ACCforum: Ia - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Ia independence allowance

#1 User is offline   cajun 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 04-February 04

Posted 04 February 2004 - 09:11 PM

can someone help me understand this: I had an assessment done and was given 13% overall inpairment for my injuries. Acc now tell me that because I am under 10% my independent allowance will cease????






Further to my query about IA 13% issue. I would like to go back a bit to 1990 I had a work related injury to my left elbow and was paid a lump sum. In 1994 I found employment and subsequently developed right elbow injuries which also affected my neck and shoulder i was then on weekly comp. About 3 years later I found out about the independent allowance so off to the specialist i went and was given 26% for those three injuries and it was done by the AMA guide.(not sure when the IA was made law) I then moved to Gisborne from Hastings and they did not agree with my 26% so they took my allowance off me for about 18 months. I was then sent to HELLO to their very own medical practitioner come specialist and he gave me 5% and I would just like to add that i have proof of at least 3 other people that went to him and were all given 5%???????? I then took them to review and won my case and was reinstated back to 26% and back-payed. Now I have just spoken to CM about this assessment . I asked why is it i have 13% impairment and you are no longer going to pay me???.
Her answer was they took 3% off the left elbow injury and that left me with 10% confused well i went onto say to her i have already had a lump sum payment for the left elbow WHY are you assessing me on that injury.
The right arm,neck shoulder injury is the issue we are dealing with??? she was a stunned MULLET then she said can you put it in writing and we will go over it again
0

#2 User is offline   twostickswalking 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-September 03

Posted 04 February 2004 - 09:15 PM

dont muck around, ask for a review form, and file the application, hope this was
within the 3 month timeframe
0

#3 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 06 February 2007 - 01:44 PM

View Postcajun, on Feb 4 2004, 10:11 PM, said:

can someone help me understand this: I had an assessment done and was given 13% overall inpairment for my injuries. Acc now tell me that because I am under 10% my independent allowance will cease????






Further to my query about IA 13% issue. I would like to go back a bit to 1990 I had a work related injury to my left elbow and was paid a lump sum. In 1994 I found employment and subsequently developed right elbow injuries which also affected my neck and shoulder i was then on weekly comp. About 3 years later I found out about the independent allowance so off to the specialist i went and was given 26% for those three injuries and it was done by the AMA guide.(not sure when the IA was made law) I then moved to Gisborne from Hastings and they did not agree with my 26% so they took my allowance off me for about 18 months. I was then sent to HELLO to their very own medical practitioner come specialist and he gave me 5% and I would just like to add that i have proof of at least 3 other people that went to him and were all given 5%???????? I then took them to review and won my case and was reinstated back to 26% and back-payed. Now I have just spoken to CM about this assessment . I asked why is it i have 13% impairment and you are no longer going to pay me???.
Her answer was they took 3% off the left elbow injury and that left me with 10% confused well i went onto say to her i have already had a lump sum payment for the left elbow WHY are you assessing me on that injury.
The right arm,neck shoulder injury is the issue we are dealing with??? she was a stunned MULLET then she said can you put it in writing and we will go over it again

Maybe acc do not know the difference between a good arm i.e left arm bad arm right it has happened to me acc went to court on the good knee i.e right one bad one left knee. Acc then said i had to be reassessed on both my physical claim [left knee] & on my sensitive claim [sexual abuse] i said yes so they sent me to hamilton to john collier for the sensitive claim & chris milne for my knee claim yet the wankers at acc sent the reports to yes you guessed right to dr rob percival in my opinion is bloody hopeless. After i went to review & lost i went to court my lawyer in wellington said i should ronald blair christian for the sensitive claim. So i went to wellington to see blair christian on the friday & we had to wait for the report to come back my lawyer said i did not have enough evidence to go to the district court on. So i thought there has to be a way around the apportionment that assessors use to keep claims below 10% it should be illegal once a final whole person impairment had been estabilished that acc should accept that % no peer review just a straight forward payout from those twits. But no they said i had to have another assessment & i said it would have to wait until my knee had stabilised after i had surgery on my left knee they sent me to brown in hamilton [Ian Brown that is] the wanker did nothing to my knee because he was concerned besides that he was un registered at the time anyway. See my list of bad case managers & also bad assessors.
regards.
Darrell Pearce
0

#4 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 06 February 2007 - 03:00 PM

Ian Brown is a damn fine surgeon and a straight up assessor....IMHO. Although sometimes what he says he is not prepared to put on paper - I have to admit.


Although he along with two other surgeons who operated on my knee with an arthroscope didn't pick up on the already noted by Sullivan (show dies in car accident) anterior cruciate ligament rupture.

