ACCforum: Initial Assessments - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Initial Assessments Initial Assessments

#41 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 07:11 PM

24 Occupational assessor

An occupational assessment must be undertaken by an assessor whom the Corporation considers has the appropriate qualifications and experience to do the assessment required in the particular case.



The key words here are "appropriate qualifications", "experience" and "particular case".

The nature of the problem is that the ACC is attempting to create generic assessments rather than individual assessments based on relevant expertise.

The Corporation must select an assessor who meet this criteria. If a person is an injured airline pilot it is entirely inappropriate for someone that does not have appropriate qualifications for that particular case. Just because a 747 pilot uses a computer to fly the plane that does not make them a computer programmer and as was thought by an occupational assessor, ACC case manager, ACC legal adviser and reviewer recently. There is absolutely no relationship between a 747 computer programming system and a commercial computer programmer. Not even the buttons are the same.

This came about because the occupational assessor who had the authority of which everyone else had to follow did not have the appropriate qualifications and experience in this particular case because they were only qualified as a psychologist with no experience in what pilots or computer programmers actually did.

The assessor was totally dependent upon the job sheets provided by the ACC. Was there are an independent assessment by qualified assessor? Of course not!
0

#42 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 08:13 PM

ahha been there tried that.

I made appointment with highly skilled Dr for an IMA. His Secretary agreed he could do the assessment and made a long consultation as they take longer than an normal consultation she said.

CM would not accept my choice Dr doing the assessment, although she said he did have all the qualifications and experience to do the job, as he was not a "contracted Provider".

(I maintain they contracted the IMA out of the act and in doing so they were in breach of the competition in business) sorry not right words..but hope you understand what I mean.

What happened next of course is that she interferred and backed the Dr off. The Dr agreed he did not have the contract to do IMA assessments. So he declined to do the IMA. So she then sent all sorts of irelevant material to the Dr I had said I would not see as I knew he didn't accept documentation from claimants And then, because she had done so, sent irrelevant material and the Privacy Officer came out on my side, she then had to cancel that appointment. Sigh......I still maintain there was no reason my choice of Dr could not have done the IMA.

Gloria.
0

#43 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 08:57 PM

Gloria - clause 24 refers to "occupational assessor". The necessary qualifications for a "medical assessor" are somewhat different and are contained at clause 27 of schedule one. Essentially though, the primary qualifications for an assessor of any sort under the ACC scheme is that they are congenial towards ACC and can reliably be expected to report on claimants in a manner that assists ACC with its strategic policy of shifting the costs of personal injury on to the victims and their immediate families.
0

#44 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 09:08 PM

Gloria what MG is trying to say that in accordance with legislation it is the ACC contact that as the qualification rather than competency. If MG says is true then we can look foward to large numbers of ACC staff and their agents going to jail.
0

#45 User is offline   Medwyn 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 09:12 PM

Alan,

You still don't get it I'm sorry to say, legalities seem to cloud your vision somewhat as you seem hell-bent on "pecuniary advantage" and find fraud under every stone. If you stop and look, it's beautiful world out there and there are things of beauty to be happy about, just smell the coffee!

Just look at your average Pilot:

Skills from the top of my head:-

Probably a Level 6 qualification in Maths, English, Physics at least
A high degree of computer literacy to understand meteorology, navigation systems, theory of flight etc plus writing of logs loading schedules, optimum loading weights etc.
A high level in science to be able to have knowledge on the theory of flight, meteorology, navigation principles etc.
A high level of knowledge of navigation skills, remember Erabus and the pilots relying on a school atlas.
People skills customer relations

You do not need another pilot to tell you what skill he has, mabe you do to assess what he knows

The IOA is about SKILLS not Knowledge[u][i], I may know how to build the Pyramids at Cheops, but I do not have the skills to build it.

I could go on
But look at what I've put up and tell me how many other jobs require some of the skills above?

All jobs, vocations, activities can be broken down into skill levels and actions,this has been done, it was pioneered by Henry Ford and is still being practised.

All an employer wants is not how much you know, but what skills you have and the skills you can fit to the job at hand.


Gloria,

Thanks for your reply.

I think you have confused the IMA (medical) with the IOA. they are two separate entities.The IMA takes place to see if you can medically sustain 35 hours per week using the transferable skills matched to an employment opportunity. By the way, I agree totally that you should have had your choice of Medical Assessor.

