[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Greg there are a large number of court decisions that confirmed the IRD figures cannot be relied upon to determine earnings compensation. Even the legislation has special sections the deal with a variety of circumstances to accommodate many variations of the means by which to measure true earnings. This gives quite complicated in regards to various partnerships and fragmented earnings streams particularly when there are all manner of fringe benefits, share options and suchlike that have may or may not have anything to do with IRD.

In any event how do you think ACC could possibly explain why they have not claimed ACC levies when claiming my income to be $1.3 million?

It goes without saying as I have no company management knowledge or experience nor have ever calculated anything to do with earnings or ACC it would be impossible for me to carry out my own calculations and that the most qualified to carry out these calculations is a chartered accountant. The ACC commissioned what they view to be a highly qualified forensic accountant yet when he was examined in court under oath he confirmed that he brought to the ACC's attention a very large number of anomalies in the information they had gathered and asked him to confirm what they had assumed. Of course The ACC forensic accountant examinable the search warrant seized company documents, My personal documents and information from a large number of banks clarified the fact that I actually had no earnings while I was injured Which of course is directly opposite to what the ACC had told the courts both civil and criminal and the media.

Greg why are you such a sucker for ACC propaganda and these explain why it is so easy for the ACC to socially engineer people like you?

A better question is;; Why do think you are right yet everyone else who have won in court about ACC. , use IRD figures in court??.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Mr Thomas you lost your injury cover in 1997 not 1992.

"No evidence has been presented to demonstrate Mr Thomas’ condition in March 2001 has deteriorated since 1997, and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Thomas was an earner immediately before 26 March 2001."

"At the review hearing, Mr Tui said that Mr Thomas still has cover. The transitional provisions of both the 1992 and 1998 Acts provide continuation of Mr Thomas’ cover. However, he is currently not entitled to either weekly compensation or vocational rehabilitation. The cited Clauses of Schedule 1 of the current Act confirm this."

Your Judgement where you lost .

Just another side note .

Check the posting times. How could Mr Thomas post any answer prior to me posting it unless He is reading what I write.

Greg you are wrong. I lost my cover as a result of ACC carrying out a fraud investigation in 1991. ERC and entitlement to surgery was withdrawn October 1991.

It took until early 1992 for ACC to produce a reviewable decision after first not making any decision at all followed by four other letters that were not properly formed which I required them to properly form so I could appeal what was certainly a decision. Effectively the ACC had decided that I have committed fraud and was not entitled to my claim because I owned a number of companies and was a director of those companies be it an inactive director.

Despite ACC not agreeing with the reviewers decision day never appealed the binding effects of the reviewers decision Right up until the present.

Instead the ACC continued with fraud investigation is paying six-figure sums to private investigators who essentially repeated the same type of information again to the ACC resulting in the ACC cancelling my claim in its entirety August 1997. This time the ACC refused to disclose any information as to why they cancelled the claim except the rather vague assertion that they thought I was working and that the work applied to s73 (1) of the 1992 act.

So in other words the ACC rejected the reviewers decision made in 1992 and made a new decision five years later in 1997. The ACC took the view that a fraud conviction would supplant the need for any kind of legislated procedure rather the ACC legislation. So far they have got away with this process in regards to not only myself but a significant number of others.

The question Greg is whether or not this is lawful for the ACC to rely upon private investigators to collect information from unqualified members of the public in order to challenge the medical profession's determination of a person cannot earn because of the injuries.

From 1997 I continue to have an escalation of incapacity as confirmed by the medical profession. This is during a time the ACC asserted that I was continuing to work and earn yet the ACC later claimed that they had no information that I was working or earning in order that they do not have to start the ERC and calculate earnings compensation from my original earnings capacity based on the preinjury occupation because they were quite aware by this time they had no information of any sort even my preinjury occupation work task types. They have simply committed perjury and were avoiding discovery.

