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

#21 User is offline   tonyj 

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

Posted 17 September 2006 - 07:59 AM

It seems to me its possible ACC have driven people to the point they can see no good or positives in anything

I listen to the bitterness and negativity generated , I pity those vunerable ACC victums who come here looking for help and guidance .

Its time some people started to look for half full glasses not half empty .

I actually value constructive input by those on the coal face who have the experience and knowledge in reviews and such like ..

I am more concerned about some of the inaccurate advise , often legal that is going to cause more problems if listened to and acted upon by some poor sod.

Its ok to have bitter , off the wall postings that are going to cause grief if acted upon yet when sound sensible advise is offered by functioning and expereinced operators they get attacked..

Talk about stupidity .

tony
0

#22 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:51 PM

why is that avocates like to say that they are so good.

nearly all the files that are presented to the reviewer and courts are false in the information. Simple purposely constructed mistakes are made by the corporation and there followers (assessors ect) to ddeeceive the general public.

Part of the advocates job should be to correct all the little mistakes in a file and then present that file to the reviewer. it should not be the ACC job to present the file.

of course there is a down side of this for you. That is it take hours and hours of your time and you income will not increase.

Having files with out mistakes mean that the ACC would need only one reviewer in which it may be more econimcal to just go straight to court.

I think that avocates need to look at them selves more closely as they gat paid loss or win were the claimant only get money if there is a win and carries on with all the bull shit.

Are avocates just another on the gravey train because of the bad case management?????????????????????????
0

#23 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 17 September 2006 - 09:20 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on Sep 17 2006, 08:51 PM, said:

why is that avocates like to say that they are so good.

nearly all the files that are presented to the reviewer and courts are false in the information. Simple purposely constructed mistakes are made by the corporation and there followers (assessors ect) to ddeeceive the general public.

Part of the advocates job should be to correct all the little mistakes in a file and then present that file to the reviewer. it should not be the ACC job to present the file.

of course there is a down side of this for you. That is it take hours and hours of your time and you income will not increase.

Having files with out mistakes mean that the ACC would need only one reviewer in which it may be more econimcal to just go straight to court.

I think that avocates need to look at them selves more closely as they gat paid loss or win were the claimant only get money if there is a win and carries on with all the bull shit.

Are avocates just another on the gravey train because of the bad case management?????????????????????????


Hi all,

Why, I think the question has to be..... do acc make wrong decisions in the first place?

and why is there such a high claimant failure rate at revview?

All it creates is artificial employment thats otherwise not needed if proper and correct decisions are made in the first place.

If acc began to get it right, how then would advocacy services make their income?


NOt the mention the arsesors and all the other scum on the occupational bandwagon.

As for Waddies post on costs.....I have always had the privilege of having to pay even more than the costs ACC covers on top again.....and even then as Doppel says.....they don't correct incorrect info and they do not neccessarily win for one reason or another....I find they have difficulty finding the noses on the end of their faces......but they certainly find the means to send accounts to be paid.

I have right and proof on my side, but did it win.....not yet and not for lack of my paying inefficient representation.

The only wins I have are by my own efforts. It pays to get educated on legislation and your own file in all regards.

Gloria
0

#24 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 17 September 2006 - 09:36 PM

Gloria,
You are so right!! Educating yourself about the legislation (as much as you are able) is so much more empowering than relying on others to 'fix it'. Having said that of course there is always a place for good legal advice...... but being educated and knowledgable allows us to take some control over what is happening to us. JMHO
0

#25 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 17 September 2006 - 10:25 PM

The thought ACC or any organisation for that matter can be error free in decision making is unrealistic. I know many claimants who would not stand a chance representing themselves at a review. Engaging a claimant representative should be seen as taking control for yourselves rather than relying on ACC to do the right thing. They control the process, think about it! I do not find being a claimant representative is a gravy train, although that is also the perception of some ACC staff. I must not be charging enough. I find the advocate-bashing a bit odd. Its like me saying you are a bad person because someone else is a bad person.