MG
Again thanks for your contribution
The assessors can only operate within the parameters that have been set for them. If they meet an IOA assessors criteria as defined by ACC, note I did not state "The Act"[i][u] then they can assess clients forwarded th them.

You have a knowledge of the Act which I defer to due to my lack of knowledge, however I make the point that some of us blindly follow the letter of the law, and forget the Spirit or Intention of the law which has it's own gestation period and through legal challenge and precedence develops rightly or wrongly a culture all of it's own.

Please, I'm not defending ACC, or it's interpretation of the Act, that is just the culture that has been created, and that is the great unknown we have to battle and change.

Alan raves about pecuniary advantage, sure the assessors like to be paid for the report, their expertise and some reward for the hours spent acquiring the skills and knowledge to perform those tasks.
0

#46 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 11:25 PM

OK guys, then, is there a difference between an IMA and a VIMA?

about medical assessor legislation says....]

(1) A medical assessment must be undertaken by a registered medical
practitioner who---

(a) holds vocational registration under the Medical Practitioners Act
1995; and

(B) is described in subsection (2) or subsection (3).

(2) A person who holds vocational registration in general practice must
also---

(a) have an interest, and proven work experience, in disability
management in the workplace or in occupational rehabilitation; and

(B) have at least 5 years' experience in general practice; and

© meet at least 1 of the following criteria:

(i) be a Fellow of the Royal New Zealand College of General
Practitioners or hold an equivalent qualification:

(ii) be undertaking training towards becoming a Fellow of the
Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners or holding an equivalent
qualification:

(iii) have undertaken relevant advanced training.

So when is an IMA a VIMA or not? Anyone know? What is the difference?

Gloria.
0

#47 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 11:37 PM

AND....... As it happens, there was this sudden rush to fit this IMA in with a return trip to NZ first to have an orthopaedic assessment which I arranged, then a total knee replacement surgery to follow.

As you might imagine this rush was not conducive to best approach to surgery especially with all the nonsense about the irrelevant documents which were sent to impugn my honor by withholding the resolution to an issue....a false issue as it were. So I was arriving at my flights etc with elevated stress levels which were not warranted.....then having the IMA cancelled by order of Privacy Commissioner anyway.

I still had a consultation with the Dr I had chosen to do the IMA, for an update on injury and hoping a treatment plan could be mooted....it was not.....in this case this section would have covered my having the IMA done with the Dr. (I won't go into the fact the cm had cancelled my appointment....and I arrived there sore and tired and had to return ten days after surgery for a Total Knee replacement.....to complete the consultation and it was very painful and unnessarily so.)

anyway legislation allows for this now tight time frame in Sect 94 as now there was no longer any time for an IMA to be arranged with another provider.

94 Assessments when medical assessor unavailable

(1) A registered medical practitioner who does not qualify under section 93
may undertake a medical assessment if the Corporation is satisfied that---

(a) the circumstances in subsection (2) exist; and

(B) the registered medical practitioner's qualifications and experience
are broadly comparable with the qualifications and experience specified in
section 93.

(2) The circumstances are that---

(a) a registered medical practitioner who does qualify under section 93
is not available to undertake a medical assessment without unreasonable delay
or unreasonable inconvenience to the claimant; and

(B) the delay or inconvenience would have an adverse effect on providing
vocational rehabilitation to the claimant.

(3) Sections 95 and 96 apply to a registered medical practitioner who
qualifies under this section to undertake a medical assessment.

Having paid my own fares back and forward and being on the spot....they don't accept assessments from Drs over here.....heck they even bring their unregistered toadies over to exploit the claimants....they could have allowed my choice of eminently qualified as they agreed he was, Dr....albiet not contracted..

Wouldn't you thinnk? Gloria
0

#48 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 07 June 2007 - 01:34 AM

Medwyn, An IMA DOES NOT and should not contain 35 hours per week. That is for the /VIA which is the last resort before kickoff.
An IMA is there to see if the claimant can sustain any of the jobs put down by the IOA. His job is to see if the person's injuried preclude them from doing any of these occupations. 35hrs per week is not an issue here and this is the problem, these turkeys are citing 35hrs per week and ACC are chopping people off without going thru any further processes.
It is NOT the job of the IMA assessing doctor to state any number of hours to be worked or can be worked.
If anyone has 35hrs per week on their IRP, get a new IRP immediately!
Gloria, a VIA is carried out after all the social and Vocational rehab incliding work trials etc have been carried out.
IT is up to the Assessor to decide if 35hrs per week can be sustained. Usually they say it can regardless of the fact it CANT~!
Most of the rehab now is shonky and entry level occupations. Noone is trained in another occupation on the same level as the occupation held before injury nowadays.
ACC have ignored the Act and chop people off SAP, sometimes using the IOA as the chopper!!
0