In addition when the persons incapacity increases after a period of non-earnings the issue is not what the earnings were immediately prior to the new medical certificate by the whether or not the person was earning at the time they were injured. This is very clear in legislation and has been confirmed by numerous judgements of the court.


Greg in regards to postings I make sometimes I perceive where you are going with a certain line of thought and take a prophylactic approach to anything You are about to say that might contaminate the discussion.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Greg you are wrong. I lost my cover as a result of ACC carrying out a fraud investigation in 1991. ERC and entitlement to surgery was withdrawn October 1991.

It took until early 1992 for ACC to produce a reviewable decision after first not making any decision at all followed by four other letters that were not properly formed which I required them to properly form so I could appeal what was certainly a decision. Effectively the ACC had decided that I have committed fraud and was not entitled to my claim because I owned a number of companies and was a director of those companies be it an inactive director.

Despite ACC not agreeing with the reviewers decision day never appealed the binding effects of the reviewers decision Right up until the present.

Instead the ACC continued with fraud investigation is paying six-figure sums to private investigators who essentially repeated the same type of information again to the ACC resulting in the ACC cancelling my claim in its entirety August 1997. This time the ACC refused to disclose any information as to why they cancelled the claim except the rather vague assertion that they thought I was working and that the work applied to s73 (1) of the 1992 act.

So in other words the ACC rejected the reviewers decision made in 1992 and made a new decision five years later in 1997. The ACC took the view that a fraud conviction would supplant the need for any kind of legislated procedure rather the ACC legislation. So far they have got away with this process in regards to not only myself but a significant number of others.

The question Greg is whether or not this is lawful for the ACC to rely upon private investigators to collect information from unqualified members of the public in order to challenge the medical profession's determination of a person cannot earn because of the injuries.

From 1997 I continue to have an escalation of incapacity as confirmed by the medical profession. This is during a time the ACC asserted that I was continuing to work and earn yet the ACC later claimed that they had no information that I was working or earning in order that they do not have to start the ERC and calculate earnings compensation from my original earnings capacity based on the preinjury occupation because they were quite aware by this time they had no information of any sort even my preinjury occupation work task types. They have simply committed perjury and were avoiding discovery.

In addition when the persons incapacity increases after a period of non-earnings the issue is not what the earnings were immediately prior to the new medical certificate by the whether or not the person was earning at the time they were injured. This is very clear in legislation and has been confirmed by numerous judgements of the court.


Greg in regards to postings I make sometimes I perceive where you are going with a certain line of thought and take a prophylactic approach to anything You are about to say that might contaminate the discussion.

Your last statement proves you must have Admin access ,as you can't win in the courts with this superior self claimed perception.

[tommy]

The residual capacity of a erc claimant to do certain tasks , activities is a very impotant subject and has become very controversial in whom can interperet to the particular cases of the individual concerned in relation to vocational , entertainment etc, one eg is because a claimant owns a boat does not mean it can not use it even the fact of a spinal injury , but in saying that there are common sense reasons for so ie fishing in ideal conditions , in contrast to be seen waterskiing. That is only one of a myriad of examples .

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 04 August 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

Reading the last set of postings ,challenging allans postings , still comes back to a simple fact , will the person see a result in his lifespan, and in whoms favour ? The courts have acknowledged he is person of high intellect, and challenging the acc and acc legisislation , which is why it has become a high ranking case in time monies etc that has been spent of tax payers money,

Tommy are you advocating that claimants in my predicament should sometime or will probably give up?

An interesting point Tommy is that ACC always without exception insulate everything the ACC says and does from the court and have a lawyer speak on their behalf while perhaps more notably in the very large district court hearing that took from December 1999 through to 2010 the ACC found it necessary to have three lawyers in the court them at once. They certainly would not be spending so much money if I did not have a very strong legal point supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibits. Should we be surprised that an impoverished invalid that could not take notes during the trial who also has a brain injury where is not able to focus his attention more than two hours per day fragmented throughout the day with the court makes the court days longer than the medical profession have permitted that the invalid loses the case when going up against three highly trained ACC legal professionals who are supported by the entire ACC legal services unit?