I do not think you should enage a representative if you do not have confidence in the person. I certainly would not want to represent someone who felt like that. I think claimants should have a choice and representation should be accessable. That is what I have done. What people do after that is their business.

Thanks to Tonyj and others for their supportive comments, otherwise even I may have despised myself. It nice to know some of the information has been useful to someone.

I'll leave you guys in peace now.
Cheers
David Wadsworth
0

#26 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 17 September 2006 - 10:56 PM

waddie in the post http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ost&p=31315 you will see a part of the pathways file that is a complete lie.

The Technical Claim Manager deliberately lied to hide the fact that he edited the file so it looked like that I have not got the injury that i have.

this is part of a long running battle and no one in the ACC can read one medical just because the judge either deliberately ignored a medical report or never had the report to show my injuries.

the Technical claim manager was also the team leader at the time of the court case and is likely to have had a position that he was able to have edited the file before it went to court.

Of course then again i relied on a lawyer to qapply the legislation and if she did she could have said that the corporation had not made a decision to revise the decision to accepting the injury and claim.

I have requested that the TMC apply the correction as to his statement and in his reply to the person who wrote the answer to the minister.

Dr David Collins knows that the corrections have been asked for. if any luck the person will be dismissed for gaining his bonus through deception while being a theif as a servert
0

#27 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 17 September 2006 - 11:45 PM

Medwyn wrote = 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.


That is brilliantly said! Thank you Medwyn.

As for myself, in all honesty, even the knowledge I've gained from following this thread has been, and is going to be, priceless for me, and possibily for a lot of others as well.

For that Thank you and whilse I hope there will be heaps more postings to follow after mine, but please, watch those eyes people, last thing you want is to roll up to your local ACC with an ACC18 stating "Eye scratched out in cat fight on the accforum website" ...

Guess that's one way of getting some well deserved media attention LOL

BLURBit like ya sees it! :D
0

#28 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 18 September 2006 - 09:37 AM

Again and again on this thread and, reasonably enough, on many threads members are posting posts noting their concern that ACC, DRSL, the Courts etc are not treating them with fairness and honesty.

Yet Medwyn suggests, presumably as a criticism, I assume that only "truth" and "factual statements" should be posted on the web.

That is not what I am saying at all.

What I am suggesting is that if one member posts a ‘fact’ that another member questions it be required that the person who considers it to be a fact to cite chapter and verse.

Then, if it is true or more likely than not to be true, we can all see that to be the case.

Percy and Watcha and a number of others however appear happy to post as facts things that are simply not true.

Then, when asked to verify or provide the sources of such postings, their practice has been to then vilify the questioner.

This results in a forum where fantasy and vilification has as much validity as truth and honesty.

I do not for a moment suggest that fantasy and invention may not be posted. All I ask is that there be a protocol in place where anyone posting a ‘fact’ can be asked to verify his or her sources.

Clearly if the fact is obvious no one will ask and if they do it can be easily established. If the ‘fact’ is an invention then it should be identified as such or every posting becomes tarred with the same brush when most postings are well worth reading and taking into consideration.

To date, questioning the false postings appears to only result in rudeness.

To be taken seriously as a source of information, indeed as a force to be reckoned with in the ongoing struggle for honesty and fairness from ACC, it is important we are willing to have our ‘facts’ examined.

The question comes down to whether www.accforum.org prefers truth, honesty and justice and has a protocol to preserve that or is a forum where all postings have to be taken with a large pinch of salt where misinformation, even rudeness, is valued as much as truth.

If false information can be posted as fact - and left posted without verification when questioned - then the malicious members who have posted those postings to date leaves every posting by every member permanently subject to significant doubt.

Come on now Percy, it is you who first posted, on another thread, the malicious untruth, why do you not just come clean and post why you posted the complete falsehood that Access Support Services receives payments from ACC?

The truth is simple – never once. No, not ever. Access Support Services and its advocacy and support staff are completely independent and act only on behalf of their clients.

