ACCforum: Initial Assessments - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Initial Assessments Initial Assessments

#21 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2007 - 03:34 PM

I do not disagree with the concept of initial occupational and medical assessments as described by legislation and vocational independence assessments provided it is done in accordance with proper criteria.

The problem starts with the ACC not documenting the pre injury work task activity, qualification, experience and skill but the person relied upon for earning. Without this critical information and occupational assessment cannot take place.

The occupational assessor does not carry out an assessment against any kind of criteria. Without criteria the occupational report is meaningless rubbish.

The occupational assessor does not provide the physical task activity is expected of each occupation to enable a medical assessor from assessing the persons physical capacity to carry out the listed occupations with the results that the medical report is meaningless rubbish.

The thing to do with is to make the assessors sign an agreement not to produce or release private information made about the claimant without the claimants specific consent.

This is where the battle line must be drawn. Of course we would be full is to allow anybody to produce and rely upon a false document about us and we must use the proper resources to prevent this occurrence. The production of a false document for purposes of pecuniary advantage by the assessors and the relevant case manager will only be deterred by a term of imprisonment.

It is better to risk temporary suspension and permanent cancellation.


If the initial occupational assessments and vocational independence assessments were carried out properly then documents for a fraudulent purpose would not be produced and real rehabilitation would become possible.
0

#22 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 05 June 2007 - 04:03 PM

MG that is just one of the teaching tools that was being used, but I see that it has some good information. that is that the assessor got it wrong -- that is the capacity for work. the assessor did not talk or collect the right information about her career. this is were most if not all of the assessors fall down.

Allan I think that you need to read and study the Act as it is your job to inform the assessor what were all of your activities in your previous employment. To get around this I suggest that the injured person writes down the activities and gives the activities in writing to the assessor.

as for the Doctor not being given a discription of the activities in a particular job there is most tasks in the job discription sheet. if there is a job that has never been completed then you like the Doctor can only go off the details in the sheet. If you know of activities not mention then you will present that in writing to the Medical Assessor, with the comment of "I have experance in this type of work and it involves this type of task".

You can be pig headed about the assessments, in which ACC loves or you use your head and supply information that they do not particular want to hear. Your goal is to obtain rehabilitation, (secton 70) not to complete the merry go around so that the claim manager can gain there bonuses.
0

#23 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2007 - 04:58 PM

Dopplegangger

I have never had an assessment. In addition ACC have refused to accept information. The closest I had come to an assessment is the ACC asking me to produce a business plan which I did in accordance with the case managers instructions regarding one of my investment companies. The business plan confirmed that I did not have the capacity to perform any of the parties of that business. The ACC have never challenged this information.

As a project manager I was responsible for the individual work task activities of many people engaged in a very large number of different occupations. I've also owned an employment consultancy dealing with technical staff, including trade staff and can confirm that the job description sheets that the ACC give their occupational assessors do not describe work task activity sufficient for medical assessment.

Obviously when an occupational assessor claim capacity in an occupation different to the claimants usual occupation it is doubtful that the claimant will no work task activities of that occupation. For example a pilot of small aeroplane with a single propeller does not have the technical competency to fly a 747 and even some 747 pilots don't know how to fly a small plane yet both of these different jobs are described as exactly the same on the job description sheet.
0

#24 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 05 June 2007 - 08:35 PM

Mr Thomas - again you post inaccurate and misleading information. Assessors will not agree to restrict the information they provide to ACC (their client) and any attempt by claimants to get them to do so will probably result in the assessor terminating the assessment and ACC stopping weekly compensation on the grounds of unreasonable failure to participate in the assessment. Following an amendment to the IPRCA in 2005 reinstated entitlements following compliance are not backdated. So, if claimants follow your advice, they stand to lose money. For god's sake read the Act.
0

#25 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:13 PM

MG do me and the readers of this thread the courtesy of reading my postings a little bit more carefully. Your assertions are very forthright and bold when claiming my postings are inaccurate or misleading. They are neither. What I had said has been tested.