The legislation requires ACC to carry out a very simple and comparatively cheap assessment procedure to determine whether or not I continue to be incapacitated in circumstances whereby the ACC perceive that I may no longer be incapacitated because they think I might be working. The ACC did not have to go through any special procedure to comply with this portion of legislation. Yet instead the ACC has spent in excess of $2 million embarking upon a ridiculous procedure to avoid carrying out the required medical assessments so they can rely upon assumptions of the members of the public instead. I think that the ACC quickly realised that they were breaking the law and the legislation does not permit them to rely upon members of the public who have no qualification or experience and had no direct knowledge of what I was doing in order to claim I was no longer incapacitated and were simply trying to recover from the error when in reality they were in for and for ever increasing and spiralling ccost blowout. The reason for this massive cost blowout is because I stood up against ACCs corruption carrying out a procedure that is not permissible under legislation. ACC are also aware that in time I will be prosecuted the individual staff members for their active participation in perjury and soliciting perjured statements.

As to any money spent by taxpayers the ACC asked legal aid not to fund my appeal with legal services complying with the ACC request. I funded my own appeal by going without food, entertainment and any reasonable form of social interaction except for assisting others with their cases.

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 04 August 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

The residual capacity of a erc claimant to do certain tasks , activities is a very impotant subject and has become very controversial in whom can interperet to the particular cases of the individual concerned in relation to vocational , entertainment etc, one eg is because a claimant owns a boat does not mean it can not use it even the fact of a spinal injury , but in saying that there are common sense reasons for so ie fishing in ideal conditions , in contrast to be seen waterskiing. That is only one of a myriad of examples .

Tommy this is best addressed by getting down to absolute basics. Supposing a house painter is diagnosed with a repetitive strain injury and is told by his doctor to stop painting houses and place on ACC with ACC accepting the claim and paying ERC but said that it would be okay to carry out gentle similar activities two hours per day so long as he broke up that work throughout the day thus to not aggravate his gradual process injury.

The former house painter then over a period of six months little bit by little bit claims his own house.

The ACC get sworn statements from the neighbours to the effect that he painted a house.

The ACC use those sworn statements to prosecute for fraud claiming he campaigned houses.

Tommy what is wrong with this picture?

Should the ACC rely upon impressions from members of the public or should the ACC rely upon the diagnosis and determination of the medical profession?

Clearly it may be of interest to the ACC that the fellow did paint his house. However who was qualified to interpret the information, the neighbours, the ACC clerical staff/case managers, the ACC medical adviser, the ongoing medical certificates? Or should the ACC provide the information to an independent medical assessor to determine whether or not the ongoing medical certificates are wrong.

In the event that the ACCTell the independent medical assessor that the fellow painter design house but failed to tell the medical assessor that he did so over six months, would the ACC have attempted to procure a false document by withholding that critical information and if so should the ACC employee who made the request with an adequate information be prosecuted for fraud? Is it an excuse for the ACC staff member to claim ignorance in regards to the legal process to determine the end of entitlement?


Tommy I hope you examine what I just said very carefully along with others and offer constructive criticism to the scenario I have just put forward. The scenario occurred at the same time with the same doctor as with myself with the ACC accusing me of fraud in pretty well the same type circumstances, only I wasn't carrying out any work of any sort pertinent to my preinjury occupation but did carry out the activities of learning to use a computer with different software including voice software, going on courses to learn how to produce business plans and then produced business plans as required by the ACC. As the type of work necessary to produce business plans had no relevance to my preinjury occupation, as opposed to the painter, and I did not exceed the two hours per day in any form of anything that could be perceived as a "work type activity" it is hard to imagine how the ACC succeeded in obtaining a fraud conviction and cancellation of my entire claim.

[greg]

IRD. records do matter . you were caught out by ACC. in 1997 and have since paid the price.
This is why you went to jail.


