ACCforum: Acclaim Press Releases - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Acclaim Press Releases

#21 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 06 May 2004 - 09:56 PM

Posted Image

"ACClaim Support Groups Press Release."

Controller and Auditor-General Report Into ACC
Thursday, 6 May 2004, 11:37 am
Press Release: Acclaim


Controller and Auditor-General Report
Acclaim support networks throughout New Zealand note the recent report issued by the Controller and Auditor-General into the case management of claimants by the Accident Compensation Corporation.

The Controller and Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament.

Inter alia, we note the following from the report;

"Other case managers prepare an individual rehabilitation plan, and then send a letter that outlines the content of the plan and ask the claimant to sign a final decision letter."

We also found instances where the content appeared to have been copied, with little to differentiate them in detail from other plans."

"It is also sometimes offered on a 'take it or leave it' basis, along with the reference to statutory consequences (suspension of weekly compensation) of non-compliance with ACC directions."

The report recommends that; - "ACC ensure that all case managers tailor the content of each individual rehabilitation plan to the claimant's rehabilitation needs."

We make the point that this recommendation is in fact the law but it is, and has been, flagrantly disregarded.

The consequence for the claimant is that they have not, and are not, received their full measure of rehabilitation entitlements as assessed to be needed. This practice makes each claimant a mandatory stereo-type.

Indeed, even the proper assessments are not being conducted and claimants have been removed from the scheme before receiving rehabilitation as required in the Section 3 Purposes of the Act and elsewhere throughout the Act, including the Section 6 definition of "Individual Rehabilitation Plan" and "Rehabilitation."

It is clear that rehabilitation plans of this nature are fundamentally flawed and are not sustainable.

There is also evidence that even after signing and agreeing to an Individual Rehabilitation Plan the claimant does not then receive the services as agreed in the Plan which is contrary to Section 76 (4) of the Act and the Section 3 Purpose of the Act.

It has taken the Auditor-General to publicly highlight issues.

It is therefore very concerning to the Acclaim network and to individual claimants that District Court Judges and Review Officers' in this jurisdiction have not earlier picked-up on, and rectified, this matter.

It would therefore appear that claimants who have not received the proper measure of rehabilitation or even assessments to determine their needs but have, nevertheless, been removed from the scheme, could now apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court to have those decisions reviewed as a question of law.

Obviously, this will create a great deal of use of scarce personal and Court time and resources while the matters go through the process.

There are also issues surrounding the failure to observe the principles of natural justice by case managers when they make both administrative and entitlement decisions. This infringes Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to which ACC is bound. The Auditor-General did not refer to this matter in his report.

In the circumstances we again request that the Select-Committee conducts an inquiry into the issues and receives and examines the Auditor-General's report in that context.

http://www.kiwinews.co.nz/cgi-bin/editor/p...pl?article=4245
0

#22 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 07 May 2004 - 12:40 AM

Posted Image

Controller and Auditor-General Report Into ACC
Thursday, 6 May 2004, 11:37 am
Press Release: Acclaim

Controller and Auditor-General Report

Acclaim support networks throughout New Zealand note the recent report issued by the Controller and Auditor-General into the case management of claimants by the Accident Compensation Corporation.

The Controller and Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament.

Inter alia, we note the following from the report;

"Other case managers prepare an individual rehabilitation plan, and then send a letter that outlines the content of the plan and ask the claimant to sign a final decision letter."

We also found instances where the content appeared to have been copied, with little to differentiate them in detail from other plans."

"It is also sometimes offered on a 'take it or leave it' basis, along with the reference to statutory consequences (suspension of weekly compensation) of non-compliance with ACC directions."

The report recommends that; - "ACC ensure that all case managers tailor the content of each individual rehabilitation plan to the claimant's rehabilitation needs."

We make the point that this recommendation is in fact the law but it is, and has been, flagrantly disregarded.

