[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

Obviously you are quite capable of 30 hours a week or more playing legal
doing your own submissions , which even the judge commented on that point.
This perfectly proves you are not incapacitated as per ACC law.

The evidence is that I restrict my activities to my treatment providers instructions which is two hours per day fragmented throughout the day. There is absolutely nothing to suggest I have breached my doctors advice. How on earth are you imagining something other than reality?

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Here is the Project manager work sheet from http://www.careers.g...r/about-the-job


What you will do

Project managers may do some or all of the following:
meet project goals on time and to the required standard
manage the project team to ensure group and individual performance criteria are met
maintain an accurate and up-to-date project plan
manage the project budget and resources
communicate with stakeholders and ensure project team members develop a relationship with stakeholders
ensure suppliers deliver the products and/or services requested
ensure that all project documentation is kept up to date
hire staff to work on projects.

Skills and knowledge

Project managers need to have:
knowledge of project management methodology
skill in developing, piloting and implementing new business processes
an understanding of the strategic direction, structure and issues affecting the organisation they work for
the ability to identify risks and issues that could affect the project, and put in place effective solutions.

Mr Thomas displays these skills on ACC forum.org for more than 30 hours a week on a regular basis.

It seems to me that if you have no qualifications to interpret what you have copied above is that you are completely and absolutely arrogant to assert that you know what this document means.

Are you talking about a project manager who project managers the construction of buildings, IT matters, the landing on the moon?

The issues go far deeper than just this rather loosely worded description. Each project management activity is highly specialised and unique to the activity and one project manager will have absolutely no clue how to perform as project manager in the context of a different type of project.

Gosh Greg you are arrogant sometimes.

[tommy]

Allan is not in a vocational rehab programme to date with corporation, so all is pending on future court outcomes of having entitlements restored as if in that does come in his favour of those liberties being as vocational , social etc, being implemented , to if one can return to preinjury occupation or then given opportunities thru the acc legislation of being given the vocationl assessments to determine if that is possible ? This is where this case has been very complex as in futuristic outcomes , as i see it >

[greg]

Mr Thomas ; had you stated 'Toolmaker' as your pre employment occupation on your C 14 form for your hernia,
I doubt any of this would have happened . Even under the 92 act, the test of W.&S. should be in you favour.

The work skills required for a 'toolmaker' "" 2 functioning hands "", which you do not have.

The work skills for a 'Project Manager" you constantly do on this forum.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 05 August 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

The evidence is that I restrict my activities to my treatment providers instructions which is two hours per day fragmented throughout the day. There is absolutely nothing to suggest I have breached my doctors advice. How on earth are you imagining something other than reality?

Mr Thomas; your first post was at 10am this morning . you are still posting at 8pm.
This is exceeding your claimed 2 hours only per day.

When the Police took away your computer to check , they would have known when
you talk and for how long you talk.

You constant display a capacity to be a 'Project Manager'. That is what ACC use .

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 05 August 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Allan is not in a vocational rehab programme to date with corporation, so all is pending on future court outcomes of having entitlements restored as if in that does come in his favour of those liberties being as vocational , social etc, being implemented , to if one can return to preinjury occupation or then given opportunities thru the acc legislation of being given the vocationl assessments to determine if that is possible ? This is where this case has been very complex as in futuristic outcomes , as i see it >

Tommy my claim in relation to my elbows and wrist injury is under the 1982 legislation and therefore technically speaking is not entitled to a vocational rehabilitation plan/program. However in 1995 the ACC gave an ultimatum to participate in a vocational rehabilitation program to return me to the workplace in a new occupation while at the same time continuing to achieve medical rehabilitation to return me to my preinjury occupation. In other words the ACC wanted to benefit from both s 37 and s51 of the ACC act at the exact same time which of course is not permitted under the 1992 act as the medical remedies must be exhausted prior to rehabilitation into a new occupation.

The effect of the 1982 legislation required ACC to fund rehabilitation by way of medical treatment only and as the binding effects of the review hearing decisions under the 1982 act remained in force there is no possibility that the ACC were allowed to initiate the vocational rehabilitation program into a new occupation. I do not want to be rehabilitation into a new occupation.

However legislation does require the ACC to actively participate in the management of my rehabilitation and that has been confirmed by way of medical rehabilitation. As for the other entitlements to social rehabilitation the ACC have not done one single thing except provide me with various home help at various times up to 7 hours per week.

