[Tomcat]

Greetings,
Below is a list I have been sent, of assessors for Independent Allowance…

Who is the most honest and most likely to take full note of, Info I WILL SUPPLY ?

And assessment will be recorded with support present… (no arguement in this.)

Can I ask that this assessment be done at my local GP. Clinic ?
..........................................................................................................................

Contracted providers search and contact lists

Searched for Whangarei Impairment assessors
Search results

Burgoyne Medical Services Limited - Peter Burqoyne
Bay of Islands Hospital, Kawakawa, Northland
(09) 404 0280

Corbett Medical - Dr Graham Corbett
15 Rust Avenue, Whangarei
(09) 437 7810
"Whangarei Branch Med Adviser…
And he has already been asked to “comment “ on my 5 recent assessments"…

Dr Kantilal Kanji - Dr Kantilal Kami
130 Archers Road, Glenfield, Auckland
(09) 444 9324
"SCRATCH THIS one FOR SURE"…

Harry Kerr - Harry Kerr
283 Twyford Road, Hastings
(021) 464 750

Health Advantage Ltd - Bruce Gollop
40 Te Maika Road, RD 3, Whangarei
(09) 434 3970

Moerewa Medical Services - Graeme Fenton
Moerewa Medical Services, 44 State Highway 1, Moerewa, Northland
(09) 404 0328

Peter George Herbert Summers - Peter George Herbert Summers
RD 2, Kerikeri
(09) 407 1934

PS… My application has not been sent in as yet…

[Erin]

Don't go near Kantilal Kanji. Don't know any of the others.
Erin

[Tomcat]

Greetings,
Had My I.A. assessment today... 2+1/2 hours... recorded...
I wont comment on it just yet... but will once I have my copy of the report... I will...
I feel I got a "fair hearing" ...
I expect that the ACC "peer review" will stuff it up, no doubt...
This was for the "Physical" and the "Mental Caused By Physical"...

[doppelganger]

Did the case manager list all of the injuries to be completed in his letter to the assessor?

[Tomcat]

Greetings,
All the info needed was there...
The recent 7 assessment reports,
that show that the old, "ACC toadies" reports, (also included) are Bull Shit...
and that ACC promoted this Crap for 26 years...

[BLURB]

Good on you TC, hope it goes well for you

Great to meet you, Gaffa and all the others the other day .... have you heard back from that tv flim crew?

Hope we didn't frigthen them too much with our stories

Maybe I should request my file be transfered to your Case Manager TC

After all, its been with Joe Sio for more than the normal 3 months

And all ive got from that dude is "I value my job too much" to write on your file that I agree you've been illegally scamed!

Good on you Joe Sio .... you come first and the client second

And I thought cm's were there to assist claimants, maybe im wrong in thinking that ... you people are there just to give the right impression

[Tomcat]

GREETINGS,
I.A.... ... No Communication or what ever

ALL DONE, AND back dated.. from Feb. 07... to April 08... and in my Bank ACC.

31%... (minus the 19%--paid in 1993-- for lump sum, under sec.78+79...1972/82 acts... ???)



WHEN HAMILTON SUPPLIES ME WITH THE ASSESSORS REPORT AND THE PEER REVIEW REPORT.
WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE, AS YET...???
NO DOUBT THERE WILL BE SOME ISSUES TO SORT OUT...

[Tomcat]

NOW THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING...

The reason given for the delay in decision letter (s),
and assessor and peer review reports...
IS....

Hamilton are looking for the 1983 claim file...
YES... The WORK ACCIDENT CLAIM THAT WAS DENIED,
Whangarei stating I was not entitled to anything,
ERC Or what ever because of the
" BULL SHIT DIAGNOSIS "
of arthritis 6 year earlier....

There should never have been a file, due to ACC not accepting it,
no paper work ever done, except for treatment provider being paid,
right up to very recent ... for treat ment...

WAS TOLD IN 1991/2... NO FILES EXIST...
SO I SUPPLIED EVERYTHING BACK TO 1977...
I did not have the 1983 file,
and I was UNAWARE THAT A FILE FOR THIS CLAIM, EXISTED...
DUE TO ACC DENYING THIS WORK ACCIDENT CLAIM...

AND, ACC had the file for 1983 destroyed in 1996/7,

As I was taking the matter of ACC denying / refusing to re instate ERC,
in 1993 after they had accepted 1977 and 1983 WORK injury(s),
in 1993, and paid lump @ 19% under sec 78+79 1982 act.,
TO THE COURT OF APPEAL...

There has been much "JERKING AROUND" BY XXXX and others, @ Whangarei,
re this file... and the issue "why was this FILE THE ONLY ONE DESTROYED ???"
at a "most convenient time for ACC"... ...
especially when "THERE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A FILE for this claim"

Its all tied into post 3 here...

http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?showt...amp;#entry59433

[freefallnz]

hee hee people in glass towers shouldnt throw ????

Quote

ACC has not destroyed any claimant files since Pickfords took over the contract for off-site storage in 2004, as a result claims archived after 1 January 1997 have not necessarily been destroyed.

Pathway automatically shows all claim files that have been archived for 7 years as ‘Destroyed’, even though some of these files are still held in archives. Unfortunately, at this stage Pathway cannot be altered to indicate otherwise.