The consequence for the claimant is that they have not, and are not, received their full measure of rehabilitation entitlements as assessed to be needed. This practice makes each claimant a mandatory stereo-type.

Indeed, even the proper assessments are not being conducted and claimants have been removed from the scheme before receiving rehabilitation as required in the Section 3 Purposes of the Act and elsewhere throughout the Act, including the Section 6 definition of "Individual Rehabilitation Plan" and "Rehabilitation."

It is clear that rehabilitation plans of this nature are fundamentally flawed and are not sustainable.

There is also evidence that even after signing and agreeing to an Individual Rehabilitation Plan the claimant does not then receive the services as agreed in the Plan which is contrary to Section 76 (4) of the Act and the Section 3 Purpose of the Act.

It has taken the Auditor-General to publicly highlight issues.

It is therefore very concerning to the Acclaim network and to individual claimants that District Court Judges and Review Officers' in this jurisdiction have not earlier picked-up on, and rectified, this matter.

It would therefore appear that claimants who have not received the proper measure of rehabilitation or even assessments to determine their needs but have, nevertheless, been removed from the scheme, could now apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court to have those decisions reviewed as a question of law.

Obviously, this will create a great deal of use of scarce personal and Court time and resources while the matters go through the process.

There are also issues surrounding the failure to observe the principles of natural justice by case managers when they make both administrative and entitlement decisions. This infringes Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to which ACC is bound. The Auditor-General did not refer to this matter in his report.

In the circumstances we again request that the Select-Committee conducts an inquiry into the issues and receives and examines the Auditor-General's report in that context.

http://www.scoop.co....0405/S00049.htm
0

#23 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 08 May 2004 - 05:49 PM

Acclaim Otago:

Whitewash.

Attached File(s)


0

#24 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 08 May 2004 - 11:14 PM

Part Two of the Dunedin Star Investigative Article About ACC. (180kb file size)

Attached File(s)


0

#25 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 09 May 2004 - 12:42 AM

LOL I have talked to several different people today and they said they didn't recognise me until they read the name! LOL LOL bloody awful photos but as my GP said "It does people good to see that you don't look good all the time" ..... uuuuuummmm thanks... I think.... ;)
0

#26 User is offline   roamy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 09 May 2004 - 10:13 PM

You are a celebrity now fairgo, when you get the multi million dollar movie deal, don't forget to send some to us poor claimants still battling away.roamy
0

#27 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 09 May 2004 - 10:54 PM

Nah, not a celebrity.... just a target now. Don't worry any 'multi million dollar deals' will go back into the pot for the fight against the terrible injustices being wrought on claimants daily by an inhumane and dispicable money machine.
0

#28 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 10 May 2004 - 02:40 PM

This Media Release in response to the Accident Compensation Corporation Complaints Department findings to the complaints laid by claimants after offensive comments made to the media by ACC Healthwise Director David Rankin.


Related threads to this can be found at:

David Rankin Apology Via Acc Complaints, what a whitewash!
Dr. David Rankin, Allegations
Nasal Enemas Debate, David Rankins Reply
Teapot Rehabilitation - Tax-funded Therapy Gets Up Your Nose, nasal irrigation

Investigation CPANZ
Posted Image
The following is the latest ACClaim Support Groups Press Release.Rankin backs down.How does it rank with you?
http://www.kiwinews.co.nz/cgi-bin/editor/p...pl?article=4270
and

http://www.accforum....-1083847179.gif

Claimants' complaints valid
Monday, 10 May 2004, 12:20 pm
Press Release: Acclaim


Claimants' complaints valid

Many long term ACC claimants recently laid complaints with ACC's Office of the Complaints Investigator over David Rankin's inappropriate comments in media reports regarding Work Preparation Programmes.

Rankin said "People with serious injuries get into the habit of watching TV all day, getting up at midday and lose the routine, lose some of the self-presentation skills".

The letters received by claimants in the last few days state that the complaints investigator found the complaints to be valid and contains an apology from Dr Rankin.

