ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 820 Pages +
  • « First
  • 818
  • 819
  • 820
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas Allegations of working while incapacitated

#16381 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1184
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 13 July 2017 - 05:58 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 July 2017 - 05:46 PM, said:

You are wrong. It is the medical certificates that instructed the ACC that I could not earn. I have never at any stage made any claim as to whether or not I could work or earn But have always relied upon the expertise of the medical professionals who are my treatment providers. When never should forget that legislation requires obedience to the treatment provider at all times in matters of insurance claims.

ACC were not entitled to disregard the binding effects of the 1992 review hearing decisions that required it to fund the prescribed medical treatment For the purposes of return on the back to my preinjury work task activities. As the ACC had no legal basis to disregard the binding effects of the 1992 review hearing decisions any concept of vocational rehabilitation has no legal standing for the ACC.

As more than 25 years have gone by without the ACC funding the described rehabilitation in obedience to the 1992 review hearing decisions it can only be concluded that the ACC had in fact made a decision, without informing me, that it did not think I could be rehabilitated and therefore they did not have to pay. This was one of the options in the 1992 review hearing decisions but it would follow that I would be permanently incapacitated in accordance with that review hearing decision.

For ACC to fail to act in accordance with a judicial requirement for the purposes of a pecuniary advantage and the misrepresentation of facts to the court it follows that they had not only committed perjury but gone ahead and produced documentation of a fraudulent nature when requiring me to engage in a vocational rehabilitation into a new occupation under the 1992 legislation as they have No legal basis to do this. This is an abuse of their authority. And when they suspended earnings compensation as an inducement to engage in vocational rehabilitation they heaped on more criminal activity on their own behalf.

When you read section 60 in regards to the stability of my injuries the ACC claimed that because I could not recover from my injury and that my incapacity continued to escalate that I was not yet stable which they use as the basis for not making a determination on this matter. However if you continue to read this area of legislation you will also find that the ACC is required by the act to make a decision in a comparatively short period of time. If you read the King decision made by the High Court 1993 you will find that the ACC branch and branch manager had colluded together to devise mechanisms by which they would avoid making these decisions for the purposes of what they were thinking would give them an opportunity to transfe their liabilities from the 1982 legislation to the 1992 legislation when the legislation itself strictly prohibited the from doing this.. Yet they continued to defy both the legislation and the courts for an illegal financial gain. Because the numbers in this category are so high we are dealing with perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars on this single point which addresses sections 59-60 of the 1982 legislation, sections 37, 51 and 73 of the 1992 legislation and sections 103, 107 and 117 of the current legislation where it can be seen that the ACC is quite directly defying the courts on this point of law in regards to the correct understanding of S117.

It was you that failed Thomas
As the court records clearly show. 👏
0

#16382 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6752
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 14 July 2017 - 02:12 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

Yes the ACC claim to rely upon section 73 of the 1992 legislation which requires them to have information on exactly the same way as section 117 of the current act.
The ACC sought to disregard all the medical information that was before them and my files in favour of the assumptions made by 2 members of the public.

The judge agreed with me inasmuch as section 73 (117) information cannot be some form of generic global information but rather had to be specific in the form of either section 37 (103) or section 51 (107) information. As the ACC had no regulations produced to determine working under section 51 (107) the judge then concluded that the ACC would have had to have made a decision under section 37 (103) whereby the ACC could have conceivably assume that because they had information that they thought I was working that therefore they can extrapolate that assumption into no longer incapacitated to return to the preinjury occupation in defiance of the medical reports that confirmed I could not..

As you can see doppelgänger my circumstances is the biggest court case in New Zealand history that is exactly on point in regards to section 117 of the current legislation as this biggest case and ACCs history was on that particular section of the act. You may freely rely upon and quote the findings of the points of law that I successfully argued in that case.


Alan thomas

Your court case that got you 3 years inside seems pretty small to me. You made a blunder of working and lying to ACC and letters were presented as such and the Judge did the right thing and found you guilty of what ever. But you certainly lied to ACC. The dates on the letters tell it all.

So sad that you bury you head at such evidence put before you. Mind you I cant see that you appealed so I guess you knew you were caught by the evidence ACC had.

mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 820 Pages +
  • « First
  • 818
  • 819
  • 820
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

7 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users