[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 09:37 PM, said:

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 I think you will find that the origins of the conflict come from the ACC. I have always been fully cooperative and done exactly what ACC had told me as well as providing them additional information that the legislation requires even though the ACC did not particularly want that information. The problem is that the ACC are not accustomed to very many self-employed person or maybe they even choose to ignore that reality. It is not my problem that the ACC had a nationwide policy of employing incompetent people. This is confirmed by their own admission in court under oath to the extent that they received no formal training in case management and don't even come from apparently qualified background. You will find a disproportionately high number of case managers that have degrees in psychology or a schoolteachers or example such as that.

The courts have determined that "commonsense" has no place within the ACC legislation as the legislation requires criteria To be fulfilled based on independent qualified information. The ACC have struggled very hard keep the concept of criteria And precise qualified information out of the ACC process.

Your suggestion that we should be complacently accepting of the status quo Can only ultimately result in a spiralling down of entitlements until the ACC scheme collapses completely. The scheme is only as good as those who monitor the quality control of and in the absence of the ACC qualifying and qualifying their own staff mean that we the end user must do it for them by way of judicial force.It is the proper thing to do.

Right from the start of my claim the ACC only offered me approximately half ERC that they were required by law to pay. They failed to participate in any aspect of my rehabilitation and in particular surgery. This was at a stage when I was in highly placed on and capitulated to everything.Those who promote negotiated settlement at boiling things for the rest of us as it is only a free ticket for the ACC to secure discounts of their liability.


The mature elders of the site promote compliance with legislation and integrity of information. Greg I cannot understand how you are promoting something less than that.

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 05 August 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:

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.
.

Greg there exists a paper trial as to who had tampered with the information on my file. Some of the references are A little obscure and I do not want to know because that information will certainly be removed from my file along with other information.

As for my preinjury occupation and work task activities it is a matter of historical fact imported by an abundance of proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence.r

[David Butler]

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

A reminder of what Thomas DID to LOSE thus be DECLINATURE'D of his ERC entitlements.
Original pdf posts within posting number #11030 page 522 of this thread.

Once he was done for that and had the ability to work then hes out the door for any erc as he's NOT ENTITLED TO ANY. and WAS NOT INCAPACITATED TO RECIVE ANY ERC entitlements
t=Thats what why he lost the fraud case-NOT FULLY UNFIT as he MISLEAD ACC and said he was.
HE FAILED TO FULFIL HIS ''LEGAL'' OBLIGATIONS under the Act -Thomas mislead acc LIED TO THEM.
Read the judges summing up as its all there as opposed to what Thomas is trying to lay on all and sundry out here
He has NO RIGHT to use this forum as a tool to promote radicalism
WHEN HE EVER which Be never ,wins a case as case law then come back and tell us thomas as until then your leading new members astray with Your Radicalism YOU promote to attempt to beat the system.
You lost the acc ones then you lost the bomb plot
I for one would love to debate the Good ship Hector with you in detail as YOUVE NEVER SUPPLIED ANYTHING RE THAT according to the ACC and the Judges summary .ACC SUSPECTED , AS THEY SAID about that bollocks,You grounded a 40 ft yacht in a big storm and quietly single handedly as the Captain,WITH a damaged wrist AND A HERNIA [That you already had] then sailed off again the next morning-How did a big yacht grounded upright itself Thomas with Only you to do it.
NO High Spring Tides back then mate.
Just bugger off AND STOP TELLING LIES IN HERE.

Dave

[greg]

Mr Thomas ; there is an article about Dot Com and Government employees possible
accountabilities for wrong actions. May help some with ACC wrong action.

http://www.lawfuel.c...e-of-kim-dotcom

[tommy]

Trying to monitor claimants activities without supposeds trying to suggest their activities , could come under discussion of great interest , which has repeatedly been discussed before. , The point i am trying to bring forewith , is do you put an ankle bracelet on a claimant , to monitor their activities , a hypothetical question ?