#49 User is offline   watcha 

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

Posted 07 June 2007 - 12:31 PM

Gloria, ACC uses sec 117 (1) to "suspend" or cancel an entitlement, usually weekly compensation which also can include any or all entitlements but not usually cover, although it has been done for as we know, ACC can revise any of its decisions at any time if it believes it made the decision in error.

ACC is using the Initial Medical Assessment to exit claimants, the false reasoning behind its argument is that the medical information on file (IMA) has demonstrated that the claimant is NOW able to work full time in one or more of the identified work types - exit.

The purpose of Sec 89 has been usurped and used as a sec 103 incapacity assessment or VIMA by default.

What I find very disturbing is that reviewers are singing to ACC's tune and even more alarming is that judges are going along with it. Trask v ACC AI 164/05, Ongley J (judgement dated 24/03/2006). This one will be in ACC's extensive trophy cabinet. I don't know if it went to the High Court but from the way ACC is crowing, I suspect not.
0

#50 User is offline   Medwyn 

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

Posted 07 June 2007 - 01:21 PM

Sparrow,

I apologise for the error, I was getting confused with The Acts and the reality of some assessments that take place.

It's good to see that by combined input from one and all questions are raised and opinions and ideas come forward.

Sparrow, just a wee quote comes to mind when i read your nom-de-plume.

Come to the edge he said,
But they were afraid
Come to the edge he said
Then he pushed them a little
And they flew
**Guy Apolllinaire**

Keep flying Sparrow and thanks for the correction.

Medwyn
0

#51 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 07 June 2007 - 02:51 PM

View Postwatcha, on Jun 7 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

Gloria, ACC uses sec 117 (1) to "suspend" or cancel an entitlement, usually weekly compensation which also can include any or all entitlements but not usually cover, although it has been done for as we know, ACC can revise any of its decisions at any time if it believes it made the decision in error.



Watcha,
I was exited in 2000 (thats another story) unicompartmental knee replacement was declined in 2002 as they stated entitlements had ceased. Total Knee replacement was decline in 2004 their reasoning was the exact same surgery had already been requested and been declined. (not exactly at all 1/2 and full are two different things)

After an Orthopedic report in late January which stated that from both injuries to both knees I was now significantly disabled....and with the report absolutely without doubt establishing again and again the causal link which had been said to not exist, they caved in a issued the decision to allow me the Right TKR.

I had this done within a few days of the acceptance and 3 1/2 months down the track, now I ask them to accept that they have in fact reversed the decision and in the letter accepted that the causal link was established....which is a nnew or substituted or fresh decision on the claim. Please reinstitute the erc which was wrongly ceased.

They just come back with waffle about how they cannot over ride the decision of the judge.....but I say they effectively have and can and I want to official decision that they have......and the acknowledgement they need to backpay the erc which is med certed right through this time to date. And they talk about the right knee which does not have cover....it is covered from the accident and injury in 1986...it does have cover, at no time has cover been revoked.

You wrote.....ACC can revise any of its decisions at any time if it believes it made the decision in error.

NOw they say no decision has been revised.....then what on earth is this, if not a revised substituted or fresh decision on the matter?

Where to from here...Gloria.
0

#52 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 07 June 2007 - 03:07 PM

The ACC are required to consider New and compelling information which is submitted after the decision that they are relying on. You can then appeal the failure to have proper regard for the new information.
0

#53 User is offline   watcha 

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

Posted 08 June 2007 - 11:55 AM

Medwyn, I am most alarmed that you stress "transferrable" skills as the most important factor of an IOA, you have forgotten the full requirement of education training and experience. IMHO training and experience are the key elements of a realistic occupational assessment closely followed by education in the sense of both relevance to the occupation and time expired since last exposed.

You quote the occupation of pilot as your example; there are many levels of "pilot" skills, from that of a glider pilot to that of the most sophisticated modern passenger aircraft. The point being that a glider pilot's skill levels, training and experience do not permit him or her to fly even a two-seater passenger aircraft. Not forgetting, of course, that the pilot's licence may be out of date by some years and that his/her technology is likewiae out of date. Re-education and re-training would be necessary and the same applies to other occupations, the education and training must be relevant and up to date.