"Having considered all the information available made to me by way of Mr Thomas’ ACC files, the submissions made, and evidence given at the review hearing, I accept Mr Tui’s submissions on both counts.

I find that the decision concerning incapacity previously made at review and pending determination in District Court on Appeal is binding on Mr Thomas.

No evidence has been presented to demonstrate Mr Thomas’ condition in March 2001 has deteriorated since 1997, and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Thomas was an earner immediately before 26 March 2001.

In my view, ACC have correctly determined that Mr Thomas does not have an entitlement to weekly compensation. As a result, he is also not entitled to vocational rehabilitation.

At the review hearing, Mr Tui said that Mr Thomas still has cover. The transitional provisions of both the 1992 and 1998 Acts provide continuation of Mr Thomas’ cover. However, he is currently not entitled to either weekly compensation or vocational rehabilitation. The cited Clauses of Schedule 1 of the current Act confirm this."

[greg]

For all posters who are not sure about why this is an important case.;

"No evidence has been presented to demonstrate Mr Thomas’ condition in March 2001 has deteriorated since 1997, and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Thomas was an earner immediately before 26 March 2001."

ACC. will require assessments from Specialists to prove the 'injury'.

You will need a higher Qualified specialist or a more recent report the 'injury'.

Has your injury deteriorated and do you have proof eg MRI, Xray, medical, diving , employment job.

third party reports may help .

IRD , income and medical records are very important. make sure you collect them and keep them as
no-one knows when this info. might help with ACC. , Insurance , etc..

[tommy]

Like many other claimants whom have ventured into self employement , it become many others visions of them thinking because you were receiving erc and working you were not entitled to both As in they not understanding the whole picture. This it where it got interseting of then proving their innocence against allegations etc. I ventured myself entirely in another direction of my pre injury occ, so it made it less doubtful what you had in alliance of the previous occ. but it still had many legal issues associated with it, mainly in the fact of acc legislation and whom can interpret it .

[greg]

[quote name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1407127195' post='188316']
Tommy are you advocating that claimants in my predicament should sometime or will probably give up?

An interesting point Tommy is that ACC always without exception insulate everything the ACC says and does from the court and have a lawyer speak on their behalf while perhaps more notably in the very large district court hearing that took from December 1999 through to 2010 the ACC found it necessary to have three lawyers in the court them at once. They certainly would not be spending so much money if I did not have a very strong legal point supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibits. Should we be surprised that an impoverished invalid that could not take notes during the trial who also has a brain injury where is not able to focus his attention more than two hours per day fragmented throughout the day with the court makes the court days longer than the medical profession have permitted that the invalid loses the case when going up against three highly trained ACC legal professionals who are supported by the entire ACC legal services unit?

The legislation requires ACC to carry out a very simple and comparatively cheap assessment procedure to determine whether or not I continue to be incapacitated in circumstances whereby the ACC perceive that I may no longer be incapacitated because they think I might be working. The ACC did not have to go through any special procedure to comply with this portion of legislation. Yet instead the ACC has spent in excess of $2 million embarking upon a ridiculous procedure to avoid carrying out the required medical assessments so they can rely upon assumptions of the members of the public instead. I think that the ACC quickly realised that they were breaking the law and the legislation does not permit them to rely upon members of the public who have no qualification or experience and had no direct knowledge of what I was doing in order to claim I was no longer incapacitated and were simply trying to recover from the error when in reality they were in for and for ever increasing and spiralling ccost blowout. The reason for this massive cost blowout is because I stood up against ACCs corruption carrying out a procedure that is not permissible under legislation. ACC are also aware that in time I will be prosecuted the individual staff members for their active participation in perjury and soliciting perjured statements.

As to any money spent by taxpayers the ACC asked legal aid not to fund my appeal with legal services complying with the ACC request. I funded my own appeal by going without food, entertainment and any reasonable form of social interaction except for assisting others with their cases.
[/quote

Mr Thomas You are not a Claimant.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

IRD. records do matter . you were caught out by ACC. in 1997 and have since paid the price.
This is why you went to jail.


