ACCforum: Statistical Chance Of Success At Review - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Statistical Chance Of Success At Review DRSL

#1 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 13 September 2006 - 01:17 PM

Recently, I posted that that being represented at review increased your chances of success, statistically, by 50%. (edited out by order)

Watcha then posted that information he/she had from DRSL indicated that representation only gained a very small extra chance of success. I asked Watcha to post those figures and indicated that I would amend my posting once that happened.

I have now sought confirmation, from DRSL, of the quote I used and it is correct.

If you have a decision letter, faulty or inadequate Individual Rehabilitation Plan or are suffering from an unreasonable delay in gaining cover or entitlements then the Review process is pretty well your only option.

To succeed at review is simply difficult - even when you are in the right. Only some succeed.

Everyone who has an in-time decision, a lousy rehab plan or has been waiting forever and is yet to get that decision, yes or no, should be flocking to those who can help.

Even though there is no organisation can assist everyone to success every time.
0

#2 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 13 September 2006 - 06:39 PM

:ph34r:

I had a lawyer first time round. Lost review even thou she tryed to get them on the MacDonnell/Percival/Chew interferance (April 2002) so my way of thinking is 50/50 until convinced otherwise.

GUESS WOT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THE OUTCOME OF ANYTHING ACC ...reviews, appeals etc ... DEPENDS VERY MUCH ON HOW CORRUPT THE REVIEWER/JUDGE IS THAT IS HEARING THE ISSUE/s!

Roll on the 22nd Sept 2006!

BLURB

This post has been edited by BLURB: 13 September 2006 - 06:46 PM

0

#3 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 13 September 2006 - 08:07 PM

If that's not advertising I dont know what is.
0

#4 User is offline   kiwiwine 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-July 04

Posted 14 September 2006 - 05:39 AM

[quote name='tspinoza' date='Sep 13 2006, 01:17 PM' post='33451']
(I also noted that, statistically, your chances of success would then further double if you were represented by Access Support Services

Advertising again...........
0

#5 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 14 September 2006 - 08:35 AM

Look , frankly I am all for any organisation that has the balls to front up to the ACCfroum and tell how well they do .. They sure will get feedback that will expose them if they are not Kosha ..

and we need to respect this and ensure we are certain of our facts .

Is all to easy to fall into the clutches of those less up front arseholes who rip and destroy vunerable ACC victums .

I am all for those who feel they have something to offer to make it know and discuss what and how they do ... as well they must also expect to have thier merits discussed here as well..

I have seen enough evidence about these guys to be fully supportive of them and rather than inhib their access to the forum would suggest they need be encouraged .

tony
0

#6 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 14 September 2006 - 10:46 AM

B) yes shysters do not make it easy to navigate ACC's fabricated matrix when there are pilot's that will run you aground or maroon you in a storm. :ph34r:
PARASITES

0

#7 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 14 September 2006 - 11:20 AM

The Forum has rules and once more these are being breached. These rules apply to us all. We all could advertise for free here and dont as we are rule abiding.
0

#8 User is offline   gaffa09 

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

Posted 14 September 2006 - 11:51 AM

My cents worth ,
There is a problem with some advocates , that cost us dearly .
some are no good , some have a fight going with ACC and ACC won't deal with them , that in it self can cost us with toll calls, files being moved and returned ,time and stress, some giving bad advice ,

Even if you have a good lawyer and you know you are right , does not say you will win.
this is because of the review system and reviewer . Often is has to go to appeal at great expence .
I can say don't go to review by yourself , and also tape it .

On the other hand there are some good advoctes , that do their best , one lives in our area, does small cases only Not volumes of files like i have over the 29 plus years .
Even lawyers have trouble getting their heads around my files .

At our meeting with the CEO , the DRSL was covered and we where asked for input into how to manage or restructure the DRSL i believe .