MG it would be beneficial if we work together to analyse the situation, as my background on this subject is in the form of an expert with more than 20 years experience and yours I understand is with significant experience in ACC law. We should be combining our expertise.

Claiming job competency when incompetency does not exist so as to obtain a job is a crime in this country. Documents being produced by the ACC and their assessors are in the main illegal documents. We need to develop a strategy of remedy and negotiation which in the main fails anyway.

The subject is not about what the ACC are able to get away with the subject is about what the legislation actually stipulates as criteria and therefore requires of the assessors. We need to put our collective understanding so as to develop a solution to the problem.

For clarification I am accurately describing the reality that the ACC have not set proper criteria for occupational assessment and commissioning occupational assessors, as the assessments are not resulting in a description of the complement of work task activity is expected of any given occupation as is required by legislation so as to enable medical certification of the claimant to carry out those work task activities.

Currently documentation is being produced and relied upon for the cancellation of entitlement. Interrupting the process by a legal blockage imposed upon the occupational assessor may result in temporary suspension but if done properly there will be a complete reimbursement of the ERC as described in legislation. I have read this portion of legislation very carefully and consulted those who are qualified in ACC law who practise as barristers dealing with ACC matters. I have not spoken flippantly regarding the subject.

It is true that significant expertise needs to be applied when carrying out this maneuver. I had supervised this maneuver on numerous occasions with success on each and every occasion though the sampling of cases is quite small. I think we should develop this strategy further so as to require the ACC to set proper criteria when commissioning occupational and vocational assessors.

I have not raised the issue, at this stage, as to how the claimant may properly document their pre-injury education, experience and skill for the purposes of earning so as to extract the individual work task components for purposes of reconfiguring into a new occupation.

The ACC used one of the projects that I was researching to cancelled my claim was an automated data matching computer program that started its life prior to my injury and continued up until 1997 when the ACC wanted me to produce a business plan surrounding this programme. Because I had invested considerable sums of money into the development of this computer program the ACC cancelled my claim. The research surrounding the subject is extensive and involves a significant number of other experts.

What we need to do now MG is to incorporate the various legal minds on the site to resolve this problem of incompetent and misleading occupational and vocational assessments. I trust that you will join those of us on the site and others in this objective so as claimants do not find themselves having to run off to advocates and legal counsel to resolve problems after they have been made.
0

#26 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:01 PM

Mr Thomas - I stand by what I say in my posts above. Readers of this forum need to be aware that your posts are not reliable and expose them to very real risks if they follow your advice. I am busy enough with other commitments and have no wish whatsoever to represent you or get involved with your legal problems. My concern is to protect innocent people from being harmed by you. I do not think you are being malicious but I do think the nature of your injury, combined with your admittedly bad experiences with the system and your attitudes, makes it impossible for you to provide accurate advice to other people. If that hurts, I'm sorry about it but I won't alter anything I have said above.
0

#27 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:26 PM

MG as the issues surrounding the individual work task competencies necessary for each and every occupation within New Zealand is complex subject well beyond most ACC advocates comprehension I do not expect you to be able to understand that portion of the subject as it relates to the ACC act. I do however object to your dismissive attitude towards this very important subject. I think you are wrong to encourage claimants to be submissive to the exit strategy developed by the ACC when a higher proportion than being exerted without effect of vocational rehabilitation.

It is a pity that you do not see fit to join the team to remedy this problem. Even if you are limited contribute a portion of your experience regarding the ACC Act as relates to employment competency I am sure that would be an important contribution.

Unfortunately the ACC have never made occupational or vocational assessments available to me and as such I have had no bad experience with the subject. I have however been deeply involved in the criteria necessary for assessment. Even NZQA were going to rent office space from me in the Peace Tower Symond Street Auckland while at the same time an independent assessment company was being established for purposes of immigration, ACC and social welfare employment competency assessment of the time when the Work Capacity Assessment Procedure was being developed.