And, while you are at it, perhaps you could identify what other ‘facts’ you have posted or intend to post that are not, in fact, facts but just what you think, without reason?
0

#29 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 18 September 2006 - 11:43 AM

Accforum is NOT where we advertise. Our contact details are readily available elsewhere.

The problem is that it is simply impossible to defend an organisation from malicious untruths posted without talking about the organisation.

That is, it is those who posted the unkind inventions who brought our work and us into the subject of the threads to which I have contributed, even started.

I do not mind if the false information is not even withdrawn – provided the evidence for it as a fact rather than fantasy is put up for examination and reply, then, as it is simply not true, withdrawn.

How can we have truth, honesty, natural justice even, if members can put up malicious falsehoods as FACT and the target of such postings cannot even ask for the source material.

The way to have those references to Access Support Services made irrelevant, unnecessary, is to have those members who have posted inventions about Access as fact to put up where they got their notions from, have our replies posted, and let readers judge for themselves.

More importantly, I ask again, why, when we have some protocols can we not have a protocol that members who post postings as facts can be asked to either:

· Put up their source material or
· Admit it is an invention or
· Be asked to withdraw what they say as factual when it is not.

This will allow all of us to know that anything posted as a fact at least may be true and certainly worthy of consideration.

At present where invention may be posted as fact without challenge, irrelevant of this organisation, every members postings are demeaned.

We owe it to ourselves and each other to have a protocol of truth, honesty and natural justice.

Why is accforum so opposed to truth, honesty and natural justice?
0

#30 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:19 PM

Why don't you go and post your facts clost to that posting and then all of the members will see that those postings are wrong.

rebember to place ernough information in that postings to confirm that those responcable are wrong and not hear say.
0

#31 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

  Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:22 PM

tspinoza

perhaps you could share your knowledge and wisdom with us mere mortals rather than banging away at your drum that you have knowledge and wisdom. Just a suggestion.

If you show us the length and breadth of your knowledge and wisdom naturally we will ask you for moreas it applies to our own case in private. just a suggestion.

Stop banging the drum. Just a suggestion.
0

#32 User is offline   Shannon 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 23-September 03

  Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:33 PM

T Spin oza

You are like a scratched record
Makes for real boring reading
Can you sing a different tune
If you want facts about what I have written just go back and reread what you wrote
:wacko:
0

#33 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 18 September 2006 - 01:41 PM

Greetings,
Check this out while I duck for cover :P


http://www.geestelij....nl/narcism.htm
0

#34 User is offline   Medwyn 

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

Posted 18 September 2006 - 02:26 PM

What about a gentle hymn with a new twist!!!!

I love to tell the story; more wonderful it seems
Than all the golden fancies of all our golden dreams.
I love to tell the story, it did so much for me;
And that is just the reason I tell it now to thee.


I love to tell the story; ’tis pleasant to repeat
What seems, each time I tell it, more wonderfully sweet.
I love to tell the story, for some have never heard
The message that I want to bring, is it just plainly absurd?
0

#35 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 18 September 2006 - 03:29 PM

Sounds like spinz.
Methinks he protesteth too much.
Feed him to the cuzzies.

Attached File(s)


0

#36 User is offline   Moeroa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 20-November 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 29 July 2011 - 03:10 AM


Dispute resolution separated from ACC


The Dispute Resolution Service will be separated out from ACC and become an independent Crown Company.

ACC Minister Nick Smith said the move was part of the Government's ACC reforms.

The Dispute Resolution Service (DRSL) will become independent on July 1. It is currently a solely owned ACC company.

Smith said the separation would reinforce the independence of the review system.

"Many claimants view ACC as judge and jury on entitlements because DRSL is directly owned by ACC. It also makes sense now that DRSL is doing significant dispute resolution work for other sectors including financial services, telecommunications, and health."

The step was part of Government plans to allow other insurance providers to provide workplace cover.

DRSL undertakes between 9000 and 10,000 review applications from ACC claimants a year. The Christchurch-based company employs around 100 people.

The Ministers for ACC and Finance will be shareholding ministers and a new board will be appointed to reinforce the separation.
http://www.stuff.co....arated-from-ACC

Any difference?
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