[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

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

Not according ACC records . Not employed . as per judgements

you are not a claimant.

[tommy]

An ex erc claimant with court proceedings in place to date , deciding to outcomes , i interpret greg ?

[greg]

tommy, on 04 August 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

An ex erc claimant with court proceedings in place to date , deciding to outcomes , i interpret greg ?

You cant use ACC. income records in NZ. unless IRD supplies this info.
I don't write the rules but must comply to remain a Claimant.

[David Butler]

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

You are not a Claimant

AND THIS IS WHY.
Read Thomas is Leading you all up the Koala's Gum Tree



.  1999 decision Part 1.pdf (1.31MB)
Number of downloads: 8
.  1999 decision Part 2.pdf (1.34MB)
Number of downloads: 9

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

Not according ACC records . Not employed . as per judgements

you are not a claimant.

Greg only the foolish can buy into the ACC notion that at the exact same time they claim I was working so they could prosecute from fraud could they then later convince another court that I was not working while at the same time trying to uphold its decision that they have cancelled my claim yet another courts acknowledged that my claims were still valid.

Revisit classical case of the ACC being a bureaucracy gone mad wwhereby one hand does not know what the other is doing.

Obviously will not be aware that the ACC fraud unit cancelled claims based on their own personal interpretation of legislation with information not known to the case manager who make decisions on an entirely different basis who issues decision without the knowledge of fraud unit and vice versa.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

You cant use ACC. income records in NZ. unless IRD supplies this info.
I don't write the rules but must comply to remain a Claimant.

Information possessed by IRD may only be used by the ACC as a guide and provisional decisions of our the reason that the IRD does not collect all earnings information necessary for ACC determinations of earnings compensation.

Just read the ACC legislation and the judgements on this matter and you understand. Obviously you are going to listen to me.

[greg]

David Butler, on 04 August 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

AND THIS IS WHY.
Read Thomas is Leading you all up the Koala's Gum Tree



. 1999 decision Part 1.pdf
. 1999 decision Part 2.pdf

Look like we have lost both a friend .

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

Information possessed by IRD may only be used by the ACC as a guide and provisional decisions of our the reason that the IRD does not collect all earnings information necessary for ACC determinations of earnings compensation.

Just read the ACC legislation and the judgements on this matter and you understand. Obviously you are going to listen to me.

You lose again... You are not a claimant.

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 04 August 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

AND THIS IS WHY.
Read Thomas is Leading you all up the Koala's Gum Tree



. 1999 decision Part 1.pdf
. 1999 decision Part 2.pdf

David possible you are not aware that the ACC have rescinded their original decision to the extent that the information provided to the criminal court is now irrelevant.

Judge Barber made a decision that the ACC understanding of s73 (1) was wrong and Could not have relied upon a capacity to work in a new occupation under s51, as described in the criminal court but rather needed to have a determination of incapacity under s37A.

As the ACC had not produced the regulations relating to s51 it could not have made a decision under that section as portrayed to the reviewer and criminal court.
Judge Barber then concluded that the ACC at best could only have made a decision under s37A and that as ACC were unable to present any information describing the preinjury occupation he permitted the ACC to go and find out what they thought I was doing before I was injured from which judge Barber then made a retrospective decision concerning the end of incapacity as if they have the legal authority to do so. Obviously as judge Barber was neither medically qualified and did not receive any information regarding my pre-injury occupation or a single work task activity from which to determine as to what might be relevant there was no possibility he could himself make a decision under s37A.

The legal community is outraged and have held judge Barber up to ridicule.

[David Butler]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

You cant use ACC. income records in NZ. unless IRD supplies this info.
I don't write the rules but must comply to remain a Claimant.

Greg
Thomas is a drip head
hasnt a bloody clue and wordsmiths MISLEADS ALL AND SUNDRY ,his way round and round in a maze of bollocks about everything else BUT OMITS that he MISLEAD THE CORPORATION, to stop anyone realizing what is in Part 1 AND part 2 of the above pdf files
He was up for MISLEADING ACC WITH INTENT,As he does in here daily-seems he NEVER LEARNS A TH\ING

They will fix his broken bits but he mislead re the erc part and he is declinatured from that,



dave

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

David possible you are not aware that the ACC have rescinded their original decision to the extent that the information provided to the criminal court is now irrelevant.

J

The legal community is outraged and have held judge Barber up to ridicule.