Tommy it is rather silly to embark upon rationale or reasonings in a hypothetical sense regarding matters that has no bearing resemblance to the requirements of legislation.

[greg]

Mr Thomas ;; "return me to my pre injury occupation." that being a "project Manager".as per judgement.?

you have stated the pre injury occupation was 'Engineer".
Why did you allow ACC to change this.?

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

Mr Thomas ; had you stated 'Toolmaker' as your pre employment occupation on your C 14 form for your hernia,
I doubt any of this would have happened . Even under the 92 act, the test of W.&S. should be in you favour.

The work skills required for a 'toolmaker' "" 2 functioning hands "", which you do not have.

The work skills for a 'Project Manager" you constantly do on this forum.

Greg I have not been exclusively toolmaker since I've been an apprentice. Notwithstanding that I still engaged in toolmaking type activities relying upon those basic skill sets. When assembling and commissioning a special purpose processing type machine those activities would be pretty well identical to my trade type origins. However when I suffered from a hernia I actually had a suit and tie on and was called in to the workshop area because they wanted to move my machine while some other arrangement had to be made with some other gear nothing to do with me. An ACC claimant That was given to me as one of my staff who had damaged legs should never have been of the workshop floor. No one had told me that he was on a rehabilitation program under my care. When I assigned about six guys the various tasks when moving this machine the guy with the damaged legs could not manage the task that I assigned them which means the machine started to topple over causing me to rush to the rescue to save his life and perhaps serious injuries to others. The huge drain that I boar not only caused a hernia but also that it might have which is now slightly out of line. The podiatrist recently told me that I'm not walking properly. It is giving me more discomfort as the years rolled by. Injuries of this type are quite commonplace in my work environment and within my personal experiences in regular work they situations throughout my entire work life write until I was injured.

When I went to the ACC office to submit my original claim I asked the question about the occupation as my situation was little bit more complex than perhaps most people. The ACC told me I was not allowed to place all of the work task activities or the variety of different job title fight possessed but had to choose one only. I placed in my forms in general Design Engineer/Project Manager. Even project managers get involved with the guys manipulating various objects in doing stuff. Design engineers invariably have to show people how things are assembled which also means being on the tools as it were

The specialist occupational assessor that provides the tuition to the ACC occupational assessors at the University produce a report confirming all the types of task activities at how they related to the various occupational titles and vice versa.

[tommy]

That is an intelligent reply to my previuos posting allan , but also whom will finally address those issues in to an outcome of your future directions that may be suitable to youself, as we know you are going thru court proceedings to establish that result ?

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

Mr Thomas; your first post was at 10am this morning . you are still posting at 8pm.
This is exceeding your claimed 2 hours only per day.

When the Police took away your computer to check , they would have known when
you talk and for how long you talk.

You constant display a capacity to be a 'Project Manager'. That is what ACC use .

Greg you do not seem to be reading what I am writing. Unable to perform two hours per day "fragmented" throughout the day. The total time I've spent typing to the site today would have been something in the order of 30 min perhaps less. Added to that talking to my computer has nothing whatsoever to do with my preinjury occupation and neither does require the use of any disabled part of my body. Right now all that I am doing waggling my time in the breeze and moving my lips. Breathing in and out the something I would have done anyway. I do not even have to think about what I'm writing because I already know the subject matter so well.

As to computer monitoring as to computer usage it is a little bit difficult to tell because voice software is not an interactive device such as a keyboard which will show up. All you could see is how long a document was open for which in my case the computer is running 24 hours per day frequently with the document even open 24 hours a day.

However the 24-hour a day seven days per week witness who was my beloved. The ACC took it upon themselves to ask immigration not to grant her residency to force her out of the country. I obtained a subpoena from the court to direct the immigration to bring her back. The ACC again went to the immigration services and arranged for her to be deported which they did as he was banned for five years thus preventing it from giving evidence that both criminal and civil hearings. Now why the ACC and the private investigators go to so much trouble to remove evidence from the gaze of the court?

I have not demonstrated one single aspect of project management within the forum in particular not the type of project management I was doing. Why do you say "that is what ACC use".?