MG it is impossible for your nonsense assertions to cause any hurt simply because your assertions are so ridiculous when set against the history of the subject. It seems that you are getting carried away with the momentum of a clique that exists among some of the members who are promoting their own viewpoints rather than those of us who are developing remedies. When I am wrong on the first to admit that I'm wrong. If you think I'm wrong please show me the reason why you are of that viewpoint so as we don't find ourselves going down wrong pathways. If you have no reason to support your doctrine focus your attention on subject matter that your more conversant with.

MG in your particular chosen field of endeavour I have no doubt that you are very experienced and competent but in the subject of employment competency it is clear that you elect the necessary comprehension necessary to go up against the system the ACC has put in place as applies to work task competency criteria. I do not agree that we on this site should simply tread water. We need to develop a proactive solution to what is perhaps the most critical problem within the ACC scheme, meaning for vocational rehabilitation.
0

#28 User is offline   Benson 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 09-May 06

Posted 05 June 2007 - 11:39 PM

If it were not for the intervention of Alan Thomas and his excellent understanding of the ACC act .
I personally would have been exited in may of 2006.Not only did he help hinder ACC from exiting me he also helped establish what qualifications I needed to rehabilitate but also assisted me find the right place to gain the necessary qualifications.
I will forever be in debt to Alan Thomas for all his help, and only wish I could repay the favor.
0

#29 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 05 June 2007 - 11:55 PM

Mr Thomas - your last post is simply nonsensical. I do a range of things to try and improve the operation of the ACC scheme and I can't be bothered listing them all here. What I do say is that you are way of out your depth in many of your postings on this forum and I believe that people who follow your advice run a real danger of getting themselves into even greater messes. I am aware that you have helped some people, and you deserve to be congratulated for your work, but you are not a repository of wisdom on all matters to do with ACC and the legal system (actually, none of us are). I am also aware that you have your Court hearing coming up in a couple of weeks and I have no doubt that will bring up some traumatic memories for you. I mean this most sincerely when I say that you should keep a low profile until the dust settles from the Court case (by all means tell us how you get on), focus on preparing for Court and any evidence you might give. I wish you the best and, if you succeed, will be the first to congratulate you.
0

#30 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 06 June 2007 - 12:33 AM

MG, I fully agree with you. The first thing Mr Thomas should do is get a copy of the latest ACC legislation.
Stand back from this forum Mr Thomas and forget other people's problems. you are facing a huge one of your own and you need to stand back and concentrate on your case.
I hope we can have a few weeks respite from your inaccuracies. You are as MG says, well out of your depth.
Please get your case sorted and it will take all your energies, forget the forum. And good luck.
0

#31 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 June 2007 - 01:21 AM

MG -if you were able to familiarise yourself with the NZQA framework and cross credit and of unit standards for the purposes of requalification you again grasp the concepts of addressing the major, some major, macro and even Micro components of the task activities that make up occupations. Obviously our site like this where information is shared amongst people from all walks of life we must use general-purpose language.

MG I am aware that these concepts aren't in the same realm is that you are working in and that you might only encounter occupational reports as final products rather than how the reports were put together. This is no criticism against you is no one can be an expert on everything.

What we must do is to call our relative expertise together in a coordinated way if we are to make any progress at all then challenging a occupational assessment prior to going to the medical assessor. If we can't challenge an occupational assessment in a proper way and assessor could almost take a lucky that into the ACC job sheets without regards to work task competency capable of earning.

MG it's about time you demonstrated a little humility in respect for my competencies age and experience for what they are. Many of these matters opinions aren't open to either you or nor my opinion but can only be open to the opinion of the industry group that these occupations belong to as they are the ones that set the criteria for reaching the standards necessary to be crowned with the name of a certain occupational type or subcategory of a type while remembering of course that the standard classifications of occupations is only a starting point with the endpoint having a capacity to earn in real terms.

In reference to my own case coming up with centres around whether or not I have a capacity to return to my pre injury occupation under S37 of the 1992 act. This means my pre injury occupation needs to be quantified in accordance with a occupational type focusing on each of the individual work tasks that make up that occupation so as I may turn to the same extent as a previously earned.

