[MG]

 ACC2.pdf (234.33K)
Number of downloads: 96  ACC2.pdf (234.33K)
Number of downloads: 96Claimants will soon be confronted with a 15 page booklet from ACC headed "How we will help you with your recovery". Most of the booklet consists of superficial and misleading platitudes about dealing with ACC, downplaying the assistance claimants will actually get while highlighting the compliance that ACC insists upon. Page 13 of the booklet contains an "ACC2 Form: Acceptance of Responsibility". Claimants or their "agents" will be required to sign this form and detach it from the booklet (probbaly on the spot during face to face meetings with ACC staff). The form will then be used against the claimant in all future dealings.
Section2 of the Form is headed "Permission to use information" and gives ACC total access to the claimant's personal information with no further consideration (apart from the right to access and ask for corrections - note that requested corrections to inaccurate information are almost never made with the result that anything prejudicial is retained for future use). The consent also permits ACC to conduct research without any further reference from the claimant.
IMHO, section 2 is, yet another, serious inroad into claimants' fundamental right to privacy over their personal information. ACC should be permitted to trespass into that right only to the extent strictly necessary for it to deliver entitlements to claimants and perform necessary administrative functions. ACC should be required to demonstrate to claimants why its information searches and disclosures are necessary for it to perform those functions. Then, and only then, should claimants give consent for the requested access or disclosure. As it stands, signing this form is an open invitation to private investigators to turn people's lives upside down. Beware.
I'll post some more on the booklet. While is is certainly easier to read than ACC's multitude of forms (I'm not sure whether they will be replaced or accompany the booklet. Perhaps an ACC lurker on this site might like to tell us), it has the potential to mislead claimants unaccompanied to meetings by an advocate into waiving their rights away.

[Alan Thomas]

This form is practically an open search warrant.a search warrant as to be exercised within one month. This form allows a search for five years and even one year after all business has finished. Clearly this is not a document for the benefit of the claimant.

Today I am submitting an appeal to a review hearing decision . The review hearing decision is that the effect that the reviewer thinks the Corporation is withholding of information that is part of a review hearing issue is not a reviewable matter. This means that the ACC can make a decision with wrong information and that we cannot review the information.

[mouse]

MG,

This is not a fait accompli - simply cross out the offending sections.


My understanding is that where a person is legally competant and agent has no legal power only somebody who has power attorney can consent to the release of someone elses personal information.


This is an ACC try on and should be treated as such. THERE IS AT LEAST ONE JUDGEMENT THAT SUPPORTS THE COURTS HAS NO POWER TO FORCE MEDICAL FILES TO BE DISCLOSED

I am open to correction as it could be that people with the power of attorney also have limitions on their scope of action and can be made legally accountable for their decisions

[MG]

If you try to amend the form in front of ACC staff at the face to face meetings they insist on, what do you think will happen, particularly if you are not accompanied by an advocate (forget "support person")?

[Alan Thomas]

legislation requires the ACC to inform claimants ubout the rights of a representative. Nothing should be signed until the ACC disclose the the parameters of a representative. clearly the ACC want asked to sign documents without representation then use the results from those documents for future reduction of their liabilities by making decisions based on a hypothesis supported by conjecture of third parties which the ACC referred to as so-called information.

The INFORME program instructs case managers to produce simply a legally arguable case, from getting about duty of care when making proper decisions. The case managers don't care because it will be someone else's problem in the legal department.

[mouse]

MG

This does not address the points I've made.

[MG]

If you want to threaten the people whom you authorise to sign forms on your behalf don't be surprised if no one will represent you. The real problem with this form, IMHO, is that unrepresented claimants will find themselves being bullied or manipulated into signing it and will then lose control of their lives to ACC.

[Gloria Mitchell]

MG that was my take on those documents too.

injured folk go inot the acc off the street, injured and often desperate and think acc is there to help. That question rings a bell now......."Are acc there to help?"

case managers have been noted to have remarked....until the forms are signed, acc cannot help you. So...new claimants will sign the ruddy form without reading it properly or understanding its potential.