Sigh....Gloria.
0

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 06 February 2007 - 05:01 PM

It is quite simple

They have only assessed you for one injury and not the rest. You still have the assessment level as previous assessed orginially.

Review it and do a good job and have the CM investigated for removing the IA to gain KPI and increase her/his income.

thats right the CM is deceiving the corporation in reward to increase there income.
0

#6 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 06 February 2007 - 07:24 PM

Yes some of my earlier postings on this matter show that the process is not dead indeed has beem systematic since 2004 or earlier.

I still have all the paperwork that took me from a 100% disability to under new legislation in the intrests in fairness etc, all that blab. to 27% without back or whole person. to 24% to12% after a bleat back up tp what ever I am now %
which is a shitload short of what I got apparently when I got suspended and was put on invalid
and still about $19 shy of the $40 I was getting back in 2000 before they started this retrospective legislation that changed the rules we paid for.
Mind you, I had to pay the difference back. Twice I think. And it seems that from memory the difference was about 70 as opposed to 21 from ACC.

Now I cant even get a community services card to cope with health problems I have that have developed or been acellerated basically because of ACC general operatonal tactics of assessment and no proper help.

What I want to Know is this the intention of the act?
Or is it viscious insurance company tactics?

Illegal in most civilised countries, supported by Labour instigated legislation which,
as ACC is always telling us, correctly or incorrectly, by quoting the relevant legislation on nearly all correspondence,
supports ACC, in whom they are the prime stakeholder,
and empowers ACC to stop paying money out to the injured that need it
and what was the scheme was supposed to provide which they paid for?
and invest it,
mainly overseas and knacker the stock.

A classic asset-stripping excersise If I ever saw one!
0

#7 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 16 February 2007 - 09:30 PM

View PostGloria Mitchell, on Feb 6 2007, 04:00 PM, said:

Ian Brown is a damn fine surgeon and a straight up assessor....IMHO. Although sometimes what he says he is not prepared to put on paper - I have to admit.


Although he along with two other surgeons who operated on my knee with an arthroscope didn't pick up on the already noted by Sullivan (show dies in car accident) anterior cruciate ligament rupture.

Sigh....Gloria.

Evening Gloria it is Darrell here. Ian Brown is no longer prcticing orthopaedic surgery & i have that info on me & in writing from the president of the NEW ZEALAND ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION MR Murray Fosbender in which he confirms that Mr Brown has moved away from orthopaedic surgery to medico- legal practice. If he carries out an assessment for acc he has to indicate that he is now a member of the medico-legal section of the Royal Australasian college of surgeons which is based in Australia & they have a website at www.surgeons.org.
Regards.
Darrell Pearce.
0

#8 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 21 April 2007 - 07:31 PM

View PostGloria Mitchell, on Feb 6 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

Ian Brown is a damn fine surgeon and a straight up assessor....IMHO. Although sometimes what he says he is not prepared to put on paper - I have to admit.


Although he along with two other surgeons who operated on my knee with an arthroscope didn't pick up on the already noted by Sullivan (show dies in car accident) anterior cruciate ligament rupture.

Sigh....Gloria.

Evening Gloria it is Darrell here. I am not sure if you are aware that Ian Brown is no longer practicing orthopaedic surgery. He has moved away from orthopaedic surgery to medico legal practice which is not recognised here in New Zealand. Therefore he cannot do acc assessments anymore. I have just been reassessed by Gavin Farr who is an orthopaedic specialist in Auckland he travels down to Hamilton about once a month i saw him on the 30/3/07 & he gave me 5% for my left knee the other 5% is on the sensitive claim which is 10% making me eligible for independence allowance. ACC then tell me they are going back to the last quarter which was when i saw Tanner in New Plymouth on the 17/7/06. Not good enough as far as i am concerned. So i said to them that the matter will go to review because i am going to belt them with compound interest that applies to my case.
Regards.
Darrell Pearce.
P.S. MR BROWN IS NOT STRAIGHT UP AT ALL.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 April 2007 - 08:29 PM

Prior to the medical accident that resulted in a stroke I was rated at 60% incapacitated and received 100% of S78 lump sum. I had continuously asked for the balance and then independence allowance in relation to all of the incapacities for all of the other subsequent injuries with no answer.

Brand new submissions have been put in late last year by my doctor as they claim they do not want to process historical claims that have not been addressed. I'm obviously higher than 60%. How long does it take for the Independence Allowance people to get around to putting me through to their medical assessors?

In 2003 they asked me if I would see Professor Gorman and his team and I replied with an enthusiastic yes. Still no results!

How long is too long?
0

#10 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 22 April 2007 - 10:46 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Apr 21 2007, 08:29 PM, said:

Prior to the medical accident that resulted in a stroke I was rated at 60% incapacitated and received 100% of S78 lump sum. I had continuously asked for the balance and then independence allowance in relation to all of the incapacities for all of the other subsequent injuries with no answer.