This is not time for emotional turmoil for me as comprehension of the legislation is relatively straightforward. The legislators have done a relatively good job barring a few areas where clarity of descriptionwould have been helpful. Whether or not, while having regard for my incapacities, I can return to my pre injury occupation is the issue at hand. This in itself is simple. I simply describe my pre injury occupation showing each individual task activity for that occupation and show the medical reports stating which task I can no longer do and for what reason.

The ACC on the other hand cancel the claim alleging that I was working without disclosing what that work might be. They went on a fishing expedition in the form of a private investigators interrogation and only received information that was already on file to the effect that I owned businesses, was a director, lived on the business premises and so forth. ACC have two options one to change the name of my pre injury occupation to that of CEO/ managing director and claim that a person in that job doesn't carry out any work tasks at all. The other is that I can work in my pre injury project management/mechanical design engineer with one hand.

The dissecting of these various occupations is much the same as what I have described and as such it is quite timely for me to enjoy spiking up discussions regarding the finer points of law and how the real world of the NZQA framework in conjunction with the major minor and macro breakdown of the standard classifications of occupations applies to the ACC Act to determine earnings capacity.

Sparrow on well aware of the latest legislation and case for surrounding that legislation watching it progressed from my discussions with Bill Birch 1990 when he was preparing to overhaul the ACC act for the 1990 to release through until the present legislation. But significant was the delay of the work capacity assessment procedure and the case law that followed leading into the 1998 and current legislation. Most of the changes became necessary as a result of the ACC propensity to disregard administering the act in favour of doing things the way they have always done.

MG I do understand from the advocates point of view I wanted to be most expedient course of action to preserve the claimants circumstance within the dynamics of the current hurly-burly.

Please respect my point of view whereby I am seeking to address long-standing changes in by way of changing forever the ACC culture of persuading claimants to fake it until they make it or languish on an invalids benefit. I'm coming from the more theoretical end of the spectrum addressing systemic issues and core competencies of all the decision makers across the board.

I'm certainly after my dead when dealing with social interaction on a one-to-one level but a case manager who has been instructed To Administer the Act contrary to the Act. While I have one at mediation conference as I would be the first to admit that it is well beyond my capacity to negotiate in this murky grey area and do the business of relabelling, compromise, argy-bargy and so forth when I am dealing with the purity of law and the integrity it takes to deliver a rehabilitated claimant into an occupation where they actually do get a job.

MG I am more than happy to leave you to the higgledy-piggledy and argy-bargy face-to-face negotiations with the real world that the one-to-one level in its current format through the IOA and VI assessment procedures. But you must remember that I am seeking feedback from these areas so as to construct a more precision instrument to determine rehabilitation entitlement through to measuring rehabilitation success. Please appreciate that my area of expertise goes to the core business of rehabilitation assessment criteria, identifying residual capacities in determining the most cost-effective way through to actual vocational rehabilitation with the means of measuring the success of that vocational rehabilitation.

At this stage we have succeeded in establishing numerous working models that function perfectly with the ACC having no defence mechanism. I am under no illusions that once we get to a complete working model of this portion of the ACC administrative duties the proper venue will be judicial review.
0

#32 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 06 June 2007 - 10:42 AM

The proof of the pudding is in the eating Mr Thomas.
0

#33 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 June 2007 - 10:55 AM

Sparrow
Those of us who are working on the problem of ACC commissioning incompetent occupational assessors to produce documentation designed to remove people from their entitlement rather than rehabilitate them are seeking additional technical support, particularly from those who are on the front line on the site such as advocates.

Just like the little red hen who wanted to make bread for her chickens the little red hen wanted the various farm animals to help plough the fields, sow the wheat, harvested crop etc etc, we too would welcome the experience of others in order to develop the strategy that will lead toward achieving properly formed occupational assessments that either leads to real rehabilitation or reinforces the right to ongoing ERC.

Unlike the little red chicken we will still freely share our technical expertise about what makes up each and every occupation for purposes of cross credit and work task competencies to achieve rehabilitation or what additional education experience and skill is still required of which the ACC must fund as part of the rehabilitation programme.