So.....what can we do?

Gloria

[suedem]

I would never never never never never never never never sign ANYthing at a meeting with ACC. As injured, unwell people under stress, no claimant can be legally forced to do that. Claimants can take away info from the meeting to think about and get advice about, even if an advocate is present. All claimants should START every meeting with ACC by making it clear to them that nothing will be signed on that day, including IRP's and consents. Make it clear that this is a discussion and that you will be talking about everything to your doctors, legal advisers, iwi etc. The only reason ACC like face to face meetings is because they can attempt to bully and transgress your rights at them.

This booklet is another attempt to have total control over lives without ACC being help responsible for THEIR actions. I would never agree to such terms. They are in my view, illegal. A little while back they were trying to say that they didn't need our consent at all but that they asked us to sign consent forms to show that we knew our responsibilities (what the?!!). The short answer to that is, OK I won't sign a consent form as none is required. That makes them suck their thumbs because they know they're wrong. In actual fact they need your consent to obtain info and cannot give it out inappropriately either. Claimants should consider agreeing to consent upon each single request for itemised info from ACC, and only agree if they are satisfied the info is needed and being used correctly.

My understanding is that medical files can only be disclosed under very strict conditions. ACC have no power to force this but can refuse compensation if claimants don't provide necessary information to verify a claim. So claimants may (depending on the injury) need to provide info on injuries only, certainly not any other medical info. Best idea is to ensure that your doctor has a note on your file "No information to be given to ACC without contacting claimant". Aren't assessments what do the verifying job for ACC, so why do they need info from your doctor at all?!

This booklet needs to be put in the shift-delete bin. How about putting this to an MP to slip into question time for the Min of ACC? It's probably the only way to help the poor innocents coming off the street from putting themselves under this kind of tyranny.

Oh, and ACC treatment providers and assessors (and employers' assessing doctors) trying to get consent in this way should also get the same treatment. I wouldn't give them consent to talk to each other either.
You just can't trust them. Sorry to have to say that about NZ but that's how it is now. Few ethics. Money talks.

[doppelganger]

MG point is that the foprm is not presented to long term claimants but to ones that have just had an injury.

these are the ones that don't know about the tactics of ACC.

MG what is the legal part opf forcing claimants to do something that is decieving claimants.

[MG]

I think all claimants meeting with ACC will be confronted with the booklet and the form. As for forcing claimants to do things that will result in their losing entitlements, that's how ACC sees its role - shift the costs of personal injury onto the victim and their immediate family at every opportunity and away from the state. The only way to defeat this is by collective action, such as this forum.

[mouse]

MG

I am rather taken back by your response there is NO threat in my post whatsoever.

The rights and responsiblities involve in POA have been established by case law.

To further advance your IMHO the nub of the problem is getting enough publicity to educate claimants that ACC CAN NOT legally force you to give blanket consent.

Given privacy is an Human Rights issue covered by Human Rights Legislation of which NZ is a signatory one can only wonder why the likes of the Law Society or Civil Lib. haven't taken up this issue.

[MG]

Mouse - I did not take your words as a threat to me but rather as a threat to any agent who signs the new ACC form on behalf of a claimant. As I understand it, if you appoint someone as your agent you give them authority to represent you and act in your best interests. However, if you then start to say that the agent hasn't properly represented you, you will find it hard to find an agent who will.
I agree with you that our focus should be on educating claimants that they have a fundamental right of privacy over their personal injury, into which ACC can only intrude to a strictly limited extent. ACC, on theo other hand, demands total control over claimants' lives as the price of having an injury and needing its help. The Courts tend to say that, while a claimant can refuse to supply requested information on privacy grounds, ACC is entitled to stop providing entitlements until the information is provided. However, ACC has the burden of proving that its information requests are reasonable.