YOU CAN PUBLISH THAT '' RESCINDING '' VIA DOCUMENTATION OF THE ACC TO PROVE YOUR NOT TELLING LIES Thomas


So according to you then and the outraged legal fraternity
DOES THAT Include your PRETEND LAWYER AS WELL Does he pretend to be outrage

So NOW your now been UN-CONVICTED with that Rescinding Thomas

The information ACC GAVE /provided clearly showed YOU MISLEAD THEM
Cant have been anything else when ya asked for money to run up companies doing all sorts
BUT YA HAD THEM GOING ALREADY
Who cares what ya earnt or lost
YA BULLSHITTED THE CASE MANAGEMENT TEAM
AND THEY CAUGHT YOU OUT
Dave

[RedFox]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

As I continued to deteriorate ACC made a decision not to calculate the s78 entitlements because of their words I have not stabilised. After receiving the wrong surgery to the wrong part of my body I deteriorated in the following year when I tried to find out what the surgeon had done wrong the medical procedure carrying out that examination caused me to have a stroke. The medical profession continue to describe a steadily increasing incapacity over the years which further substantially increased when I was prescribed very strong pain medication.

I think you'll find that the ACC is required to carry out an assessment after six months of the claim and then continue to reassess the degree of incapacity as and when necessary in order to track changing incapacity so as to adjust their liability upward or downward. By not calculating degree of incapacity as and when necessary the ACC has effectively stolen my entitlements under this section.

The 60% is what it is and the expert reviewers, two of them, confirmed this figure. This figure remains binding until the present.

Well why haven't you applied for the independence allowance? You are allowed to apply annually if you believe your condition has worsened since your accident

[greg]

David Butler, on 04 August 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

YOU CAN PUBLISH THAT '' RESCINDING '' VIA DOCUMENTATION OF THE ACC TO PROVE YOUR NOT TELLING LIES Thomas


So according to you then and the outraged legal fraternity
DOES THAT Include your PRETEND LAWYER AS WELL Does he pretend to be outrage

So NOW your now been UN-CONVICTED with that Rescinding Thomas

The information ACC GAVE /provided clearly showed YOU MISLEAD THEM
Cant have been anything else when ya asked for money to run up companies doing all sorts
BUT YA HAD THEM GOING ALREADY
Who cares what ya earnt or lost
YA BULLSHITTED THE CASE MANAGEMENT TEAM
AND THEY CAUGHT YOU OUT
Dave

Simple you are not a claimant.

[tommy]

Time, monies ,energies, and many other descriptives could be applied to having energies towards in claiming entitlements you believe are yours as an acc claimamt or ex claimant Al\so the very small minority whom are left trying to get rightful l entitlements back reinstated for various reasons has become personal left overs as what as i think the corp looks at it, and whom as assessors lawyers are the more to gain financially longterm.In saying that the amounts of monies in the corps are so plentifull it does not matter to them it they win or lose May be i have a philosphical view , but does it really matter ?

[RedFox]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

The legal community is outraged and have held judge Barber up to ridicule.

Where?

From what I can see your many appeals against Judge Barbers decision have all failed.

[Alan Thomas]

RedFox, on 04 August 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

Well why haven't you applied for the independence allowance? You are allowed to apply annually if you believe your condition has worsened since your accident

I have one meaning review hearings was required the ACC to carry out the independence allowance assessment.

The ACC as per usual disregard the directions of the reviewers.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

Simple you are not a claimant.

ACC have acknowledged and reviewers have confirmed in the district court has confirmed and the High Court has confirmed and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that I have multiple accepted claims for cover.

The problem is that the ACC have taken the matter no further in as much as they refuse to calculate entitlements and refused to pay for such things as pain medication or surgery as directed by the reviewers.

Greg perhaps you can imagine a reason why the ACC are refusing to comply with the reviewers decisions.

[greg]

RedFox, on 04 August 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

Well why haven't you applied for the independence allowance? You are allowed to apply annually if you believe your condition has worsened since your accident

there seems to be nothing to support such an ACC claim apart from his own world.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

ACC have acknowledged and reviewers have confirmed in the district court has confirmed and the High Court has confirmed and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that I have multiple accepted claims for cover.

The problem is that the ACC have taken the matter no further in as much as they refuse to calculate entitlements and refused to pay for such things as pain medication or surgery as directed by the reviewers.

Greg perhaps you can imagine a reason why the ACC are refusing to comply with the reviewers decisions.

You are not a claimant 7.44pm

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 04 August 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Time, monies ,energies, and many other descriptives could be applied to having energies towards in claiming entitlements you believe are yours as an acc claimamt or ex claimant Al\so the very small minority whom are left trying to get rightful l entitlements back reinstated for various reasons has become personal left overs as what as i think the corp looks at it, and whom as assessors lawyers are the more to gain financially longterm.In saying that the amounts of monies in the corps are so plentifull it does not matter to them it they win or lose May be i have a philosphical view , but does it really matter ?

Tommy

Everything in the above sentence is irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is how the legislation is required to be applied to someone who has an accident and that injured and incapacitated who are need of surgery and have entitlement to compensation.

The ACC legislation was set up to avoid private insurance companies evading their liabilities by legal jiggery-pokery and bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.

The originators of the ACC scheme envisaged that the government servants would adopt a process of simply accepting the reality of the professional information from experts such as medical professionals and process the entitlements.

Tommy what you think has gone wrong?