs, you are able to make a complaint to the Ombudsmen's Office.

Mr Wayne King

Under the privacy Act 1993 the information you are requesting about Mr King is considered his personal information.

ACC is bound by the terms of the Privacy Act. Under Principle II of the Act ACC is prohibited from exclusion provisions. I have looked through the exclusion provisions and have determined hat none of them apply in the circumstances. To gain access to Mr King's personal information you would need to obtain his written consent.

Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss the matter further. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with this decision, you have the right to lodge a complaint with:

The Office of the Ombudsmem
P. O. Box 13482
Christchurch
Free Phone 0800 802 602

Andrea Chard
Advisor, Customer Relations
0

#11 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 24 August 2004 - 12:51 PM

Readers may recall a case in the High Court called Albert. This was an appeal brought by ACC after a District Court Judge expressed his concern that the tail management paper, just possibly, ever so slightly, hinted at an appearance of bias in ACC's decision making process regarding work capacity assessment procedures. The DCJ was quite apoligetic about it all really, but the beastly lawyer acting for the plaintiff insisted on drawing his attention to the wretched document, so what else was a fellow to do?

ACC spat the dummy and spent $$$ taking the case to the High Court. Fortunately for ACC Justice France was in her most formalist mood. Because the tail management paper wasn't written on ACC letterhead she couldn't be sure it was an official document. Therefore, it revealed absolutely no impropriety or even a scintilla of evidence of apparent bias. Game, set and match to ACC. Trebles all round at Shamrock House. Let's buy some planes.
Notice how the system locks step against claimants at every turn. See it happening again with the Peck case and the No 3 Bill.
0

#12 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 24 August 2004 - 03:22 PM

i do know and have been confirmed that other document was part of a press release that ws supplied by ACc to the ministers office.

these documents also have not letter head and are written with e same type set.

just what was the document that was used in the court.

but here's a better statement

The Authority cinsidered that, having elected not to rehabilitate or retrain the appellant, the Corporation was stopped from pleading non-compliance with the "all practicable steps" requirement, on the basis of equity or good conscience"


king v ACC
high court (administrative Division), Auckland
15 July August 1993
Barker J

M1738/92

take Note that that paper was prepared for the minister by ACC.
0

#13 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 25 August 2004 - 04:51 PM

I remember now that there was a postscript to the Albert case: Murray McCully popped up in the Sunday Star Times and confirmed that the tail management paper had, in fact, been written for him by his officials. However, this all happened after Justice France issued her judgment and the matter was not addressed at all. In any cases, the Courts are extremely sniffy about extrinsic evidence and I think would probably not have considered the newspaper report.
But there you have it: no evidence of official bias within ACC regarding its tail management practices. I think the matter probably needs to be raised again in a new appeal.
0

#14 User is offline   MadMac 

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

Posted 25 August 2007 - 07:43 PM

:wub: Hi everyone ...

The Medicial Proffesion have described my injuries as Serious ...

Interesting Page 3 Section D) Serious Injury ...

:D Interesting to know what ACC have recorded as injuries ?

What does NULL mean ?

;)
0

#15 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 26 August 2007 - 02:20 AM

Madmac - why not write to ACC and ask? You should also ask ACC to tell you (a) which injuries it beleives it is covering and (B) what entitlements it is currently providing. When you get the response let us know. If ACC doesn't respond within 21 days, lodge a Code complaint.
0

#16 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 09 October 2007 - 12:54 PM

It's interesting to note in post #1 ''Why does the residual tail exist '' the following sentence.

'' IN ADDITION THE APPROACH THAT WAS TAKEN TO FILL CASE MANAGER POSITIONS FROM THE


NURSING PROFESSION


INSTEAD OF THE RANGE OF ....... ''

This smacks of DISCRIMINATION and breaches of The Human Rights ACT to us and just how many
nurses joined the ranks of ACC because they were subject to Health and Disability complaints and left
their previous employment before the complaints were addressed so there was no record of their
'' wrongdoings'' .. makes one wonder doesn't it ??

We understand LORRIANE COOK(e) at LONG TERM CLAIMS UNIT TAKAPUNA IS AN EX NURSE .
Does anyone have any background history as to where she worked and why she really left her
previous employment ?
0

#17 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 15 November 2007 - 09:19 AM

View Postaccvictim, on Apr 19 2004, 04:03 AM, said:

Why the Sunday Star-Times condemns this proactive approach by ACC is beyond the reasoning of this newspaper. Full rehabilitation embraces a return to the workforce and should be encouraged whatever the cost. Innocent employers should not have to pay for the welfare addictions of ACC's long-term clients. The sooner people recognise that long-term welfare is corrupting, the sooner it will come to an end.

HOW ABOUT THOSE ACC BASTARDS FIXING UP SOME OF THE PAST INJUSTICES DEALT OUT TO INJURED CLAIMANTS, WHO`VE LOST THEIR HOMES , FAMILIES AND THEIR DIGNITY, THESE ACC PIGS ARE NOT LOOKING AFTER THE INNOCENT EMPLOYERS SUBS, THE REASON IS THEY HAVE BLUNDERED CASES, LIED AND CHEATED CLAIMANTS, AND WILL SOON BE PAYING OUT EVEN MORE FOR ALL THESE MISMAGEMENT OF CLAIMS.

SACK THE LOT OF THEM AND GIVE THE BASIC DOLE
SEE HOW THOSE WHACKERS LIKE IT!

Morning accvictim it is Darrell Pearce here in New Plymouth. I wonder if that tail management also applies to non payment of an independence allowance as i have never received an independence allowance from acc since they assessed me down from 100% to 9% a huge fall. Never mind acc are just so fucken greedy they control the assessment process, review process, entitlements process. Just goes to show manipulative the scumbags can be.
Kind Regards.
Darrell Pearce.
0

#18 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 15 November 2007 - 05:47 PM

Darrel for you to have that much of a reduction the assessor must have left out some of your injuries when completing the assessment.

You might want to check to make sure that all injuries were assessed.
0

#19 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 15 November 2007 - 06:21 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on Nov 15 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

Darrel for you to have that much of a reduction the assessor must have left out some of your injuries when completing the assessment.

You might want to check to make sure that all injuries were assessed.

Evening doppelganger it is Darrell here. I can tell you that acc are only assessing me on 3 accepted claims. I applied to acc to assess my head injury they refused my request because they said there was no evidence so i went to see my doctor & he said there is a 5 cm scar on the head i also requested that acc fund a ct scan of my head they declined that request as well i have 24 accepted claims with acc they are only assessing me on 3 claims my sensitive claim, left knee claim, & dental claim. It goes to show that claimants like me are accident prone.
Kind Regards.
Darrell Pearce.
0

#20 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 16 November 2007 - 03:18 PM

View Postdarrellpearce, on Nov 15 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

Evening doppelganger it is Darrell here. I can tell you that acc are only assessing me on 3 accepted claims. I applied to acc to assess my head injury they refused my request because they said there was no evidence so i went to see my doctor & he said there is a 5 cm scar on the head i also requested that acc fund a ct scan of my head they declined that request as well i have 24 accepted claims with acc they are only assessing me on 3 claims my sensitive claim, left knee claim, & dental claim. It goes to show that claimants like me are accident prone.
Kind Regards.
Darrell Pearce.


What branch are you with for IA Darrell??

Mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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