ACCforum: I.a. Assessor Info Required - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

I.a. Assessor Info Required Assessment coming up soon

#21 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 29 February 2008 - 01:03 AM

no need to guess what I think!
It is a systematic denigration of the claimant into interactive boxes which lead to speedy and highly questionably legal practices to reduce liability and improve assets with no control.
All assessment and resolution should and are in any fair system are by bodies and parties totally outside the insurers control. They should be doing that here but their policy seems to be beyond ethics or common law and a protected by a bulwark that the average claimant has no hope of negotiating in any equitable way.
If it is compulsory then at least make it honest.

Anything else is thievery and fraud.
0

#22 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 29 February 2008 - 03:15 PM

Don't know what are the tasks of the pear reviewer as in my case he couldn't tell the difference between fractures and muscle damage.

the ACC did not inform the assessor of all of the injuries as accepted by ACC so the assessor did not carry out a full and complete examination.

In my case it is the ACC not modifying the injury as the condition deteriorated.
0

#23 User is offline   Witchiepoo 

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

Posted 29 February 2008 - 03:33 PM

Interesting, while I was having my mental caused by physical assessment last week I noticed an envelope on the table addressed to the assessor with the words "for audit" written on it with her name, presume she is also a peer reviewer ? Dodgy or what !
0

#24 User is offline   Cedarpuss 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 12-March 08

Posted 14 March 2008 - 10:09 PM

View PostSparrow, on Jan 26 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

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!!!!!!!!!



The peer reviewer will correspond with the assessor if there are any errors in the report or any areas not clear. They do not tell or make the assessor change the report. Indeed, there are many times that the assessor and peer reviewer disagree and the matter forwarded to a third party for clarification or the assessment completed again with a different assessor. You clearly state that you want a correct report - why would you not advocate this? It is basically to check that any calculations made are correct.
0

#25 User is offline   Cedarpuss 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 12-March 08

  Posted 14 March 2008 - 10:11 PM

View PostWitchiepoo, on Feb 29 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

Interesting, while I was having my mental caused by physical assessment last week I noticed an envelope on the table addressed to the assessor with the words "for audit" written on it with her name, presume she is also a peer reviewer ? Dodgy or what !



Or perhaps the envelop you saw was for an entirely different purpose? Not ACC related at all? Assessors are not solely contracted to work for ACC, they do do other work and have other patients as well
0

#26 User is offline   Cedarpuss 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 12-March 08

Posted 14 March 2008 - 10:21 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on Feb 29 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Don't know what are the tasks of the pear reviewer as in my case he couldn't tell the difference between fractures and muscle damage.

the ACC did not inform the assessor of all of the injuries as accepted by ACC so the assessor did not carry out a full and complete examination.

In my case it is the ACC not modifying the injury as the condition deteriorated.



ACC would have informed the assessor to assess all the injuries certified as permanent and stable by your GP. Do the ACC staff now have crystal balls issued to them at induction? If you or your GP didn't advise ACC that your condition(s) had altered over time, how are the staff expected to know?? Presumably you provided your GP with the schedule of injuries and med certs were completed accordingly. Did your GP update ACC? Did you? Surely the onus is on you and your GP to provide ACC with current medical information??? I don't think our tax dollars would stretch to sending ACC staff on psychic classes, but if push hard enough it might make it as an election promise this year. Lets hope such a course would become mandatory so then you could actually justify blaming ACC staff for failing to do what you should actually do.

And no, I'm not a staff member but have been long ago in the past and now work closely with claimants in almost an advocacy role. I feel no loyalty to ACC but I do believe in fairness on both sides and will call out if I see any unjustified remarks. Sometimes a little information is more dangerous than a lot.
0

#27 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 16 March 2008 - 09:24 PM

Medical Certificates and then ACC medical reports to confirm that the injury is related to the accident.

ACC has it listed under several conditions and at one part the injury was a T4 spinal cord injury.

there is no documentation to my doctor from ACC to know if ACC accepted the claim as a new claim or added the injury to the original injury.

this should be sorted soon as there is a review to establish what are the accepted injuries as to the legislation.
0

#28 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 19 March 2008 - 08:59 AM

Greetings,
Re I.A. assessment results...
Not enough info given in decision letters etc...
So made an O.I.A. request...for I.A. file.
A little bit of "waffling around"(not by Me), :rolleyes:
but now I am to get the full file as requested. ;)

Am reviewing the 2004 Whiplash injury, as the 0%,
and the labeling of this injury to the 1983 neck injury, is not right,
or applicable...

I had requested that the peer review to be done by another,
not the one of their choice...
This was not done, no worries there tho, result was OK.

This is only about making sure that all documentation/facts,
are correct, so in future there will be no hassles.