Now as for Doctor Jan White i do believe she is straight up front and the promise that was made to me She has carried out ,
Last Saturady as promised ACC sent a lawyer to go throught my whole file ,
We had our first meeting at my home , and most issues where covered .
I personally have found big changes in our ACC office Whangarei. but still room for more improvements especially form out of area officers .
With other claiments cases in our area also advances have been made .
we can only wait with baited breath to see if justice is done

With the help of magnacarta and MG at the meeting with our new CEO we will make advances forward .
i believe
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 September 2006 - 02:29 PM

THIS IS THE LAST WARNING

Go back and edit all the advertising out of your posts. That means everything that describes your own levels of competence in your field of endeavour, paid or otherwise. Failure to edit your posts will result in some form of assistance depending upon how you respond. This could range from additional suggestions to being totally banned from the site with every post submitted thus far removed.

The reasoning is that we have many commercial entities freely offering their expertise and advice the do not see the need for self-promotion. It is one thing to state a cause and effect but it is quite another thing to place yourself above others so as to lead them to your organisation.

Previously I generously suggested that your good name will spread by your wisdom of your posts and good deeds described by others. Unfortunately you have plastered billboards throughout this forum when there is a very strict "stick no bills" policy.

If 24 hours is not enough time to edit your posts please contact me off site.
0

#10 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 15 September 2006 - 08:04 AM

Hellloooo in here, is everyone still alive?

Been quite in here for a while, had to come back and see if my "first aid" knowledge is required?

HELLLLOOOOO

:D
0

#11 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 15 September 2006 - 09:41 AM

Looks like that the case manager was trying and succeeding to make your injury worse.

there needs to be a correction on your pathways file saying that a statement from non medical personal (family) is a medical opinion and the case manager suggestion is not in compliance of the Act.

the case management team is deliberateing putting your life at risk. I know it is hard for you than it is for me to deal with these idiots.

Keep smilling.
0

#12 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 September 2006 - 10:03 AM

I have now edited out all reference to any specific organisation on the opening post of this thread.

I am concerned that posting verifiable facts is not acceptable and is directed to be edited off as ‘advertising’ (which in itself, if it breaches the established protocols is fair enough) but that incorrect information (as posted on a previous thread by Watcha and referred to above) or unfounded misinformation (untruths in fact posted by Percy on that same previous thread leading to much forum discussion) can be posted with impunity without breaching any protocols.

Something must be done so that where members post matters as fact they can be asked to provide their sources and, failing to do so are ordered to withdraw or edit their posting just as has happened with my posting – which contains no obvious errors, misinformation or personal attacks.

Truth is important.
0

#13 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 15 September 2006 - 10:31 AM

This is my opinion and comment.

You spinoza are a spoiler and up to no good as your quasi legalistic arguments and blatant advertising appear to prove.

I for one would like to see you dissappear.. We do not need your expertise as you have told us nothing we do not already know and I for one would not touch you or your services with a barge pole..

I will also go further and state that in my opinion anyone who take support money from ACC cannot be truely independent and having them defend you would be like having the ACC lawyer as your council.

If any of you are in my opinion foolish enough to believe this clown is up to any good then you will get what you deserve.

I would also like to advise all members that if you have been contacted off board by persons offering advocacy services that you let the board know so as to check them out for I am sure the administrators would not be pleased to see our member services being used for business touting.
0

#14 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 September 2006 - 03:25 PM

This last post by Flowers is exactly the point.

Taking the mean spirited and rude nature of the posting as reflecting whoever wrote it is fair enough – each reader can judge as they choose..

But the factual slur – of taking money from ACC in this case – is simply wrong in fact.

(Albeit that each of us who currently has ACC cover has, by definition, received money, goods and/or services from ACC. It is even common to read postings from members who have quite clearly received less than they should have or would like to have had)

I note we already have a protocol regarding advertising where members can be told to edit their posting accordingly or be deleted.

May I suggest that a protocol is needed such that where members post facts they should have to post their sources if those facts are questioned?

And if they have invented those ‘facts’, especially where they are being malicious for whatever reason, the protocol should require them to similarly edit their posting accordingly or be deleted.

