ACCforum: Miller Vs Acc 7/2003 - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Miller Vs Acc 7/2003 reinstatement after 25 years...

#1 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 02 February 2007 - 07:43 AM

Re-posting this...
Covers some important issues...
Late application for review.
Wholley vs substancially
Claimants Med evidence Vs ACC's

Recent assessments/MRI(2006) now prove "Arthritis" has never been
an issue... and "degeneration" is on all injury sites only, 7 stuffed discs.
thus proving it injury related...
and that ACC knew this for many years, up to 1993, re ACC assessors report,
and continued to promote the "Dodgy" med reports,
right up to this court decision, in 2003.

Attached File(s)


2

#2 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:34 AM

Thanks for that

Interesting 1992 Act preserves provision of Part IX of the Compensation Act 1982.

Tax issues here.

Do you know what sections of the 1982 Act are included in Part IX??

Would be handy??

Cheers Mini
2

#3 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 22 September 2007 - 10:17 AM

Greetings,
Since reinstatement, due to this Decision... I have gone thru 5 + 2 assessments...
Actioned by ACC... and if done years ago, I would not have had to endure all the Crap they put me thru...
These recent Asessments, now indicate that The "Ankyolosing Spondylitis", as claimed by ACC, based mainly on a Blood Test, and not on Xray evidence... Does not exist, and never has...
ACC used this "Blood test and opinions based on it"... to exit me in Sept 1978...
I do not deny it (A.S.) may have had a starting point, long before injury,
but remissed, due to a healthy active lifestyle... ALL OF THAT CAME TO A HALT DUE TO THE INJURY AND LACK OF TREATMENT... asked for that had proven successfull previously...
ACC would not do a MRI as requested, earlier, which would have put pay to all the Bull S... !
What is rather "DUMB/STUPID, and deliberately INTENTIONAL, is that after their own asessors report in 1992, stating clearly it was injury, not a "progressive desease", ACC accepted the 2 work injuries of 1977 and 1983 as fact, and paid out lump sum @ 19% disability/impairment... but refused to reinstate ERC...
They continued to promote Their Mis-Classification/Mis-diagnosis, at review and 3 times in court...
Medical evidence produced in court was enough to get a decision in my favor, even if a little inaccurate... or lacking, as in FULL PICTURE...

One would think that with these results, that ACC would sort out things = ERC back pay correctly, BUT NO...
I am still being forced to fight for my True and Rightful entitlements... :angry:
Even tho there is an admittance, at review, they have taken the easier option of the "Wage order", and not used their own records of a higher figure... (and this is audio recorded).
Hopefully the court will see to it that this corrected... If not its off to the high court... I WILL WIN. GRRRRRR !

I now have been given cover for "Mental Caused By Physical"... for I.A....
And apart from the "chronic pain" issue due to injury...
The Stress / Anxiety/ Depression, has mostly been caused by ACC. FACT.

Without doubt, many more of us know, just how true this is and how ACC has created this for us...
2

#4 User is online   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 September 2007 - 01:13 PM

you might need to take the matter to the High Court in the form of a judicial review so as to have the clock wound back to impose a S60 (1982 act) determination which would have the effect that the ACC are required to determine what you shouuld have been earning. This takes away from the ACC the ability to rely upon the 12 months preinjury earnings. The temporary injury under S59 has a different protocol for determining the ACC liability. The long-term liability obviously appllies on your case by any reasonable application of the intention of the act which means a forensic human resources manager would be able to determine your potential for earnings from the time of your injury until the present have you not been injured. You will then be entitled to 80 percent of that figure.
-1

#5 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 22 September 2007 - 01:52 PM

Greetings,
If D.C. dont fix, It is most definately going to the High Court...
I am aware of what you say Alan... re Earnings and the legislation...
If ACC had done things right back in 1977, and provided the appropiate treatment, I would have been back at work in a reasonable time... I have no doubt that the injury would have "flared up" at a later time...
But all I needed was time in the line of work to gain the bits of paper that would have increased my earning capacity by double... Todays yearly earnings would be $60k +... for 40 hour week...

What really pisses me off is that my "Hobby venture", that would have become a full time business within 1 year as planned, and even if injury stopped me from physical labour, I would have been pushing paper and managing a "franchise" that no one else thought of or put together, until late 80's...
And that "particular franchise" sold a few years ago for 2 mil +... about the time I planned to retire...
I had 2 rental houses and a Home Unit I was living in at the time of injury... Had to dump these assets before I got in the financial poo due the greatly reduced income, and unable to refinance mortages..as I was only able to work on and off up to 1981, when I had to give up on the idea of working, as injury had never repaired and got worse... Unfortunately records/evidence of this, was destroyed in a House fire in 1997, including all Pay details from job, tax, bank statements, reciepts, that went back to 1973......
If I had these today there would be no arguement as to
Just How RIGHT I AM AND HOW WRONG ACC IS re ERC...
ACC knows this but still pushes their Bull Shit... (1 guess, who is behind all the ERC stuff ups ? ;) )

BUT SHIT HAPPENS... Such is life...
But like the cat that knows that mouse is just inside the hole in the wall, I aint giving up... :P
2

#6 User is online   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 September 2007 - 02:12 PM

but the mouse knows that the cat cannot get into the wall.
-2

#7 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 22 September 2007 - 05:15 PM

This particular hole in the wall is a "Dead End"... The mouse will eventually have to come out... ;)

Attached File(s)


2

#8 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 24 September 2007 - 03:03 PM

Stage 2 ...

Now its "Play Time"...

Attached File(s)


2

#9 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 24 September 2007 - 03:18 PM

A very useful decision IMHO. I've used it successfully a number of times now. ACC, of course, always tries to argue that its facts are entirely different ("distinct" in legal-speak) from whatever dispute is before a reviewer or Judge.
2

#10 User is offline   Moeroa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 20-November 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 23 December 2009 - 01:04 PM

Thanks for reposting this.

View PostTomcat, on Feb 2 2007, 09:43 AM, said:

Re-posting this...
Covers some important issues...
Late application for review.
Wholley vs substancially
Claimants Med evidence Vs ACC's

Recent assessments/MRI(2006) now prove "Arthritis" has never been
an issue... and "degeneration" is on all injury sites only, 7 stuffed discs.
thus proving it injury related...
and that ACC knew this for many years, up to 1993, re ACC assessors report,
and continued to promote the "Dodgy" med reports,
right up to this court decision, in 2003.

1

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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