In my experience, very few occupational assessors involved in ACC assessments have a firm grasp of reality, I could number those that do on the fingers of one hand. That is the reality. Another reality that I find very disturbing is the distress I see in claimants who have been dumbed down by such assessments by assessors who have succumbed to the Judas complex.

Another reality is that most assessors are female and often considerably younger than those being assessed, I hasten to add that I am neither anti-feminist nor anti-age. The plain simple fact is that experience dictates job familiarity whatever standard is used and, let's face it, ACC's work detail sheets are far too general in nature and that is what assessors are required to use. 30,000 jobs reduced to around 500, come on!!!

ACC restricts assessors discretion and therein lies the rub, no more ticket sellers, salespersons, forecourt attendents, car park attendents etc, etc, etc, unless they are a claimant's aspiration.

The Act does permit entry level jobs, the Act specifies rehabilitation to the maximum extent practicable, not the minimum.

Occupational assessors out there, wake up and smell the coffee, claimants I know will be putting you to the sword.
0

#54 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 June 2007 - 12:35 PM

Medwyn watcha has substantially added to our understanding of initial assessments. I would add to watcha's summary that the ACC must select appropriately experienced occupational assessors that are relevant to the claimant.

This means the ACC must be able to select an appropriate assessor from vast pool of diverse assessors with experience covering the full range of occupation types. Not some extra school teacher or psychologist who has had no experience, education or knowledge whatsoever as to what people do in their occupations.

In addition the ACC should not dumb down occupations from 30,000 to 500 like they are trying to do with the the medical read codes.

Entry-level jobs would be okay in order to rededicate and gain experience but rehabilitation would not be achieved until the same skill level had been acquired as the pre injury occupation. This means that the person was a highly skilled tradesmen plasterer if they were working towards an occupation in the IT industry they would need to reach the same skill level. Skill level is generally very close to earnings capacity. Remember that it is our earnings capacity that is insured and not just getting a job.

If the IOA was only focusing on transferable skills when recommending a potential new occupation after the IMA has got through with you the only possibility is that you will be trading down in occupation rather than rehabilitation which is to restore you back to your former glory at a similar level. This form of assessment and rehabilitation plan is of course a document designed for fraudulent misrepresentation of your entitlement to access legislated rehabilitation funding and earnings compensation.

This is the heart of the complaint.

The IOA should be identifying what additional education, experience and skills will be necessary to achieve an occupation of a similar worth to the pre injury occupation. The new occupation criteria that we share with Australia identifies a skill level which is a number from which these calculations must be focused. This is a massive improvement on the ACC occupation job sheets. But the job sheets are used without regard for this skill level then there is a very clear obviation of duty which is of course an act of dishonesty.

watcha when you said that occupational assessors may get put to the sword did you spare a thought for Mrs Pike, the ACC case manager that was put to the sword 10 years ago?
0

#55 User is offline   Medwyn 

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

Posted 08 June 2007 - 01:13 PM

You seem to confused as to what the IOA assessment entails, again I stress that the assessor gets a synopsis of all the transferable skills you had at the time of your accident, not skills you could or would like to be trained in.

Training and other options are part of the IRP negotiated between client and ACC.

You do hard working and caring assessors an injustice by disparaging their empathy,and qualifications by saying they are incompetent, and "Judases", you will notice that the expertise of those who post here are not brought into the equation.

ACC by definition appoint appropriately experienced and qualified assessors and they are rigid as to the parameters one must meet, admitedly, I can only speak for a good number of local assessors who more than meet the criteria of knowledge, empathy, experience and professional ethics.

There is to much smoke and mirrors and personal agendas going on here. Stick to the facts, separate IOA, IMA, IRP etc into their own areas and requirements and don't confuse one with another.

Remember above all, the report they produce must be Legally defencesble and they are legally bound by what they write and report, and can be challenged.

If you disagree, spell out the steps that a client has to go through from acceptance of the claim until exit and lets see how it should work, not based on personal interpretations of clauses from the Acts
0

#56 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 June 2007 - 01:39 PM

Medwyn ACC staff cannot any qualification, experience or mandate to determine what qualifications or experience is appropriate for a claimant. Legislation requires the ACC to rely upon independent third-party experts. The expertise is expected to be obtained from occupational assessors. ACC staff are only administrators and not technical people.