Truth, honesty and justice is what we seek from ACC. I propose it also be a feature of www.accforum.org.
0

#15 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 15 September 2006 - 03:53 PM

Greetings,
ENOUGH... you have made your point (s) clear...
Best leave it lay and get on with business at hand...
That is helping each other in the interest of justice... fair play... Etc Etc.

Attached File(s)


0

#16 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 September 2006 - 11:36 AM

Tomcat is exactly right – justice and fair play are the issues here.

The question becomes, if we , as accforum members, seek justice and fair play from ACC can we credibly do so when justice and fair play is not available to members who are the object of false and I presume malicious postings by other members.

Much as many members dislike the ACC review and appeal process at least the ones that are there are there.

Yet at accforum we seem hell bent on preserving a system where misinformation can be posted without any need for those who post it to validate their posting when it is wrong in fact.

That is, one can say anything and claim it as true even when it is not. Then one cannot be asked to give the facts supporting that untruth. This leaves the object of the (possibly malicious) untruth having to ‘prove a negative’ which in many cases simply cannot be done.

Justice and fair play is two edged – those seeking it need to provide it as well.

The answer is not to say to those who are the object of the nonsense posted “just move on, ignore the past”. (I personally have heard ACC staff say exactly that to disadvantaged ACC claimants as if that sorted the problem, has anyone else?).

May I suggest the answer is to have a protocol where if your ‘facts’ are challenged you must put up your evidence for those ‘facts’ or withdraw the posting.

Truth, honesty and justice is what we seek from ACC. I propose again it also be a feature, a protocol, of www.accforum.org.
0

#17 User is offline   Medwyn 

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

Posted 16 September 2006 - 08:13 PM

Tspinoza,

You seem to assume that only "truth" and "factual statements" should be posted on the web.

In doing so one removes the opportunity for debate or alternative points of view.

I don't give a monkey's if someone is wrong or posts somehting that is not kosher, but I defend their right to post without being harranged for it.

If your non de plume is taken from Spinoza the philosopher, then IMHO, try reading his "Ethics" and apply them, then do as Tomcat and others have advised and leave it alone and let us get to the core issues that matter, not playing power games at who is better.

For what it's worth, some people on this board have been to the coalface of hell and back and their experiences and journeys have enabled others to grow confident in there dealings with powers that be and no pecuniary advantage was gained.

This board is the peoples, and by their collective advice, advocating and support, it has grown and people are getting answers and satisfaction.
0

#18 User is offline   watcha 

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

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:03 AM

To tspinoza, for heaven's sake get a life, and that's my last word on the subject.
0

#19 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:09 AM

;) .....Or, perhaps find another Forum?
0

#20 User is offline   waddie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-August 06

Posted 17 September 2006 - 06:30 AM

Review costs are paid by ACC are for the applicant's (claimant's) costs for things such as representation, medical reports, travel. There is a schedule of costs I can post, but the regulations are available for free on the brookers site. http://www.legislation.co.nz/browse_vw.asp...ewtype=contents

Its usually $550 for representation. For obvious reasons this is normally paid directly to the representative, but only if that is the applicant's expressed instruction to ACC. On extremely rare occassions, the odd claimant will try an keep the costs and not pay the representative. These people are the sort that want something for nothing and at the expense of another person with a expenses to meet and a family to support.


Claimants are usually very pleased when their representative successly gains for them their entitlement(s) at little or no cost to them. Those claimants who get a large backdated sum from those efforts are even greatful enough to pay 15% of the net amount to the representative for their hard work. It all seems pretty reasonable to me. The same costs are available for a representative at mediation, which is good.

Section 148. of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001
Costs on review—
(2)Whether or not there is a hearing, the reviewer—
(a)must award the applicant costs and expenses, if the reviewer makes a review decision fully or partly in favour of the applicant:
(b)may award the applicant costs and expenses, if the reviewer does not make a review decision in favour of the applicant but considers that the applicant acted reasonably in applying for the review:
©may award any other person costs and expenses, if the reviewer makes a review decision in favour of the person.

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