"Having considered all the information available made to me by way of Mr Thomas’ ACC files, the submissions made, and evidence given at the review hearing, I accept Mr Tui’s submissions on both counts.

I find that the decision concerning incapacity previously made at review and pending determination in District Court on Appeal is binding on Mr Thomas.

No evidence has been presented to demonstrate Mr Thomas’ condition in March 2001 has deteriorated since 1997, and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Thomas was an earner immediately before 26 March 2001.

In my view, ACC have correctly determined that Mr Thomas does not have an entitlement to weekly compensation. As a result, he is also not entitled to vocational rehabilitation.

At the review hearing, Mr Tui said that Mr Thomas still has cover. The transitional provisions of both the 1992 and 1998 Acts provide continuation of Mr Thomas’ cover. However, he is currently not entitled to either weekly compensation or vocational rehabilitation. The cited Clauses of Schedule 1 of the current Act confirm this."

Greg the ACC contacted IRD in 1996 and again in 1997 when trying to establish that I was working and making earnings. IRD confirmed no earnings. The ACC did not believe this information and cancel my claim anyway. They told the review officer to look at the fraud file and not show me this information so I could not challenge what they claimed to be information at the review hearing. The reviewer said to the ACC this was not allowed and that they had to make full disclosure to me. The reviewer adjourned but did not reconvene and then made a decision without hearing not to disturb the ACC decision.

In 1999 the ACC claimed that I had earned $1.3 million to the tax department claimed tax based on $1.3 million. As ACC have never disclose any information remotely supporting this nonsense nor provide any such information to the court to support such ridiculously figures I wrote to the tax department requiring the tax department to disclose to me the information they had in their possession in the basis of their calculation. They wrote me a letter of apology and withdrew the claim as there was no information. When ACC was challenged by this they continue to bluff their way through subsequent court cases by relying upon the fraud conviction instead of actual information in their possession.

Greg how do you explain conviction for fraud is achieved without actual information? I think it is important that you start looking at the realities of life and what really happened at the hands of the ACC. Unless of course you are an ACC employee and on this site seeking to defend their Black Ops activities.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

Greg the ACC contacted IRD in 1996 and again in 1997 when trying to establish that I was working and making earnings. IRD confirmed no earnings. The ACC did not believe this information and cancel my claim anyway. They told the review officer to look at the fraud file and not show me this information so I could not challenge what they claimed to be information at the review hearing. The reviewer said to the ACC this was not allowed and that they had to make full disclosure to me. The reviewer adjourned but did not reconvene and then made a decision without hearing not to disturb the ACC decision.

In 1999 the ACC claimed that I had earned $1.3 million to the tax department claimed tax based on $1.3 million. As ACC have never disclose any information remotely supporting this nonsense nor provide any such information to the court to support such ridiculously figures I wrote to the tax department requiring the tax department to disclose to me the information they had in their possession in the basis of their calculation. They wrote me a letter of apology and withdrew the claim as there was no information. When ACC was challenged by this they continue to bluff their way through subsequent court cases by relying upon the fraud conviction instead of actual information in their possession.

Greg how do you explain conviction for fraud is achieved without actual information? I think it is important that you start looking at the realities of life and what really happened at the hands of the ACC. Unless of course you are an ACC employee and on this site seeking to defend their Black Ops activities.

Mr Thomas .. you are not a claimant??.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

For all posters who are not sure about why this is an important case.;

"No evidence has been presented to demonstrate Mr Thomas’ condition in March 2001 has deteriorated since 1997, and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Thomas was an earner immediately before 26 March 2001."

ACC. will require assessments from Specialists to prove the 'injury'.

You will need a higher Qualified specialist or a more recent report the 'injury'.

Has your injury deteriorated and do you have proof eg MRI, Xray, medical, diving , employment job.

third party reports may help .