At this stage we have a number of puddings that others are enjoying. Sparrow would if you would also like to enjoy this pudding send me your pre injury occupational details and any occupational assessment for purposes of comparison.
0

#34 User is offline   watcha 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 02:15 PM

Alan, circumstances have overtaken you, your time would be better spent applying the time you have taken to post your lengthy replies on all threads and particularly this one today.

I agree with MG, bad advice is harmful and you have given inaccurate information and advice on numerous occasions in numerous threads - concentrate your efforts on your own case and beware of tunnel vision.

The fact is that ACC has twisted the purpose of the Initial Assessment process into yet another exit strategy by virtue of sec 117 - end of story. That is the situation ALL claimants find themselves in today so don't get sidetracked by extraneous issues.

It is also a fact that the Initial Occupational Assessor's contract governs the conduct - and outcome - of the occupational assessment which, of course, if inaccurate or biased or both, leads to a flawed medical assessment and probable exit.

Unfortunately reviewers and the district court court in recent months have tended to support that trend, factor in to that trend the Ramsay decison and the noose is tighening even further around our collective necks. Furthermore, I have good reason to contend that the Occupational Assessor's contract (Initial and VI) with ACC effectively contracts a claimant out of the Act. ACC has yet to be put to the sword on that very important issue.
0

#35 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 02:48 PM

 watcha, on Jun 6 2007, 03:15 PM, said:

.

The fact is that ACC has twisted the purpose of the Initial Assessment process into yet another exit strategy by virtue of sec 117 - end of story. That is the situation ALL claimants find themselves in today so don't get sidetracked by extraneous issues.

It is also a fact that the Initial Occupational Assessor's contract governs the conduct - and outcome - of the occupational assessment which, of course, if inaccurate or biased or both, leads to a flawed medical assessment and probable exit.

Unfortunately reviewers and the district court court in recent months have tended to support that trend, factor in to that trend the Ramsay decison and the noose is tighening even further around our collective necks. Furthermore, I have good reason to contend that the Occupational Assessor's contract (Initial and VI) with ACC effectively contracts a claimant out of the Act. ACC has yet to be put to the sword on that very important issue.


Sec 117......if you unreasonably refuse to: carry out these.....Sec 89:

89 Assessment of claimant's vocational rehabilitation needs
An assessment of a claimant's vocational rehabilitation needs must
consist of---

(a) an initial occupational assessment to identify the types of work
that may be appropriate for the claimant; and

(B) an initial medical assessment to determine whether the types of work
identified under paragraph (a) are, or are likely to be, medically sustainable
for the claimant.

then 117 says.....


117 Corporation may suspend, cancel, or decline entitlements

(1) The Corporation may suspend or cancel an entitlement if it is not
satisfied, on the basis of the information in its possession, that a claimant
is entitled to continue to receive the entitlement.

(2) The Corporation must give the claimant written notice of the proposed
suspension or cancellation within a reasonable period before the proposed
starting date.

(3) The Corporation may decline to provide any entitlement for as long as
the claimant unreasonably refuses or unreasonably fails to---

(a) comply with any requirement of this Act relating to the claimant's
claim; or

(B) undergo medical or surgical treatment for his or her personal
injury, being treatment that the claimant is entitled to receive; or

© agree to, or comply with, an individual rehabilitation plan.

(4) This section does not limit or affect any other power of the Corporation
to decline or end an entitlement.
Compare: 1998 No 114 s 116


Hope that clarifies Watchas concerns.....

On the matter of:::: "I have good reason to contend that the Occupational Assessor's contract (Initial and VI) with ACC effectively contracts a claimant out of the Act. ACC has yet to be put to the sword on that very important issue."

I have been waiting for that....they seem to do a lot of contracting out of the act.

Gloria
0

#36 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 June 2007 - 03:24 PM

Watcha it is my plan to win my district court case which means I will be back in the ACC system. One time in the system the ACC will of course want to carry out an Initial Occupational Assessment followed by a Vocational Independence Assessment.