My observation of a large number of occupational assessors, and the companies they work for, is that ACC routinely asked the wrong person in the wrong question. As an example of an orthopaedic surgeon had an accident you would not want a schoolteacher advising as to what would be appropriate rehabilitation. They might mistakenly think because he's a clever fellow that he could be rehabilitated into being a rocket scientist. In this type of case the occupational assessor would need to be someone who knows about medical science. In the real world there are specialist and similarly qualified occupational recruitment agencies staffed by medically personnel.

It would be ridiculous to think that the case manager should have any involvement whatsoever in determining vocational rehabilitation objectives or procedures. ACC case managers must simply do is that old by your GP, medical specialists, occupational and medical assessors. Come to that reviewers and district court judges must also be obedient to these experts.

The problem I'm having is occupational assessors are invariably not expert!

Being a good occupational assessor has got nothing to do with attitude or enthusiasm but everything to do with criteria. Unless they have training and experience in regards to the criteria their opinions mean no more than yours, mine or the case managers.

The various assessments, IOA, IMA, IRP, VI, mean absolutely nothing if the basic foundation facts are wrong. We can all want to be an astronaut and all agreed to be an astronaut but unless we have had the right education, experience and skill to be employed as an astronaut we are not an astronaut.

The problem is with the Ramsey decision in as much as once an IOA has got legs it becomes very difficult to remedy the situation, sometimes taking years. This is the foundation report for the vocational rehabilitation entitlement. Get this wrong and you miss out on your entitlements or at least end up in a big fight. This is the principle of a stitch in time saves nine.

Medwyn you have properly suggested that the steps needed the clearly spelled out. The problem is ACC are in charge of the criteria for occupational assessors but have not disclose the criteria. The criteria cannot be addressed by way of Part 5 of the Act in normal circumstances so there lies the problem.

It is for this reason that I had promoted the concept of challenging the veracity of information and source prior to the information going to either the ACC or the IMA. The information, whether it is correct or not, is the property of the person it is about even ACC have paid for that information. The Privacy Act does give you power over the information but of course you risk ACC getting their knickers in a twist in suspending your entitlement. On balance of risk I am of the opinion that the line must be drawn at this point rather than a few months later after disentitlement into a new occupation because then you will be required to produce computing documents at your own cost.

If anybody finds my logic deficient please describe a safer strategy.
0

#57 User is offline   Medwyn 

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

Posted 08 June 2007 - 03:15 PM

"you would not want a schoolteacher advising as to what would be appropriate rehabilitation." how trite and demeaning of professionals

Alan,

Read again, they are not there to provide rehabilitation, but to determine and note transferacble skills, that is what the IRP is for, a negotiated binding document between client and ACC.

You reading into things into what has not been mandated and quoting it as fact, confuses others besides yourself.

Remember above all IRP is all about rehabilitation, IMA is only an assessment until you can get your head around that, there will be confusion around what rehabilitation is, but that's another area for discussion
0

#58 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 08 June 2007 - 03:58 PM

Sorry Medwyn, Transferable skills is only one thing an IOA must look at. It is far mre important to consider education and training and experience as pointed out by Watcha.
Anyone taking your advice could end up in a predicament known as EXIT.
Also an IRP is not just for Occupational rehab. That comes last. First all the medical rehab and social rehab must be first put into place. This is where people are coming unstuck and dont realise that an IRP is NOT about returning to work ASAP. ACC use this and the IMA to EXIT a person.
How many have been forced off the system without any rehab, ie social and medical and placed into a Transferable skills unsuitable job?
Also the GP must be in on the picture at all times, but no, ACC rush people into signing these plans poste haste so the CM can get KPI's.
Very bad this time of year as KPI's are calculated in June, and CM's are desperate for good KPI's for a decent bonus at our expense. DONT let ACC rush anyone into vocational rehab till their MEdical advisors say they are ready.
Sorry but you are off beam.
Further more, since when were IOA assessors PROFESSIONALS? in my experience they are the scum of the earth and very inexperienced, working under the apron of ACC.
0

#59 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 June 2007 - 04:09 PM

Medwyn to use my own occupation as an example, Project Management/Mechanical Design Engineer, it would not be a snowball's hope in hell for a schoolteacher to understand much about what I would do in that type of occupation. The notion is just plain silly. I had employed a large number of people in a large number of different types of occupations and can say with absolute certainty that I could not properly determine the transferable skills from some of the more complex occupations.