Brand new submissions have been put in late last year by my doctor as they claim they do not want to process historical claims that have not been addressed. I'm obviously higher than 60%. How long does it take for the Independence Allowance people to get around to putting me through to their medical assessors?

In 2003 they asked me if I would see Professor Gorman and his team and I replied with an enthusiastic yes. Still no results!

How long is too long?

Morning Alan it is Darrell here. I would most certainly ask ACC what the delay is & if they can't give you an answer tell them that you see them at review. I just had my assessment on my left knee & got 5% for the knee claim & the other 5% is on the sensitive claim which is 10% making me eligible for an independence allowance ask your case manager to send you to Gavin Farr he is good better than these other clowns who only give people 3% which is unacceptable.
Regards.
Darrell Pearce.
0

#11 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 22 April 2007 - 01:08 PM

Allan I gathered that you have filed the Medical Certificates for the IA assessment process to begin.

If so need to write to the service centre and ask for the decision on the IA.

21 days later review that decision due to the assessor not taking into account of all of the injuries covered under the claim. under Clauae 60 , (98 Act). You may need to claim that it should be 100% and that until assessed it should remain at that level.

I gather that you have completed the first 2 so the tricky one is the third on to get it right.
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 April 2007 - 03:51 PM

In 1991 and 1992 the applications for the lump sums were submitted by my lawyer followed by a Review Hearing application due to the delay. The Review Hearing application did not proceed because the ACC decided not to have a Review Hearing because they made a decision to assess me. They paid 100% on one lump sum and decided that they could not assess the other lump sum yet while waiting for my injury to settle. The branch medical adviser advised the Corporation not to pay the reconstructive surgery but restrict payment to the salvage procedure as the surgeon would not guarantee a return to my pre injury occupation. I won the Review Hearing to have the reconstructive procedure and am still waiting to have it. The last time I was booked into a hospital was 2003.

I had gone to review hearing regarding the delay in process of the lump sum payment under the 1982 act. The reviewer said he had no jurisdiction as the decision was under the 1982 legislation even though the application was made under the 1992 legislation and the delay of process application was in relation to request under the current legislation.

After being very patient and no surgery in sight the Corporation have received the latest medical certificates filled out by my general practitioner late last year. This new application was to start the matter afresh so they could be no arguments. I have written to the Corporation asking for progress reports but no response. the Corporation is trying to avoid Review Hearing jurisdiction by not making a decision.
0

#13 User is offline   Witchiepoo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 27-January 05

Posted 23 April 2007 - 09:00 AM

Allan, DO NOT SEE DES GORMAN - T O A D Y ........
0

#14 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 23 April 2007 - 09:29 PM

The Lump sum payment under the 82 Act was either that the injury had settled or a time lapse of two years.

Can't recall the date of your accident so not sure if they made the right decision.
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 April 2007 - 09:34 PM

I would be more than delighted to be assessed by Professor Gorman and his team as that would leave the ACC and absolutely no doubt as to whether or not my injuries prevent work. I do not think for one moment Professor Gorman would falsify a document that is of such high profile and in comparison with the best hand surgeons in New Zealand. He would also have a time time explaining the missing part of my brain.

The first two accidents were under the 1982 act, December 1989 & August 1992.

Two years had elapsed and there was no possibility of anything settling down. Prior to August 1992 the ACC Branch Medical Adviser told the Corporation that there was insufficient chance of a return to work even with surgery.
0

#16 User is offline   Witchiepoo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 27-January 05

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:13 AM

You trust Gorman that much ? I was seen by his team leader at one point who interviewed me and wrote up a report that stated I saw Gorman and another specialist in his team. It was signed by Gorman and the other specialist. I had my support person with me - WE NEVER SAW GORMAN OR THE OTHER SPECIALIST, yet he signed the report ......
0

#17 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:38 AM

Hi Dopple
Could you quote the case I sent you (via post) on the Forum, so I don't have to pull it out again.

It was the deciding factor in my case not having had ALL injuries assessed at the one time.

The Judge sent them away to do the rest. It got backdated to date of injury as well.

Cheers Mini
0

#18 User is offline   Witchiepoo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 27-January 05

Posted 24 April 2007 - 10:31 AM

Alan, "Two years had elapsed and there was no possibility of anything settling down" .... is this what you refer to as STABLE ?
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 24 April 2007 - 06:46 PM

Hrer that decision for you Mini.

Attached File(s)


0

#20 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:29 PM

Interesting - IA assessors' opinion are not sacrosanct? I think things have moved on since then in a direction unfavourable to claimants. I'll be interested to see how you get on.
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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