His apology reads thus: "Let me say on the outset that my comments, as quoted, were not intended to cause offence. They obviously have, and for that I sincerely apologise.

There is no doubt that some long term seriously injured claimants have to face issues of depression and lack of motivation.Unfortunately I did not ensure that the article in the paper distinguished that my remarks were addressed at this minority of claimants.

I also appreciate the concerns raised about the use of the word "benefits". I acknowledge that ACC payments are entitlements, and I shall be mindful of this distinction in the future.

Once again I sincerely apologise for the offence my comments caused".

Dr Rankin also referred to "benefits" and apologised for confusing this with entitlements. "How could a member of the ACC executive make such a fundamental mistake - unless he was deliberately trying to spin the public mind." said an ACCLAIM spokesperson. "In that context his statements will obviously have influenced the minds of the ordinary person in the street."

ACC Complaints investigator, Peta Cherry, says she considers this apology to be sufficient remedy. Claimants however say that the original comment was made in the public arena and the apology must also be made in the public arena. As a medical doctor and an ACC executive with the motto Prevention, Care, Recovery Dr Rankin's adverse, generalised and, some would say, defamatory statements about people with serious injuries are important in the public interest.

In those circumstances claimants consider Dr Rankin's apology to be inadequate and unsatisfactory. It is now open to claimants to have the matters formally and independently reviewed. We understand that claimants are now considering that option apart from the expectation of a written public apology.

http://www.scoop.co....0405/S00083.htm
0

#29 User is offline   roamy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 11 May 2004 - 01:15 AM

""Unfortunately I did not ensure that the article in the paper distinguished that my remarks were addressed at this minority of claimants."" The reason you didn't say you were referring to a minority of claimants mr rankin, is because you don't believe it applies to a minority of claimants, do you mr rankin, you bloody liar.Your definite intention, was to create the impression
that ALL claimants are bludgers, but you got caught didn't you, so you had to make some crappy apology that you don't even believe in.Infact it made your shoulders tense up having to say that didn't it.Here is one of the top men of his field , and he hasn't even got the most basic of language intergrated into his own speech/thought processes, there is no other reason for him to refer to us as being on benefits as opposed to entitlements.I mean this is the founding principle of the scheme, a social contract to provide entitlements in exchange for the right to sue.This illustrates how little he understands of the concept that he is in charge of.It is something akin to a surgeon doing a kidney operation, and then mistakenly amputating a finger.Rankin is not only a liar, but he is a useless one, he must be because a bunch of sleepy obssesive t.v addicts can see through him.roamy
0

#30 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 21 May 2004 - 08:21 PM

Posted Image

Radio Pacific Supported Protest at ACC Greymouth
Friday, 21 May 2004, 2:16 pm
Press Release: Acclaim

Photo's of the Radio Pacific Supported Protest at ACC Greymouth
Thursday 20th May 2004.

Tight fisted miserly ACC wont fix a wheelchair.


http://www.accforum....-1085036141.jpg

http://www.accforum....-1085035739.jpg

http://www.accforum....-1085035635.jpg

http://www.accforum....-1084957852.jpg

http://www.scoop.co....0405/S00220.htm

Also view these related threads:

Mark Bennett Radio Pacific
Photo's of Ben's Protest at ACC Greymouth
0

#31 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 June 2004 - 01:15 PM

Posted Image
Call for inquiry into ACC supported
Thursday, 17 June 2004, 12:55 pm
Press Release: Acclaim

Thu, 17 June 2004

Call for inquiry into ACC supported

Acclaim groups around the country congratulate Green Party MP Sue Bradford for presenting a petition calling for a Select Committee inquiry into ACC claims management. An enquiry is being requested due to the widespread dissatisfaction with claims management processes.The long awaited Auditor-General's report was incomplete and inadequate due, it seems, to the restrictive nature of the terms of reference.