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 06 August 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Mr Thomas ; there is an article about Dot Com and Government employees possible
accountabilities for wrong actions. May help some with ACC wrong action.

http://www.lawfuel.c...e-of-kim-dotcom

Greg there are various avenues to pursue which include of course the ACC act itself, civil proceedings as you have described in more along with criminal prosecutions of the individual staff members who have misrepresented legislation and documentation to the court. For example to achieve a criminal prosecution on the basis that I was working without any information to support that delegation and then to rely upon the same non-existent information to cancel my entire claim, including surgery in pain medication et cetera, is a very very serious criminal offence which will certainly achieve conviction and the period of incarceration at the least what I received.As to the falsification of documentation is involving fraudulent misrepresentation about my earnings compensation we are talking of a seven figure sum that does not have a one in front of it which the period incarceration would be somewhere between three and five years with the maximum being seven years.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 06 August 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

Greg there are various avenues to pursue which include of course the ACC act itself, civil proceedings as you have described in more along with criminal prosecutions of the individual staff members who have misrepresented legislation and documentation to the court. For example to achieve a criminal prosecution on the basis that I was working without any information to support that delegation and then to rely upon the same non-existent information to cancel my entire claim, including surgery in pain medication et cetera, is a very very serious criminal offence which will certainly achieve conviction and the period of incarceration at the least what I received.As to the falsification of documentation is involving fraudulent misrepresentation about my earnings compensation we are talking of a seven figure sum that does not have a one in front of it which the period incarceration would be somewhere between three and five years with the maximum being seven years.

When the Dot Com case is done and dusted , some Government workers may be having a lifestyle change.

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 06 August 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

Trying to monitor claimants activities without supposeds trying to suggest their activities , could come under discussion of great interest , which has repeatedly been discussed before. , The point i am trying to bring forewith , is do you put an ankle bracelet on a claimant , to monitor their activities , a hypothetical question ?

There was no possibility for the ACC to have entitlement to monitor a claimant activities. The practice would be illegal.

However the use of the things they are actually doing and spending more money on than medical rehabilitation

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 06 August 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

There was no possibility for the ACC to have entitlement to monitor a claimant activities. The practice would be illegal.

However the use of the things they are actually doing and spending more money on than medical rehabilitation

ACC used work trials to do exactly this 'to monitor a claimant activities' and report..

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 06 August 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

ACC used work trials to do exactly this 'to monitor a claimant activities' and report..

Who is doing the monotoring?

An unquolified member of the public?
A PI?
A doctor?
Someone from NZQA?
Someone who is qualified to understand and measure the results of the work task activities?

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 05 August 2014 - 10:55 PM, said:

Greg I think you will find that the origins of the conflict come from the ACC. I have always been fully cooperative and done exactly what ACC had told me as well as providing them additional information that the legislation requires even though the ACC did not particularly want that information. The problem is that the ACC are not accustomed to very many self-employed person or maybe they even choose to ignore that reality. It is not my problem that the ACC had a nationwide policy of employing incompetent people. This is confirmed by their own admission in court under oath to the extent that they received no formal training in case management and don't even come from apparently qualified background. You will find a disproportionately high number of case managers that have degrees in psychology or a schoolteachers or example such as that.

The courts have determined that "commonsense" has no place within the ACC legislation as the legislation requires criteria To be fulfilled based on independent qualified information. The ACC have struggled very hard keep the concept of criteria And precise qualified information out of the ACC process.

Your suggestion that we should be complacently accepting of the status quo Can only ultimately result in a spiralling down of entitlements until the ACC scheme collapses completely. The scheme is only as good as those who monitor the quality control of and in the absence of the ACC qualifying and qualifying their own staff mean that we the end user must do it for them by way of judicial force.It is the proper thing to do.

Right from the start of my claim the ACC only offered me approximately half ERC that they were required by law to pay. They failed to participate in any aspect of my rehabilitation and in particular surgery. This was at a stage when I was in highly placed on and capitulated to everything.Those who promote negotiated settlement at boiling things for the rest of us as it is only a free ticket for the ACC to secure discounts of their liability.


The mature elders of the site promote compliance with legislation and integrity of information. Greg I cannot understand how you are promoting something less than that.

"No commonsence in the legislation ACC"?? Read my ITE (Independence for transportation entitlement). Judge Barker says quite clearly : 'commonsence is the key to his decision' in that case. So if you think commonsence should be used as I did to protect me from a mish mash machanical job being down on my car, that would take away my safely operating it. (This is off the top of my head) or any other manner in which commonsence needs to be taken into consideration. Use it as caselaw that it can be done.