[greg]

I had my occupation changed as well as the read codes for my injury by ACC.
My Advocate asked questions as to who had the Qualifications within ACC to do this .
Silence , then the local ACC Manager was summoned who chose not to be helpful.
A single phone call to the local MP. secretary, all problems solved and correct info then placed on IRP and ARC 18 .
When this happened my memory fails , but I can't have been the only one this was done to?.

Have you , Alan any documents with 'Toolmaker' listed as pre-injury occupation?.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 08:18 PM, said:

Mr Thomas ;; "return me to my pre injury occupation." that being a "project Manager".as per judgement.?

you have stated the pre injury occupation was 'Engineer".
Why did you allow ACC to change this.?

I have never allowed ACC to do anything.
In fact fabricating evidence is a crime.

What ACC are attempting to do is divide and conquer. What they would like to do is focus attention on one single aspect and rehabilitate back to that one single thing.

Judge Barber being frustrated with the complexities well beyond his capacity reason that if I could use a mouse I could return to my preinjury occupation and because I owned a computer he thought that I could use a mouse without any thought to the reality that computer programs are used as it the cancellation of my claim did not require the use of a mouse such as "WordStar" and Lotus".

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 05 August 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

That is an intelligent reply to my previuos posting allan , but also whom will finally address those issues in to an outcome of your future directions that may be suitable to youself, as we know you are going thru court proceedings to establish that result ?

Legislation requires that the ACC carry out comparative assessments with the preinjury occupation in conjunction with specialist information describing the safety of those preinjury work task activities as performed the preinjury occupation for the purposes of earning in order that they determine II no longer incapacitated. As the ACC have never done this and judge Barber is not allowed to do it I sought an appeal on the matter of law concerning this matter and was knocked back right up to the Court of Appeal level with the appellate courts not granting access to appeal point of law.

This leaves both the criminal court and judicial review still open to me as we have falsification of information for a pecuniary advantage as the crime and judicial review regarding criteria by which both the ACC and courts are permitted to operate within. Judge Barber thought that I was going to put on judicial review in a combo jubilation with the appeal on the points of law but the legal advice was to exhaust the remedy through the ACC legislated process first while at the same time providing the ACC individual staff members an opportunity to do the whole that they have dug even deeper which they have graciously done and I thank them for that because proving criminal behaviour is now fairly well confirmed to have taken place with elements of collusion.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 05 August 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

Legislation requires that the ACC carry out comparative assessments with the preinjury occupation in conjunction with specialist information describing the safety of those preinjury work task activities as performed the preinjury occupation for the purposes of earning in order that they determine II no longer incapacitated. As the ACC have never done this and judge Barber is not allowed to do it I sought an appeal on the matter of law concerning this matter and was knocked back right up to the Court of Appeal level with the appellate courts not granting access to appeal point of law.

This leaves both the criminal court and judicial review still open to me as we have falsification of information for a pecuniary advantage as the crime and judicial review regarding criteria by which both the ACC and courts are permitted to operate within. Judge Barber thought that I was going to put on judicial review in a combo jubilation with the appeal on the points of law but the legal advice was to exhaust the remedy through the ACC legislated process first while at the same time providing the ACC individual staff members an opportunity to do the whole that they have dug even deeper which they have graciously done and I thank them for that because proving criminal behaviour is now fairly well confirmed to have taken place with elements of collusion.

I don't believe you are right. You constantly achieve the ACC version of the Work skills for a Project Manager
by posting on this forum. You do not display the work skills of a toolmaker as you need a voice program due to hand damage.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

I had my occupation changed as well as the read codes for my injury by ACC.
My Advocate asked questions as to who had the Qualifications within ACC to do this .
Silence , then the local ACC Manager was summoned who chose not to be helpful.
A single phone call to the local MP. secretary, all problems solved and correct info then placed on IRP and ARC 18 .
When this happened my memory fails , but I can't have been the only one this was done to?.

Have you , Alan any documents with 'Toolmaker' listed as pre-injury occupation?.

Greg medical read codes are not a legal mechanism either but rather umbrella type terminology to create a tick box like situation as part of the process to deviate from legislated criteria to take into account all the relevant information.