The reasons for this request are as follows:

Firstly there is genuine concern that rehabilitation is not being provided according to the law and that ACC is unreasonably oppressive and un-necessarily adverse in its approach to case management. We believe that the ACC is going behind the provisions and principles of the general law (Bill of Rights Act 1990) and abrogating Parliament's clear purpose and intentions in the IPRC Act itself.

Secondly there are inconsistencies in this Act with the NZ Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General did not give s.7 notification to the House when the Bill, as it was then, was going through its stages in the House as she was obliged to do.

Thirdly the inquiry should look at the efficiencies, and cost -effectiveness (or not) of the administration of the scheme and ACC's prejudicial contractual arrangments which ACC has with providers along with ACC's operational and staff policies.

"We have not come across one claimant yet who does not want to be fully independent and participate within their capabilities and at their own pace." states Murray Jorgensen, president of Acclaim Canterbury Inc. "It is crucial that the Select Committee hears evidence from witnesses, on oath if necessary. "

Acclaim believes a Select Committee inquiry ought to encompass the aspects above if the inquiry is to be meaningful in the interests of justice and good governance.

http://www.scoop.co....0406/S00175.htm
0

#32 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 June 2004 - 09:11 AM

Quote

Secondly there are inconsistencies in this Act with the NZ Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General did not give s.7 notification to the House when the Bill, as it was then, was going through its stages in the House as she was obliged to do.


Heres why.
from Billy:

In Wishart v Police A185/01 a para [13] judgment date 27 March 2002 O'Regan J. said:

"The constitutional situation was clearly stated by McGechan J. in Westco Lagan v Attorney-General (2000) 1 NZLR 40 at para [95] as follows;

""First, in principle provided Parliament proceeds according to mandatory law governing the procedure for enacting legislation (manner and form), Parliament is sovereign and can pass any legislation it sees fit........The safeguard, following upon a decision to not enact the BOR as supreme law, is provision for the Attorney-General to give s.7 notification to the House. The House must know this is occuring, and give proper consideration to proposed legislation in that light......."

In The Queen v Poumako (2000) NZCA 69 (31 May 2000) at para [96] the Court held that there is a gap in the legislation because the Attorney-General's s.7 notification is only when a Bill is introduced or in any other case as soon as practicable after the introduction of the Bill. - not during the other stages of passage of the Bill.

The Court went on to say that the purpose of Section 7 can only be to ensure that Parliament makes a considered judgment as to whether or not to proceed with proposed legislation which the country's most senior law officer considers contrary to the Bill of Rights or New Zealand's international treaty obligations (see also para 5.26 of the Cabinet Manual August 1996).

Importantly, the Court then said. "Consequently a declaration by the Court can compliment Parliament's resolve that legislation will not be passed without deliberate attention being given to any possible inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights."

At para [97] the CA went on - "Unless the Court is able to point out inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights, s.5 (apart from its significance relating to reports by the Attorney-General under s. 7), is largely redundant. Window dresing in the case of human rights is unacceptable and no such cavalier motive is attributed to Parliament. The Bill of Rights was enacted to affirm fundamental rights and s.5 must be given a genuine role in relation to interpretation of statutes. That role can be given effect by the judiciary, and a declaration is the logical vehicle for doing so when such a course is required."

In the Moonen's case at 234 Tipping J. said that applications for the Court's opinions where though to be their use ".......to the legislature where an indication from the Court may be of assistance in Parliament if the subject should arise in that forum."

From: Mikeg Sent: 6/21/2004 1:28 AM
Last year the UN Human Rights Committee caned New Zealand for its preventive detention regime under the Criminal Justice Act 1985 (now replaced by the Sentencing Act 2002). There was comment on this in the latest NZ Law Journal. Apparently, the criticism, the first ever by the UN of New Zealand in the context of its legislation, led to law changes.