Case law of others, even those who have lost is sometimes important as it gives the facts from the Judges as to what is supposed to be done. For instance Mr Thomas, had you used the two caselaw that clearly state what needs to be done to measure someones incapacity/capacity for work etc., you would have used the same cases I did, before you had to ask the precise questions you did in the case you paid for a lawyer and lost, even though the very exact answer to one of your questions was exactly what these previous to case law had gone into more detail about. (one being a loss and one being a win - they were were and are still invaluable.) when it came to showing other legal and the Judges that s 51, 37 &37a &37B should be used to measure capacity/incapacity. And your case added to that list to show that the H/c said sec 73a was an obligatory consideration which ACC must have.

Pretty strong words those, the same as mandatory I blieve which are mentioned in the other previous two caselaw which sit nicely beside your own case.

Should anyone else need to get entitlements from this ACC they may need this exact information to do it.

Then to top that off they have 1992 Act era internal directions as to how the definiton of Criteria is to be determined by the CM such as the one that said 'No' to me, but in fact was supposed to have taken the correct sections and internal Criteria into consideration before saying anything, and she didnt do that.

So why am I still without my 'interest' entitlement?????

Mini

[tommy]

In my personal case allan after numerous years of being allowed to enter a self employement rehab programme, which i was given a years erc then i was on my own devices, and of the corporation disappearing. In saying that the self employement was not done in accordance with legislation, so their became a large amount of arrears owing, but i will not go into that side of it. T he corporation then in my case made you try to sway you away from the self employement , which i did and entered the vocationl rehab programme of the corporations To date i have had eight vocational assessments , had two work trials , and both were monitored thru an occupational therapist , That is so to speak in a nutsheell to date . not to mention 26 years of long conflicting issues some good some bad and a mountain of paerwork in that time has been accrued

[Alan Thomas]

Commonsense

Mini despite the attractiveness of the doctrine of common sense in as much as it can produce results in an expedient fashion the fact remains that commonsense cannot be relied upon for no other reason that commonsense is not very common. People may think that they have commonsense but that is something that is merely along the lines of being the beauty that is in the eye of the beholder. To give you an example:

During the 1930s in Nazi Germany it became commonsense that the Jews should be executed. The commonsense was based on a commonly held beliefs at the time within that community. The community complied with the notions of commonsense, including doctors and lawyers and judges etc. The majority were in agreement as to the nature of this commonsense at that time. In retrospect they are horrified at what they had done.

We see in New Zealand that it makes for "commonsense" that the various political parties to promise lower ACC levies and reduce ACC services by redefining such things as occupational title, length of time it takes to recover from injury etc etc with the invalid carrying the burden in the same fashion as the Jews in Nazi Germany. Of course those employed by the ACC don't want the ACC to privatise which is made possible by the lowering of the levies and the expectation of the public of New Zealand. Politicians act the democratically by promising that will of the majority. The poor injured invalid of course is in the minority with no capacity to provide significant input into the nationwide commonsense mindset.


The reason why commonsense is unlawful is that it does not provide lawful protection to those entitled to have such protection. It is the ACC legislation that requires the gold standard medical assessment and procedures as opposed to the ACC desire to function on averaging healing rates and providing the bell curve protocol of measurement over averages by an attractive name that misleads public perception to the extent that even doctors get sucked in.

NASA management thought it was commonsense that it was safe to launch a space shuttle on a cold day because they have launched 30 spaceshuttles before. However the engineers who base their decisions on objective fact and not commonsense said that because they are rings will not function properly at the low temperature the spaceshuttle might blow up. It did. Science wins over commonsense every single time. The ACC legislation is entirely dependent upon science to the exclusion of commonsense. It is the legislation. Any judge the rules to the contrary is wrong in law resulting in a unacceptable risk of misinterpretation of fact.