IRD , income and medical records are very important. make sure you collect them and keep them as
no-one knows when this info. might help with ACC. , Insurance , etc..

Greg the ACC were in possession of the medical reports describing the original incapacity and ever-increasing incapacity. The information in their possession is in the form of special report to have relied upon MRI CT scans and suchlike. This is the reason why the ACC have refused to carry out calculations because my injuries are not stable, they continue to deteriorate. How then is the ACC able to say they can't fund additional assessments until my situation has stabilised while at the same time acknowledging that I am getting worse then tell the court that they have no information.

For goodness sake Greg I have just received an artificial wrist joint.
Last week and just over a month ago the neurologist confirmed that my brain injury was worse than they had previously diagnosed
my doctor thought that my chemical injury condition had turned into lymphnomia (Cancer) but instead found out after a biopsy that my lungs were failing for a different reason requiring urgent medical treatment to Reduce the progression of the condition.

The ACC have not only got the original report that they come to hand but they have also been provided with my consent to ask for all the information they want but they let not to read the reports or acknowledge their existence in their possession and refused to gather further information while the same time cancelling my consent and asking for a new one thus actively avoiding being in possession of information and misrepresenting what they do have to the courts.

Even the ACCs own toxicology panel wrote a letter to the ACC telling them that they need to fund additional toxicologist reports with the result that the ACC have done nothing.

Greg the ACC did not want to have any information that described the degree of incapacity because that will represent proof positive that they have committed perjury and will have to pay the outstanding ERC together with injury etc etc

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

Greg the ACC were in possession of the medical reports describing the original incapacity and ever-increasing incapacity. The information in their possession is in the form of special report to have relied upon MRI CT scans and suchlike. This is the reason why the ACC have refused to carry out calculations because my injuries are not stable, they continue to deteriorate. How then is the ACC able to say they can't fund additional assessments until my situation has stabilised while at the same time acknowledging that I am getting worse then tell the court that they have no information.

For goodness sake Greg I have just received an artificial wrist joint.
Last week and just over a month ago the neurologist confirmed that my brain injury was worse than they had previously diagnosed
my doctor thought that my chemical injury condition had turned into lymphnomia (Cancer) but instead found out after a biopsy that my lungs were failing for a different reason requiring urgent medical treatment to Reduce the progression of the condition.

The ACC have not only got the original report that they come to hand but they have also been provided with my consent to ask for all the information they want but they let not to read the reports or acknowledge their existence in their possession and refused to gather further information while the same time cancelling my consent and asking for a new one thus actively avoiding being in possession of information and misrepresenting what they do have to the courts.

Even the ACCs own toxicology panel wrote a letter to the ACC telling them that they need to fund additional toxicologist reports with the result that the ACC have done nothing.

Greg the ACC did not want to have any information that described the degree of incapacity because that will represent proof positive that they have committed perjury and will have to pay the outstanding ERC together with injury etc etc

You are not a Claimant

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 04 August 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

Like many other claimants whom have ventured into self employement , it become many others visions of them thinking because you were receiving erc and working you were not entitled to both As in they not understanding the whole picture. This it where it got interseting of then proving their innocence against allegations etc. I ventured myself entirely in another direction of my pre injury occ, so it made it less doubtful what you had in alliance of the previous occ. but it still had many legal issues associated with it, mainly in the fact of acc legislation and whom can interpret it .

Tommy I have been self-employed all of my life , Even while being an apprentice.

Even while injured I continue to own numerous companies that were managed for me.

You must remember that earnings compensation is in relation to earnings from your own hand and has nothing whatsoever to do with proper from companies!

In addition my medical certificates described a limited capacity of two hours per day in light duties it did not involve the work of my preinjury occupation. If I did work and restricted my work to the conditions of my medical certificate the ACC have no argument permissible under legislation. This means that if I carried out two hours worth of work in my own business that is none of ACCs business and all unless I generated earnings which could give them a discount on the ERC by way of abatement of earnings calculation.