ACC are not permitted to determine the matters of fact with them the Corporation itself but rather must seek independent information from qualified independent sources. They make contract of these independent sources of course we tend to see them with the term occupational and medical assessors and suchlike but the ACC take the view that private investigators are suitably qualified independent assessors and make decisions based on these people is qualified assessors and withhold such information from your file under the privacy act claiming that is not in the public interest to disclose the investigation of crime. What happens is more than 50% of all claims undergo some form of private investigation from which information is gathered and placed within a secondary file that you will never have access to the seems to be shown to all and sundry such as your neighbours Doctor and even review hearing officers without your knowledge.

It seems that you have experienced this code of silence, which is the same as what happened in my case despite the ACC complaints officer advising the ACC that they could not proceed with a review hearing that they wanted to withhold information at the same time. They then went on to withhold this information in both civil and criminal courts along with a very large number (thousands) of documents seized by search warrant of which still remains in their possession not return to make. And you think huggy has a problem.
In my case it seems that numerous MPs that I have addressed have been prewarned by the ACC. This is also been confirmed by two recorded telephone conversations I had with the Ministerial Unit Manager of ACC who Y court lying about what information existed and had been passed on with the result that he made it telephone confession. This convention went to the regional manager who tried to remedy this problem with the result that I initiated criminal prosecutions against him was necessitated as attendances at the court to enter his plea. I did not get any further as the judge did not want to proceed with a criminal trial on the basis that he did not want to open up the floodgates situation. Obviously the judge was well aware of what has and continues to be going on. The judge said is making this decision in full knowledge that I would probably be putting on judicial review. Obviously I'm going to. It is for this reason that the ACC have placed on my file that I am threatening. It's just that originally on my file they put threatening litigation with the word litigation being mysteriously removed while they Spent a lot of money trying to find somebody willing to invent a story like Douglas weal provided concerning blowing up the offices that were managing his fraud investigation.

The ACC have been told and continually reminded of all of the occupational activities I have been involved in an all the titles qualifications and suchlike as well. In addition this information has been provided and evident to evidence in review hearings and district court appeals. I received my toolmaking qualifying certificate in my second year of the apprenticeship. I have probably about 10 or 15 years worth of other tools toolmaking experience despite the fact that I started my first engineering business when I was 22 and by the age of 25 had three businesses, a machine building company, a plastics company and an electronic assembly company. I received my first substantial injury while on the tools adjusting a chemical mixing machine which was followed by continual exposure with the result that I have to accepted claims in relation to that first injury, one for an accident event injury involving the chemistry with another of a gradual process injury of which causes incapacity of such significance that I cannot return to work in any capacity other than the restricted capacity described by my treatment provider. I am currently undergoing treatment with the hospital with CT scans as often as every three months and other times only once per year and medication as and when needed depending on the flareups. The primary difficulty in that injury is the chronic fatigue syndrome, lymph node, skin and lung granulomas which is another way of saying the tissue is turning into giant cells.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 05 August 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

I have never allowed ACC to do anything.
In fact fabricating evidence is a crime.

What ACC are attempting to do is divide and conquer. What they would like to do is focus attention on one single aspect and rehabilitate back to that one single thing.

Judge Barber being frustrated with the complexities well beyond his capacity reason that if I could use a mouse I could return to my preinjury occupation and because I owned a computer he thought that I could use a mouse without any thought to the reality that computer programs are used as it the cancellation of my claim did not require the use of a mouse such as "WordStar" and Lotus".

Who changed your 'pre injury occupation' in ACC documentation supplied to the courts.?

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

I don't believe you are right. You constantly achieve the ACC version of the Work skills for a Project Manager
by posting on this forum. You do not display the work skills of a toolmaker as you need a voice program due to hand damage.

Greg what knowledge you have of what it takes to be a Project Manager in the context of what I was actually doing under that title? All that you have done is look at the generic term which is of very little relevance to anything. For example in the context of project managing the construction of a machine how would you apply the standard classification of occupations job title to what I was actually doing as a project manager involved with the construction of machines? A you for example suggesting that I could do their job without driving a car? Are you suggesting that the project manager does not need to draw sketches or make notes by hand routinely throughout the day? Are you suggesting that a project manager does not need to go to look at various devices and physically manipulate those devices to see if they are suitable for the purpose in accordance with the design which most certainly requires a high level of manual dexterity with both hands both heavy and light works type activity ranging from the heavy steel items through to tidy we little devices that you almost need a magnifying glass to look at which require manual manipulation.