With regard to ACC matters, the first challenge is to identify the right breached by the current law and where it is located in the various UN human rights instruments. Second, an applicant must have exhausted all domestic remedies - ie appeal to District Court on facts, above that on law only.

I understand that the committee will not accept complaints involving breaches of economic, social and culutral rights, and that NZ officials are blocking moves to allow the HRC to consider these complaints. However, there may be relevant civil and political rights which ACC is breaching - which the HRC can admit.

From: Mikeg Sent: 6/21/2004 3:15 PM

The Courts can issue declarations that legislation is inconsistent with the NZ Bill of Rights Act ("NZBORA"): Moonen.
However, the tricky part is identifying the right infringed by the offending legislation. NZBORA only affirms a limited range of fundamental rights and freedoms. Most of ACC's actions, as far as I can see, breach economic rights, such as the right to social security and an adequate standard of living. The New Zealand govenrment opposes any substantive recognition of these rights although, interestingly, the South African constitution, containing their equivalent to NZBORA, expressly affirms these rights and their Courts actively enforce them.
The remedy, I think, is political. When enough people demand change from their representatives, the latter will act. With Labour, though, the devil is in the details, as with the latest Working for Family Bill, which cuts $200m from Special Benefit.

From: billy Sent: 6/22/2004 3:20 AM

mikeg - These are the inconsistencies identified so far with the NZBORA and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which is affirmed in the Long Title at (B) of the NZBORA and the IPRC Act and ACC's conduct.

ICCPR -

Article 7 - right not to be subjected to cruel or degrading treatment or punishment - interestingly no derogation is allowed to this article.

Article 14 - right to a public hearing in criminal and civil matters - DRSL review hearings are not public and that is likely why reviewers get away with so much in their conduct because there is no public scrutiny or oversight. Reviewers are effectively acting as a star chamber.

Article 17 - inter alia, right not to have unlawful attacks on honour or reputation - ACC fraud unit and ACC investigators regularly attack claimants honour and reputation to thir persons.

NZBORA as against IPRC Act

Section 11 - right to refuse treatment - as against s117 (3) (B) lose compensation if unreasonably refuse to undergo medical or surgical treatment.

Section 27 - right to natural justice - ACC does not observe this right at all.

There are likely to be others and still looking but this is a good start as to why the Attorney-General should have advised the House of inconsistencies under s7 and the Court's ought to provide declarations.
0

#33 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 August 2004 - 10:19 AM

Posted Image

ACC's $850+ Million Surplus Bewildering
Thursday, 12 August 2004, 9:58 am
Press Release: Acclaim

Thu, 12 Aug 2004

ACC's $850+ Million Surplus Bewildering

ACC claimants are shaking their heads with disbelief over ACC's CEO Garry Wilson's news earlier this week that ACC's full-year surplus is expected to exceed $850 million.

"ACC as a state-owned monopoly provider of compensation for personal injury should not be running at a profit at the expense of injured people. It is accepted that ACC must fund current and future liabilities, however, its business activities have the hallmarks of a clandestine tax gatherer for the Government" Acclaim groups spokesperson Murray Jorgensen said yesterday.

In particular, there seems to be an underlying agenda that places a priority on getting people off income-related compensation and onto a WINZ benefit as soon as possible, but without ensuring that rehabilitation is adequate or complete.

In 1994 Judge Peter Trapski was commissioned to report on the then current practices of ACC. His recommendations have been largely ignored and matters have continued to worsen. Acclaim support groups are reiterating their request for a select committee inquiry into ACC's claims management practices which was also recently supported by the NZ Law Society ACC Committee.

The scheme is simply not working as the social contract with New Zealanders it was first designed to be. Originally ACC was a pay-as-you-go scheme but this was changed by subsequent Governments to a fully funded scheme. This means that ACC must now run at a profit.