It is my plan to restructure the assessment procedures prior to my being assessed. You might not like my plan but it is my plan and I am carrying out my plan.

I don't think holding someone's hand on the way to the gallows is a plan.

We are in agreement that the ACC have constructed an exit strategy that hinges on the occupational assessor's contract. Because you are quite correct in this observation this is the focus of my attention, the weak link in the chain.

We agree that the ACC is yet to be put to the sword on that very important issue. I have a sword in my hand. Perhaps you would like a sword to carry into battle as well. In my other hand I have a scalpel poised ready for reconstructive surgery of the occupational assessment procedure.

Gloria you seem to indicate an opinion that the ACC contract with the assessors is unlawful. I think you're right.

The plan is to develop an assessment procedure that does comply with the act in competition with the current assessment procedure so the courts can choose between the two as to which is appropriate. I would anticipate this battle will be fought in the form of a judicial review.

In the meantime based on the criminal code I am of the opinion that anybody that produces a false document for pecuniary advantage while either not knowing the information to be true or knowing the information to be false should be incarcerated given the high value at these reports represent. No contract whether by government agency or not preserves anybody from the reach of the Crimes Act.
0

#37 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 06 June 2007 - 04:11 PM

I get a bit ruffled when I find some who slag off IOA assessors and their competencies, especially those who have no understanding of the requirements required by ACC and tha Acts.

Theses are facts:
1. IOA assessors must be a current professional member of CPANZ and meet their criteria which of late has become very restricted on who may qualify.
2. By nature of these qualifications, the assessor has a better knowledge of the [b]EXISTING TRANSFERABLE SKILLS OF THE CLIENT PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT[ which is all they are allowed to assess, than even a humble case manager
3 They are not there to upskill or retrain, that has not been mandated to them.
4 They can only work with the client based on the clients willingness to provide answers to question raised
5 There report must be LEGALLY DEFENSEABLE and THE ORGANISATION FOR WHOM THEY WORK IS LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE
6 Do not rely totally on the oft quoted NZSCO codes and the Kiwi careers site, ACC are the practitioners are moving over to the ANZSCO as the new software upgrade goes forward.

You can check who is certified and registered with CPANZ via their website.

And remember, IOA assessors are human and have failings from time to time, nobody's perfect.
0

#38 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 June 2007 - 04:47 PM

Medwyn

1. IOA assessors must be a current professional member of CPANZ and meet their criteria which of late has become very restricted on who may qualify.

What is the criteria to hold membership?
Does the criteria have anything to do with measuring individual task competencies and the collection of tasks to make up an occupation?
What is the actual qualification requirement?



2. By nature of these qualifications, the assessor has a better knowledge of the [b]EXISTING TRANSFERABLE SKILLS OF THE CLIENT PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT[ which is all they are allowed to assess, than even a humble case manager


Professionals in this field are found in such places as Human Resource positions or Project Management positions with hands-on knowledge of the particular occupation is that they are reporting on.




3 They are not there to upskill or retrain, that has not been mandated to them.

The person developing the IRP is meant to be suitably qualified to organise a skill and retraining in accordance with the theoretical viability described by the occupational assessor. I think the current situation is the blind leading the blind.


4 They can only work with the client based on the clients willingness to provide answers to question raised

The ACC provide a limited interview time usually with inadequate information and no guidance to the claimant to prepare for that interview with the occupational assessor. This causes claimants to be fearful and therefore appear unwilling. This is especially noticeable when the relevant questions are asked or the assessor is going down the wrong track with their own pet occupations or playing the game of occupational lucky dip. This is evidenced by the diversity of actual occupations selected. If there was any decision about the assessment and reporting procedure we would see consistency in job type.


5 There report must be LEGALLY DEFENSEABLE and THE ORGANISATION FOR WHOM THEY WORK IS LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE

This is ACC attempting to contract out of the proper administration of the act to select properly qualified and experienced occupational assessors by a proper criteria in the first place. Occupational assessors invariably know very little about the ACC act let alone individual job tasks with any given occupation. The ACC's practice of giving occupational job sheets takes away the independence of the occupational assessor which further muddies the water as to who was responsible for the incompetent assessment.