As far as project management of the site it might very well be that I project managed existence of the site by arranging the various people with the right experience and expertise to be in place and ensure that The right type of content and arrangements for the content with appropriate categories and suchlike was orchestrated. You only need to talk to one of admin to confirm the nature of my involvement. Apart from your frustration or project management of the site I can confirm that I did absolutely nothing and from that they forward I still have not done anything except be an ordinary member. My Projectmanagement Of the site, if you like to call it that, would total up only a few hours. Primarily I said yes this is the way it can be done and this is what should be done and who can do it then contacted the various parties to get them involved was involved me calling in a few favours goodwill and suchlike. One of the other admin did the heavy work such as producing titles, installing information, loading the site with case law and generally making the site what we really see today with the other expert providing his high level technical expertise to bring it into reality functional robustness

Greg I think it's time that you acknowledge that I have been hard done by and that the ACC are grossly incompetent with no ability whatsoever to even know which way is up.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

Who changed your 'pre injury occupation' in ACC documentation supplied to the courts.?

I think those who personally manipulated documentation should await the day of the big surprise by way of a knock on their door from the person with a piece of paper in their hand which invite them to a party. Obviously the piece of paper will compel their attendance. Of course the signatory to the cancellation of claim decision, Nicole Rosie, will not be left out as she has already received one of these invitations to another party which he resisted coming but ultimately had to for fear of arrest.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 05 August 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

Greg what knowledge you have of what it takes to be a Project Manager in the context of what I was actually doing under that title? All that you have done is look at the generic term which is of very little relevance to anything. For example in the context of project managing the construction of a machine how would you apply the standard classification of occupations job title to what I was actually doing as a project manager involved with the construction of machines? A you for example suggesting that I could do their job without driving a car? Are you suggesting that the project manager does not need to draw sketches or make notes by hand routinely throughout the day? Are you suggesting that a project manager does not need to go to look at various devices and physically manipulate those devices to see if they are suitable for the purpose in accordance with the design which most certainly requires a high level of manual dexterity with both hands both heavy and light works type activity ranging from the heavy steel items through to tidy we little devices that you almost need a magnifying glass to look at which require manual manipulation.

As far as project management of the site it might very well be that I project managed existence of the site by arranging the various people with the right experience and expertise to be in place and ensure that The right type of content and arrangements for the content with appropriate categories and suchlike was orchestrated. You only need to talk to one of admin to confirm the nature of my involvement. Apart from your frustration or project management of the site I can confirm that I did absolutely nothing and from that they forward I still have not done anything except be an ordinary member. My Projectmanagement Of the site, if you like to call it that, would total up only a few hours. Primarily I said yes this is the way it can be done and this is what should be done and who can do it then contacted the various parties to get them involved was involved me calling in a few favours goodwill and suchlike. One of the other admin did the heavy work such as producing titles, installing information, loading the site with case law and generally making the site what we really see today with the other expert providing his high level technical expertise to bring it into reality functional robustness

Greg I think it's time that you acknowledge that I have been hard done by and that the ACC are grossly incompetent with no ability whatsoever to even know which way is up.

Why , I believe you are in this position is because you have chosen this path of conflict
and argument, 'because I am right and they are wrong'.
Had you chosen a common sense path and been honest at the start with ACC. you would not
have the court results , they you have achieved .
Many Claimants still have ERC. because of some decisions, usually not made by them ,
but have kept the ERC. today.
Abusing claimants as many do on this site , then we find out they have not followed the
more experienced advice by others , have lost big time.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 05 August 2014 - 09:24 PM, said:

I think those who personally manipulated documentation should await the day of the big surprise by way of a knock on their door from the person with a piece of paper in their hand which invite them to a party. Obviously the piece of paper will compel their attendance. Of course the signatory to the cancellation of claim decision, Nicole Rosie, will not be left out as she has already received one of these invitations to another party which he resisted coming but ultimately had to for fear of arrest.

As usual Mr Thomas has no information as to why , they or who has changed his 'pre injury occupation'
or will never be prepared to admit it.
Hopefully now , he will check some documents and find when the ACC documents changed and the time factor , then he
might be getting closer to getting a fair result from ACC.

This also goes for all Ex claimants who ACC have successfully/not legally removed from their books.
.