Mr Jorgensen states "This surplus puts ACC in the same ballpark as Telecom and yet people are still not getting their rightful entitlements. Rehabilitation for the most part falls woefully short of legitimate expectations and in most instances is a joke, amply illustrated by ACC's recently publicised nasal irrigation 'rehabilitation intervention'."

http://www.scoop.co....0408/S00118.htm

Related Topic - ACC Profits
0

#34 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 August 2004 - 10:31 AM

Posted Image

ACC Amendments Bill Raises Concerns
Friday, 20 August 2004, 9:34 am
Press Release: Acclaim


ACC Amendments Bill Raises Concerns


"The IPRC Amendment (No 3) Bill tabled in Parliament recently raises several points of concern" states Murray Jorgensen spokesperson for Acclaim. "Of most concern is the legislating to over-ride the Peck vs ACC High Court judgment."

Acclaim has serious concerns about this clause. If claimants consider that rehabilitation they are required to undertake is inappropriate or consider an assessment they are required to undertake is redundant, given the medical evidence already available to the Corporation, it is a claimants' right at present to test the full extent of ACC's decisions.

Under the proposed ammendment if claimants refuse to undertake rehabilitation or assessments and subsequently lose at review this will more than likely result in their never receiving compensation for the period of "non-compliance". Acclaim believes this will reinforce ACC's tendency to coerce claimants into inappropriate assessments or rehabilitation and dissuade claimants from testing this through the review and appeal process.

The second major concern is the lack of right to review and appeal on discretionary decisions. The Minister argues that such protection from review is necessary to prevent such discretion being used "to inappropriately expand the scheme through review and Court decisions".

"We believe a consequence of the exclusion of discretionary decisions from the review and appeal process is likely to result in claimants being forced into the time-consuming and expensive process of judicial review in the High Court to challenge improper exercises of this discretion by the Corporation." Mr Jorgensen says. "This is an access to justice issue, and removal of review and appeal rights should be strongly opposed."


Acclaim strongly urges people concerned about the current state of the IRPC Act and the proposed ammendments to have their say. There is a closing date for submissions of 24 September 2004.

http://www.scoop.co....0408/S00186.htm
0

#35 User is offline   accvictim 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 27 August 2004 - 06:15 PM

Well we ALL know why ACC has a huge surplus ,,DON`T WE!!,

(1) Denying claimants treatment and PROPER rehabilitation.
(2) Declining accident claims on a large scale.
(3) Forcing long term claimants off ACC, to welfare.
(4) Pressuring a minimal ACC staff to excessive workloads.

There is no doubt more involved in ACCs cost cutting than we will ever know, and only ACCs clever overpaid inhumane accountants and executives would be able to tell us the truth, and you and I know, this will never happen, and will always be the "Chair of Unavailability".

Attached File(s)


0

#36 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 30 August 2004 - 08:40 PM

Parliament gives ACC victims the brush off
Monday, 30 August 2004, 1:26 pm
Press Release: Acclaim

Mon, 30 Aug 2004
Parliament gives ACC victims the brush off

Parliament's select committees are playing pass the parcel with a petition calling for an inquiry into ACC's claim management practices, said ACClaim spokesperson Denise Powell today. Ms Powell instigated a petition calling for the inquiry, signed by over 500 people, which was presented to Green MP, Sue Bradford earlier this year.

However, in a surprise move, the petition ended up before the Government Administration committee, which said that its subject matter was outside its responsibility.

The Government Administration committee asked the Transport and Administration committee, which is responsible for ACC matters, to consider the petition but it declined, saying it regarded a recent report by the Auditor-General, Parliament's accountants, as proof that ACC's practices were efficient.

"This is simply not good enough", said Ms Powell. "In the first place, Parliament, not the accountants, are the body responsible for seeing that citizens are treated fairly. Secondly, many people believe the Auditor-General's report was a whitewash, although we note that it, too, made some adverse findings against ACC.

"The Labour Party promised an inquiry into ACC's practices at its 2000 annual conference but its MPs treated that remit with contempt", said Ms Powell. "It is time for Parliament, as the branch of government directly responsible to the people, to see to it that the ACC cesspit is cleaned up before more people have their lives ruined."