6 Do not rely totally on the oft quoted NZSCO codes and the Kiwi careers site, ACC are the practitioners are moving over to the ANZSCO as the new software upgrade goes forward.

In my many discussions with department of stats on the subject of the information researched we one agreement on that NZSCO has never been designed as a criteria for the ACC. In fact you will find within the cover pages confirmation of this fact. The NZSCO was based on the international standards and ANZSCO is simply a refined version of the same thing. Kiwi Careers had simply further dumbed down the job descriptions and had done nothing towards assisting compliance with the ACC act which requires a doctor to be able to identify all of the tasks within any occupation assessed and pronounce them safe or unsafe while having regard for the claimants injuries.


And remember, IOA assessors are human and have failings from time to time, nobody's perfect.

I don't care whether IOA assessors are human beings or not. I am only interested in the ACC making good on their insurance liability by rehabilitating in a meaningful way and not simply relabelling by mistake, as is the custom. I do not expect that my hard earned levy dollars are to be spent on unqualified inexperienced idiots who had no real knowledge of the work task activities involving each and every occupation they are reporting on. To make a report on the pecuniary advantage of yourself or others something you neither know nor understand is wrong. To know that an assessor is producing a wrong document simply because the ACC have given instructions by way of occupational job sheets is not an excuse in any language or under any moral code as was confirmed by the Nuremberg trials, "I was under orders".



It is wrong for the ACC to shift the onus upon the claimant to unravel the mess by way of review hearings and district court hearings by knowingly setting up an incompetent assessment procedure. Part 5 of the Act is not a quality control mechanism available to the ACC.
0

#39 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 06 June 2007 - 06:12 PM

Medwyn
The Red text is Alan's comments, the black text is mine, Medwyns

]1. IOA assessors must be a current professional member of CPANZ and meet their criteria which of late has become very restricted on who may qualify.

What is the criteria to hold membership?
Does the criteria have anything to do with measuring individual task competencies and the collection of tasks to make up an occupation?
What is the actual qualification requirement?


Just what do you think transferable skills are then Alan?????


2. By nature of these qualifications, the assessor has a better knowledge of the [b]EXISTING TRANSFERABLE SKILLS OF THE CLIENT PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT[ which is all they are allowed to assess, than even a humble case manager

Professionals in this field are found in such places as Human Resource positions or Project Management positions with hands-on knowledge of the particular occupation is that they are reporting on.
We are looking at transferable skills, do you get that, skills that carry across different occupations



3 They are not there to upskill or retrain, that has not been mandated to them.

The person developing the IRP is meant to be suitably qualified to organise a skill and retraining in accordance with the theoretical viability described by the occupational assessor. I think the current situation is the blind leading the blind.

We are talking about IOA not IRP[u] and they are not there to organise and train but to assess the skills the person already has and these are transferable skills not job specific.

4 They can only work with the client based on the clients willingness to provide answers to question raised

The ACC provide a limited interview time usually with inadequate information and no guidance to the claimant to prepare for that interview with the occupational assessor. This causes claimants to be fearful and therefore appear unwilling. This is especially noticeable when the relevant questions are asked or the assessor is going down the wrong track with their own pet occupations or playing the game of occupational lucky dip. This is evidenced by the diversity of actual occupations selected. If there was any decision about the assessment and reporting procedure we would see consistency in job type.
The client is phoned, then a letter sent out confirming details and suggestiong consideration for the clent to think about prior to the meeting



5 There report must be LEGALLY DEFENSEABLE and THE ORGANISATION FOR WHOM THEY WORK IS LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE

This is ACC attempting to contract out of the proper administration of the act to select properly qualified and experienced occupational assessors by a proper criteria in the first place. Occupational assessors invariably know very little about the ACC act let alone individual job tasks with any given occupation. The ACC's practice of giving occupational job sheets takes away the independence of the occupational assessor which further muddies the water as to who was responsible for the incompetent assessment.