To retrieve files that are indicated in Pathway as ‘Destroyed’, but were archived after 1 January 1997, follow the procedure below:

Policies & processes > Records Management > Destroyed claim files archived after 1 January 1997

[Tomcat]

...

Funny how attempts to deny "backfire"...

= whiplash injury of 2004...
1983, was also a neck injury...
no 1983 files.??? ... as in, no claim accepted.???
Then lump sum issue for 2004 must be accepted...

But... what if 1983 file exists....
I Have lots of denial docs. from ACC,
saying this file "never was", or has been destroyed...

[Witchiepoo]

Hi TC, I had my assessment last week with Dr Tom Bracken - nice guy. Wait and see situation now ! Still got the "Mental" assessment to go.

[Sparrow]

No Drsl, I can tell you what the Peer Reviewer is doing.
TELLING THE ASSESSOR TO CHANGE THE REPORT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have proof of that.
Fraud big time and they get away with it.
And I will tell you something else, the Peer reviewer's report is a secret!!!!!!!!!!!
Acc will not disclose the contents.
If anyone has had a chance to see the Peer Reviewer's report let me know!!!!!!!!!

[doppelganger]

I think that I have a copy of a peer review report.

there is a question that needs to be asked of the peer reviewer as to what was the instructions given to the peer reviewer.

I know that the peer reviewer jobs is not to see if the assessor completed the assessment as to the Act. So what is the peer reviewer doing? Making a false documentation is more likely.

This is a problem with over 15% of claims. more likely be 15% of claims that end as long term. this is just part of the overall problem that all face.

[Tomcat]

"If anyone has had a chance to see the Peer Reviewer's report let me know!!!!!!!!!"

I WILL HAVE MINE... ... No ifs or buts about it !!!
And others I am aware of, have received both reports...
And have been able to correct "mistakes"... incorrect info etc...

[MINI]

I have got mine from previous and have been assured I will get it this time as well.

One has to wonder why you get sent to a specialist by the ACC, then the assessor for % is a mere MD and the peer reviewer not much over and above that. I am convinced after this last Mental assessment that the assessor knows little of mental matters and how to use the AMA guides to divide the non-injury from the injury. It has been a real mess in that ACC had to revoke the assessment on the day of the Review hearing.

So here we go again. It is at Peer Review for the second time. In the meantime they hold onto my backdated money.

I have this one at Appeal and am taking it all the way through as I do not want erroneous documents on my file and there is case precedent to use for this now that Judge Ongley has had his say in Birch.

Section 54 2001 Act people. Use it or lose it. It seems we are losing it at the moment.

OK that its for now.

Cheers
Mini

[Tomcat]

Greetings,
Received "peer review"... 1 page... apart from a few "recommendations to fix a few info mistakes", by assessor, nothing major...
its short and changed basically nothing...
Only issue I have is denial of lump sum for 2004 whip lash injury, which ACC labeled as from 1983.
the work accident they refused cover on then ???...
Off now to have neck re assessed...

Mental By Physical was accepted with out hassle... = from 1977,
= chronic pain = anxiety / stress / depression, as a componant...
AND I did blame, and specialists hinted at, the 30 year battle with ACC as the major cause...

After acc "deductions" the 31% of whole person came down to 12%...
(re previous lump sum @19%, 1993)

[freshrain]

Go Tomcat.
What you're doing could benfit many.
Congrats and good luck for the next round!

I dont want to downgrade yours and Mini's and maybe others' trailblazing this case law, but the figures for mental caused by physical seem a bit low. These injuries can impact heavily on the 'whole person' every bit as much as physical injuries.

I think there is an issue of predjudice in ACC and the medical profession, and the community at large and this is a factor in such decisions.

Great work!

[Tomcat]

Greetings,
I.A.%..... Re-assessment on Neck coming up... waiting for appointment.

1983 neck injury resolved, leaving only stiffness... should not have been used in this case.
resulting in denial of 2004 whip lash. @ 0%...
Whip lash of 2004, produced NEW injury, different symptoms and pain...
and restrictions in movement= 15 degree left and right...

MRI shows this difference from previous xrays...
Had a fall in Dec 07. which has either aggravated whiplash injury,
or its a new one... having treatment (acupunture) for this now. via ACC cover.
Helps... but wont cure it.

Main point is to get The Facts Right... Shouldnt have to go thru this S... for that purpose.

[freefallnz]

So just who is the peer reviwier and what is his job? BMA?

The peer reviewer on my IA was Dr Rob Percival

Who's the peer reviewer on your case

He recommended measurement on the xrays of the degree of compression between neck & back vertebrae and linked that to ACC Practice.



Surely you peer reviewer recommended the same measurements on your injured neck & back vertebrae. I imagine that you have damage too more than just a C6 & L2.

I would have thought that the peer reviewers job was too assign known injuries to the correct injury classification as required by the legislation using the AMA Guidelines 4'th edition and The ACC User Handbook to the AMA

Or is it the peer reviewers job too ignore inconvenient facts or too ignore injuries that arent reported correctly by the IA assessor. Thus saving ACC Money.