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 07 August 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

In my personal case allan after numerous years of being allowed to enter a self employement rehab programme, which i was given a years erc then i was on my own devices, and of the corporation disappearing. In saying that the self employement was not done in accordance with legislation, so their became a large amount of arrears owing, but i will not go into that side of it. T he corporation then in my case made you try to sway you away from the self employement , which i did and entered the vocationl rehab programme of the corporations To date i have had eight vocational assessments , had two work trials , and both were monitored thru an occupational therapist , That is so to speak in a nutsheell to date . not to mention 26 years of long conflicting issues some good some bad and a mountain of paerwork in that time has been accrued

For a start you don't have to have permission for the ACC to become self-employed.
ACC are not permitted to provide you with a timeline for your rehabilitation. That is the preserve of the medical profession with the legislated requirement for the ACC to comply with the medical certificates or seek more qualified second opinion that they wish to make a challenge.
ERC is not dependent upon an ACC staff member indulging in their own personal perception or seek the advantage of the corporations financial well-being by way of some form of artificial timeline which cuts you off your ERC if you do not succeed.
Did the ACC in any way or form fund your self-employment rehabilitation program?
The when starting your self-employed rehabilitation program you were no longer incapacitated then legislated requirement would be that the ACC stopped ERC immediately. If you worked with a partial capacity then the proper process for the ACC is ongoing earnings related compensation abatement of earnings calculations which may very well continue to the rest of your life. There is no time legislated limit. However if the ACC feel that the mode of rehabilitation cannot be viable and that there is a better option will then they are duty-bound to bring that to your attention and once more fund that other option.

The reason why the ACC don't want claimants to return to their previous self-employment ought to engage in any self-employment is a create more work for them and makes it more difficult to simply relabel you as being fit for a different occupation by way of artificial means. If you continue working part-time in a self-employed capacity then ACC will have to maintain the status quo permanently which is something they most certainly do not like as it does not fit with their artificial objectives and policy that has nothing to do with legislation.

Until 1992 the concept of permanent incapacity in relation to permanent injuries was retirement from the workplace and a lifetime of earnings compensation. Should you develop any earnings capacity, even full-time, then there was the abatement of earnings compliance criteria but not cancellation of entitlement.
After 1992 there was the introduction of the vocational rehabilitation into a new occupation which allow the ACC to fund vocational rehabilitation for no longer than three years and an unsuccessful the claimant would continue on on permit earnings compensation unless they somehow successfully rehabilitated into a new occupation which would need to be properly assessed in accordance with s51 of which the ACC did not produce regulations until November 1997. Those regulations were included in the subsequent legislation.

Perhaps someone could go through the legislation to see what happened to that three-year limitation of vocational rehabilitation or whether the ACC scheme has been diminished with this issue being removed. Having said that I think the ACC have always disregarded that three-year limit the funding.


Qualified and competent case management does not necessitate mountains and mountains of paperwork and endless letter writing back for. The ACC legislation is actually very very simple and follows a logical and coherent set of stages with criteria at every single stage. The issue is simply compliance with that criteria which requires very very little paperwork and if done properly the ACC scheme would be quite cheap to manage. The ACC scheme has become over burdened with bureaucracy and confusion which has escalated exponentially to the point where the cost of managing the system is disproportionate to actual rehabilitation.

[Alan Thomas]

Mini Section 73 (1) certainly is not obligatory. Both sections 37 and 51 contained within it and mechanisms necessary for decision without the need to resort to section 73 (1). However section 73 does not exist in a vacuum that is entirely dependent upon section 37 and 51 information or more to the point lack of information. In other words it the ACC did not receive a medical certificate then they must immediately stop the relevant entitlements. Section 73 does not involve itself with information per se but depended upon a significant number of other information producing sections of legislation.

[tommy]

You did mention of not having to accumulating mountains of paper work if the corporation and followers did the job right . I am with statement ,but as yourself and have also like many other claimants have been entrapped and to get entitlements correctly restored as many claimants have found the legislation is well out their comprehension , and thus as i keep repeating , time en ergies knoledge , monies , in no particular order

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 07 August 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

You did mention of not having to accumulating mountains of paper work if the corporation and followers did the job right . I am with statement ,but as yourself and have also like many other claimants have been entrapped and to get entitlements correctly restored as many claimants have found the legislation is well out their comprehension , and thus as i keep repeating , time en ergies knoledge , monies , in no particular order

What I am saying is that the ACC legislation is quite simple.