Although the ACC were provided with detailed information by business partners in myself they failed to examine this information. They were even cheeky enough to tell the judge that I provided them with too much information and they did not have time to look at it. In no way can the judge be saying that I had not told the ACC because the ACC did not bother looking at what they were given. This is just ridiculous.


In regards to information describing actual work activities we must remember that the ACC staff are not permitted by legislation to interpret such information themselves as they are in the clerks administering the act. Legislation only permits the ACC to acquire information from qualified sources which in the case of interpreting the nature of work task activities and how they relate to preinjury occupation or any other criteria the ACC may consider they must get this information from such a qualified source. Judge Beattie confirmed that the ACC are not permitted to make "commonsense" decisions as legislation does not permit it at all.

Tommy it seems to me that a lot of people on this site are attempting to apply their own so-called "commonsense" based entirely upon their own perception of life and even their own perception of what the act says.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

You are not a Claimant

ACC recently confirmed and the reviewer agreed that I have 12 accepted claims for cover. The reviewer confirm that the ACC are required to assess all the information necessary to determine my entitlements.

Greg why would you imagine that I am not a claimant?

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 05:38 PM, said:

Tommy I have been self-employed all of my life , Even while being an apprentice.

Even while injured I continue to own numerous companies that were managed for me.

You must remember that earnings compensation is in relation to earnings from your own hand and has nothing whatsoever to do with proper from companies!

In addition my medical certificates described a limited capacity of two hours per day in light duties it did not involve the work of my preinjury occupation. If I did work and restricted my work to the conditions of my medical certificate the ACC have no argument permissible under legislation. This means that if I carried out two hours worth of work in my own business that is none of ACCs business and all unless I generated earnings which could give them a discount on the ERC by way of abatement of earnings calculation.

Although the ACC were provided with detailed information by business partners in myself they failed to examine this information. They were even cheeky enough to tell the judge that I provided them with too much information and they did not have time to look at it. In no way can the judge be saying that I had not told the ACC because the ACC did not bother looking at what they were given. This is just ridiculous.


In regards to information describing actual work activities we must remember that the ACC staff are not permitted by legislation to interpret such information themselves as they are in the clerks administering the act. Legislation only permits the ACC to acquire information from qualified sources which in the case of interpreting the nature of work task activities and how they relate to preinjury occupation or any other criteria the ACC may consider they must get this information from such a qualified source. Judge Beattie confirmed that the ACC are not permitted to make "commonsense" decisions as legislation does not permit it at all.

Tommy it seems to me that a lot of people on this site are attempting to apply their own so-called "commonsense" based entirely upon their own perception of life and even their own perception of what the act says.

You said you worked for 'Trigon' not self employed then or even during the toolmaker apprenticeship.
You are not a Claimant//

[tommy]

The one intersesting point of ownership of buisness companies etc was where it become abated in a true understanding of tax laws. ie if not done in true abatement could come back as a huge debt against the claimant , Such one case being a landlord and incomes received is classified as non exertive energies and qualifies for different tax equations against erc . i found out after many years , but worked in my favour not by my knowings originally as in the fact the accountants and many did not know themselves until it was raised many years on , and as i keep repeating the claimant becomes entrapped in a mine field later down the track , of not knowing what is legal or not.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

You said you worked for 'Trigon' not self employed then or even during the toolmaker apprenticeship.
You are not a Claimant//

self employed and employed at the same time.
Injuried at work while an earner!
Claim covered!

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 04 August 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

The one intersesting point of ownership of buisness companies etc was where it become abated in a true understanding of tax laws. ie if not done in true abatement could come back as a huge debt against the claimant , Such one case being a landlord and incomes received is classified as non exertive energies and qualifies for different tax equations against erc . i found out after many years , but worked in my favour not by my knowings originally as in the fact the accountants and many did not know themselves until it was raised many years on , and as i keep repeating the claimant becomes entrapped in a mine field later down the track , of not knowing what is legal or not.

Why don't ACC know this stuff?