Legislation requires a person of the appropriate expertise for each and every different type of occupation. This legislation is not meant to the men schoolteachers, it is not right or demeaning. By the way a schoolteacher is not considered to be a "professional", not counting university lecturers and so forth of course.

You seem to legally want to get onto that railway stock carriage off to Auschwitz for your nice warm shower without determining the criteria for water rather than gas.

The IRP cannot exist without a properly formed IOA. The case manager is not qualified nor expected and above all not mandated in legislation to determine occupational education experience and skill requirements to go into the IRP. This information must be acquired from a suitably qualified expert such as the IOA. Because the IOA's are invariably schoolteachers and psychologists (nonprofessionals who can't even get a proper job in their chosen field of endeavour) had no idea what you talking about and only provide the ACC with the occupational job sheets of the ACC have supplied them with in the first place, case managers and attempted to make it up as they go along, even using threats of suspension if you don't cooperate. Do you think that you in response to a cattle prod?

It is far better to seek independent occupational advice from a person experienced in your own background such as previous employers, senior colleagues and well-qualified employment consultants (not the salesman variety) so as to quantify qualification, experience and skill in the same way that you evaluate house with a valuation report. If the IOA says anything different to that the new challenge them immediately and the bid them from releasing their wrong information to any third party.

If you don't stick to your guns about factual information you will end up receiving a fake IRP and ultimately exited from the scheme illegally then be faced with expensive advocate or qualified legal counsel costs with only a 20% chance of getting entitlements back. Standing around in the first instance is the safest option even though there is some risk.
0

#60 User is offline   Medwyn 

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

Posted 08 June 2007 - 07:28 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jun 8 2007, 04:09 PM, said:

Medwyn to use my own occupation as an example, Project Management/Mechanical Design Engineer, it would not be a snowball's hope in hell for a schoolteacher to understand much about what I would do in that type of occupation. The notion is just plain silly. I had employed a large number of people in a large number of different types of occupations and can say with absolute certainty that I could not properly determine the transferable skills from some of the more complex occupations.

Legislation requires a person of the appropriate expertise for each and every different type of occupation. This legislation is not meant to the men schoolteachers, it is not right or demeaning. By the way a schoolteacher is not considered to be a "professional", not counting university lecturers and so forth of course.

You seem to legally want to get onto that railway stock carriage off to Auschwitz for your nice warm shower without determining the criteria for water rather than gas.

The IRP cannot exist without a properly formed IOA. The case manager is not qualified nor expected and above all not mandated in legislation to determine occupational education experience and skill requirements to go into the IRP. This information must be acquired from a suitably qualified expert such as the IOA. Because the IOA's are invariably schoolteachers and psychologists (nonprofessionals who can't even get a proper job in their chosen field of endeavour) had no idea what you talking about and only provide the ACC with the occupational job sheets of the ACC have supplied them with in the first place, case managers and attempted to make it up as they go along, even using threats of suspension if you don't cooperate. Do you think that you in response to a cattle prod?

It is far better to seek independent occupational advice from a person experienced in your own background such as previous employers, senior colleagues and well-qualified employment consultants (not the salesman variety) so as to quantify qualification, experience and skill in the same way that you evaluate house with a valuation report. If the IOA says anything different to that the new challenge them immediately and the bid them from releasing their wrong information to any third party.

If you don't stick to your guns about factual information you will end up receiving a fake IRP and ultimately exited from the scheme illegally then be faced with expensive advocate or qualified legal counsel costs with only a 20% chance of getting entitlements back. Standing around in the first instance is the safest option even though there is some risk.



You seem to legally want to get onto that railway stock carriage off to Auschwitz for your nice warm shower without determining the criteria for water rather than gas.
Alan,


In my opinion you are an egoist, bigot and anti-semite by your totally insensitive comments.

1 I am of Jewish descent
2.Wider members of my extended relatives perished in Sobibor another major death camp

I fell that a public apology is called for and don't use your right-wing crap about Political correctness, You stuffed up or should I say puffed up in a major way.

I'm tempted to poet your comments to the Race Relations conciliator,as what you said is indefenseable.

I shall not contribute when Bigots like you are rampant.
0

Share this topic:


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

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users