ACC in their efforts to avoid liability go to great lengths to create all manner of obstacles and exceptions, failing to make decisions on time, making decisions without taking into account proper information from the appropriate people et cetera et cetera creating all kinds of problems which necessitates much letter writing and interaction to the extent that the ACC scheme has been over burdened by the incompetence of the bureaucracy.

The ACC legislation is simple. We have an accident that caused an injury and the Doctor measures the disability of that injury as to whether or not there exists a capacity to perform the work tasks of the preinjury occupation etc with the result that the ACC must make very ordinary and routine calculation and make payments for such things as earnings compensation, medical costs and funding to maintain your same lifestyle before the injury.

Instead the levy being collected that end on the bureaucratic functions instead of medical treatment and compensation.

[MINI]

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 >

The trouble is that Thomas & I have both been to the end of the Court system, as far as different issues can be bought before the bench again, is debatable. And those are the areas mr Thomas is having coming to grips with the outcomes and quite honestly, when his issues he brings up go further to help others as well, he has no interest in going in that direction.

Out of 90 odd cases to bring before the Appeal, he will find stalling because of two reasons. One, Key has said he is changing to Tribunal instead of District Court by the end of this year, and two, the issues Thomas is bringing before the Court could well have been heard in Judge Barbers 96 page decision and if they are he will be stopped by res judicata (been heard before or should have)!!! Watch and see and mark my words. Mr Thomas will have to come into a lot of money and take his malfeasance issues into the civil court (away from the ACC court) but of course still taking action against the ACC. That will cost a lot of money and only people that own their own houses or win lotto have that sort of money.

To think all of this started from a straight forward hernia, which didn't even stop him from going sailing. Far out I wish mine was that pain free as to allow me to carry on playing softball for my work place. But that was one of the first things I had to give up, yet I was never off work. Well not until operation time four years later.

I do not believe ACC have been dealing with Mr Thomas properly. I think he has been playing them like my grand daughter plays the cello, only he is very well able to manipulate them, or was able to do so until they became wise to him. They never however, treated the withdrawal of his his entitlements in the correct manner unless you can look back at "Offences' in the 1982 Act, to see what it intends and get a look and how the withdrawal of rights should have been covered.

mini

[tommy]

Also to add if a work trial was implemented thru the corporation , whom should monitor the work trial, the question is directed for allan ?

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 07 August 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Also to add if a work trial was implemented thru the corporation , whom should monitor the work trial, the question is directed for allan ?

Let's get some context to what leads to a work trial.

There is medical support describing an impossibility for any kind of medical recovery to the preinjury occupation.

A decision has been made to rehabilitate into a new occupation.

An inventory has been taken of the pre-injury qualification experience and skill.

Each element of which the injury forms an obstacle has been discounted leaving the balance of available or residual qualification experience and skill.

An independent occupational assessor is consulted at the cost of the ACC to reports on what potential occupations may be relevant upon which those elements apply with particular attention given to what further qualification experience and skill is yet to be acquired for rehabilitation can be achieved.

The ACC producers and agreed rehabilitation plan in order to acquire the balance of the necessary additional qualification, experience and skills for the identified and agreed occupation targeted.

Once the qualification, experience and skills have been achieved the ACC may only then arrange for an assessment.

The assessment may amongst many other things include a work trial which must be monitored by someone that has the appropriate qualification to comprehend the individual task activities and whether or not they are being carried out in accordance with the required qualification experience and skill sufficient to justify a capacity to earn in the open market making the claimant and equal opportunity employee in regards to the full complement of qualification, skill and experience necessary to be employable with them that occupational title.



Tommy am I right in assuming that you have been engaging in an ongoing process of working on a continuous basis while being monitored? There are some legal issues around this.
I am very familiar with the situation as a person on a work trial was assigned to me without my knowledge who caused an accident event from which I was the one injured which profoundly change the rest of my life. The individual concerned was not entitled to be in the workplace in the situation he was and the decision for them to be there was entirely illegal to the extent that it was reckless endangerment for all concerned including the fellow himself. In the course of the accident event I leapt into action to save his life and was injured myself.