If you don't want ACC cronies then why do you want people who are highly conversant with the Acts, suerly it's more inportant that they are skilled in the occupation area

6 Do not rely totally on the oft quoted NZSCO codes and the Kiwi careers site, ACC are the practitioners are moving over to the ANZSCO as the new software upgrade goes forward.

In my many discussions with department of stats on the subject of the information researched we one agreement on that NZSCO has never been designed as a criteria for the ACC. In fact you will find within the cover pages confirmation of this fact. The NZSCO was based on the international standards and ANZSCO is simply a refined version of the same thing. Kiwi Careers had simply further dumbed down the job descriptions and had done nothing towards assisting compliance with the ACC act which requires a doctor to be able to identify all of the tasks within any occupation assessed and pronounce them safe or unsafe while having regard for the claimants injuries.

The NZSCO is not for ACC but for use in the general occupation field which is surely wanr you want
And remember, IOA assessors are human and have failings from time to time, nobody's perfect.

I don't care whether IOA assessors are human beings or not. I am only interested in the ACC making good on their insurance liability by rehabilitating in a meaningful way and not simply relabelling by mistake, as is the custom. I do not expect that my hard earned levy dollars are to be spent on unqualified inexperienced idiots who had no real knowledge of the work task activities involving each and every occupation they are reporting on. To make a report on the pecuniary advantage of yourself or others something you neither know nor understand is wrong. To know that an assessor is producing a wrong document simply because the ACC have given instructions by way of occupational job sheets is not an excuse in any language or under any moral code as was confirmed by the Nuremberg trials, "I was under orders".


It's an assessment Alan, not rehabilitation, assessors do not write the rehabilitation plan that's ACC's and the client responsibilities

I[color="#FF0000"]t is wrong for the ACC to shift the onus upon the claimant to unravel the mess by way of review hearings and district court hearings by knowingly setting up an incompetent assessment procedure. Part 5 of the Act is not a quality control mechanism available to the ACC.


Who says the assessment is incompetent and please quote an example.
[/quote]

Alan, one of the main problems with using voice activated software is that the mouth can tend to run away from the brain.

Your uninformed quasi-legalistic mindset blinds you to reality. It reminds me of Tim Shadbolt. "Bullshit & Jellybeans"

Find something in life better to do than sit in front of a CRT or TFT monitor all day scheming how to shaft someone or dazzle them with bullshit and name dropping (eg Bill Birch)

You've got me pissed off at your manner, and yes I can swear an affidavit, that I'm not employed by ACC or any of it's affiliates opr sub-contractors, lile you, I'm a claimant
0

#40 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 06:39 PM

Medwyn - your posts raise some interesting issues that I either didn't know or had forgotten about. IMHO, the occupational assessor's qualifications are contained in clause 24 of schedule one to the IPRCA, which provides that the assessor must be someone "whom the Corporation considers has the appropriate qualifications and experience to do the assessment required in the particular case". And that, IMHO, is the root of the problem: ACC pays the piper and calls the tune. I do not agree that the IPRCA bars occupational assessors from recommending the acquisition of new skills by way of vocational retraining. In fact, on any proper reading of the Act in light of its true purpose, that is precisely what OA's should be doing, as only the terminally naive or corrupt could possibly maintain that disabled people do not need current skills to re-enter the workforce. The government's own reports, to MSD and Dept of Labour among others, constantly reiterate that disabled people face many barriers to re-entering (or entering) the Labour market, including widespread discrimination by potential employers. Why else do case managers and OAs routinely tell claimants to lie about their ACC history when applying for jobs? I think good and honest OAs are essential to the proper performance of the ACC scheme, which must be built around providing real rehabilitation to injured people, as opposed to the current medico-legal fiction of endless assessments until ACC has enough evidence to stop entitlements. I'm not sure how, or even whether, the system can be rebuilt because of the corruption that now exists within it. I'd welcome your thoughts, together with those of anyone else reading this (ACC lurkers most welcome).
0

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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