The fact that payments were made before decision letter was sent,
is of concern, as it dont give one the opportunity to address any
mistakes/ blunders/ or mis information.
Am going to follow up on why for it has been done this way.
0

#29 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 19 March 2008 - 09:48 AM

It is important that the ACC tells the assessor of all the injuries to be assessed. If the ACC does not tell the assessor of the injuries to be assessed then the injuries will not be assessed even when cover has been granted.

the peer reviewer the Ex BMA of Auckland might be lining his own pocket when he had input into a document to have the assessor exclude the injuries covered when the ACC had not reported all of the covered injuries to the assessor.

Tomcat to me it looks like the ACC is trying and being successful in preventing a payment out side of the Act when the ACC gave documentation to the assor that was knowingly not correct.

Go for the outside payment and the independent allowance.
0

#30 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 19 March 2008 - 10:16 AM

Greetings,
1983 neck injury, had "resolved"... just stiff at times...
This work injury claim, was denied by ACC in 1983... but later accepted,
and included in lump sum payment 1993... @ 10%...

2004 whiplash injury produced new injury, as in different site, and symptoms,
and much more pain...
For I.A. ACC has labeled it as an aggro of 1983, and gave 0%... <_<
and denied lump sum...
So having it reassessed, and if ACC dont revisit or change the decision,
its off to review... (applied for already)
MRI scan done in 2006 is clear that % should be more than 0%...
All I am after is the 2004 whip lash injury to be recorded as a new injury,
not an aggro of 1983... and % applied as warranted.
money is not the issue. just the facts recorded correctly...

I.A processes need to be looked at, as they are "dodgy at times"...
AND the 4th ed. AMA guide is way out of date...
this needs to be up graded to the 5th, 6th, or 7th ed.
0

#31 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 19 March 2008 - 11:03 AM

Who said that the whip lash was a new injury Your Treating medical specialist of the ACC treating specialist.

If it is the ACC specialist it comes under the privacy Act as supplying a false document to ACC. Payment entitlement out side of the Act through the privacy Act. this will be equal to your IA allowance and any costs that has occurred.
0

#32 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 19 March 2008 - 11:24 AM

Greetings,
I.A. assessor, gave 0% and referred to 1983 neck injury,
that 2004 was an aggro of 1983...
and Peer reviewer Dr Percival, referred the 1983 and lump sum issue.
GP, who has been my GP for 20 years, had no hesitation is sorting out
reassessment, by an Ortho. specialist...

older xrays,(1 disc) 1983, did not show, what recent MRI scan now shows
(3+ stuffed neck disc's)

MRI report, post 9...

http://accforum.org/...?showtopic=2393
0

#33 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 19 March 2008 - 06:20 PM

View PostTomcat, on Mar 19 2008, 12:24 PM, said:

and Peer reviewer Dr Percival, referred the 1983 and lump sum issue.

http://accforum.org/...?showtopic=2393


the good Dr Percival has made a decision with out collecting all of the information like the MRI and old X-Rays.

He knowingly lies to remove the entitlement. this in my opinion would be worth $20, 000.00 from Dr Percival income. If you make it uneconomical for the Dr to lie then he will think seriously about lying in other peoples report.

Tomcat if we can't get the cheifs then why not remove the Indians so the Cheifs can not carry out their war. Remember it is not just the money that it costs you but also the money that ACC spend to say that Percival is correct.
0

#34 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:17 PM

View PostTomcat, on 24 January 2008 - 05:58 PM, said:

NOW THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING... :lol: ;)

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

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, :huh:

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


BUMP..... seems to be a lot interest in this old thread today :huh:

AND when this was posted they all vanished.:)

This post has been edited by Tomcat: 25 October 2012 - 05:06 PM

2

#35 User is offline   malhar 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 26-July 09

Posted 25 October 2012 - 05:05 PM

View PostTomcat, on 25 October 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

BUMP..... seems to be a lot interest in this old thread today :huh:

AND when this was posted they all vaished.:)

In 2008 ACC stated at mediation that I never made a claim in 1990 as there are no records of it; imagine their faces when I pull out the original acceptance letter from 1990. I also pulled a file report printed in 1994 showing the cost of the claim.
2

#36 User is offline   Campy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: 15-May 10
  • LocationAuckland Regional super city

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:27 AM

Hey very interested in getting someone I know lodge a

Quote

mental caused by physical


Thanks for this.


View PostWitchiepoo, on 29 February 2008 - 03:33 PM, said:

Interesting, while I was having my mental caused by physical assessment last week I noticed an envelope on the table addressed to the assessor with the words "for audit" written on it with her name, presume she is also a peer reviewer ? Dodgy or what !




1

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