"The petitioners and I will watch closely to see what action the committee takes over our petition and we will hold committee members to account publicly during next year's election campaign if they fail to act", said Ms Powell.

ENDS
0

#37 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 02 November 2004 - 08:30 AM

ACC comment outrageous, group says
02 November 2004
By JOHN GIBB

ACC lobby group Acclaim Otago has slammed the ACC for showing an "arrogant" approach to a recent court victory by Dunedin Paralympic athlete Jenny Newstead.


In yesterday's Otago Daily Times, Newstead welcomed a reserved decision by Judge John Cadenhead, in the Dunedin District Court, to dismiss an appeal by ACC and to uphold funding of wrist surgery for Newstead.

Newstead, 37, won four gold medals at the Barcelona Paralympics in 1992, added three more at Atlanta in 1996 and was awarded an MBE for services to swimming in 1993.

She retired from Paralympic swimming after a wheelchair accident in 1997 resulted in her losing the use of her right arm.

Growing ill health arising from a wrist injury gained in the 1997 accident later necessitated wrist surgery, which was completed successfully in August, she said.

However, despite her potentially life-threatening illness, ACC had refused to fund the surgery.

In March this year, an ACC reviewer had backed the funding but ACC then appealed.

AdvertisementAdvertisementAcclaim Otago president Denise Powell slammed as "outrageous" recent ACC comment about Newstead's case and criticised an ACC statement that the surgery was "inappropriate," despite her position having been upheld by a judge.

In a letter to the editor of the Otago Daily Times yesterday, Ms Powell also urged the ACC to abandon a second "fishing expedition" it was conducting into Newstead's health information within five years.

ACC should also get on with modifying her home as it had earlier indicated it would do, she said.

Newstead said she could not move into a house she had bought because of delays by ACC in modifying the house.

Ms Powell said ACC's treatment of Newstead was all too common among claimants with serious injuries and reflected badly on the ACC system.

Newstead's case showed how dismally Labour MPs had breached an earlier promise to deliver a fairer ACC scheme, she said.

http://www.stuff.co....93a3845,00.html
0

#38 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 02 November 2004 - 08:30 AM

ACC lobby group makes submissions



By John Gibb



Acclaim Otago, an ACC claimant support group, yesterday made video
conference submissions backing proposed reforms over medical misadventure
cover.
Acclaim Otago president Denise Powell said her group supported moves,
through the proposed Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation
Amendment Bill, to improve ACC's misadventure cover.
Current legislation, providing cover only for rare and severe conditions and
requiring findings of fault against medical practitioners, had served badly,
Ms Powell said in an interview.
The Otago group had been allocated 20 minutes to make a "live" video
conference presentation from Dunedin to the Wellington-based parliamentary
health select committee considering the legislation.
Nine oral submissions had been made during the 90-minute Dunedin session.
Oral submissions from Dunedin and throughout the country had been considered
by the committee during a marathon 12-hour session, starting at 9am.
Acclaim Otago agreed that ACC should be given greater discretion to take the
circumstances of individual claimants into account.
However, any new discretionary powers should be subject to review, she said.
The group objected to moves to alter current back payment provisions which
applied when some compensation payments had been suspended but later
restored.
For about 85% of people having accidents ACC was doing "an outstanding job",
but the organisation was "failing miserably" in dealing with the remaining
long-term complicated injury cases, she said.

************
ODT 30.10.04
0

#39 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 23 February 2005 - 09:56 AM

What it means is that the ACC doctors will get paid big bucks for saying you are not entitled to sickness or invalid benefits either.
IMHO, this is an issue made in heaven for Matt McCarten's new political party.
0

#40 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 23 February 2005 - 03:01 PM

Matt Mc Carton's is doing a runner. Patures greener elsewhere.

Election year :D seems to be very effective in re-electing people.
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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