[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 07 August 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

Mr Thomas ; please explain this in the same time frame as your judgements state.
You never created an ACC. approved Business plan during the years or period claimed.
You do not have any Specialists document claiming you cant return to your pre-injury.
You have never been involved in an ACC agreed work trial .
How can you claim knowledge about ACC work trails , when you have never actually attended.

ACC funded business course based on MBA principles after my first surgery with the knowledge that surgery they funded could not return to my preinjury occupation. I funded my de facto wife on that course and she wanted to start her own business.
I explored a significant number of obscenities and produced a number of business very rudimentary concept plans For the purposes of a variety of business discussions and notified the ACC in writing an outline of each of these proposals.
In 1995 the ACC made a decision that I was to rehabilitate into a new occupation or Face earnings compensation suspension. A rehabilitation plan was started which included medical rehabilitation, vocational rehabilitation and social rehabilitation.
The ACC rejected all of these proposals and required me to provide more sophisticated business plans of which they kept on rejecting as they wanted something they would return to the workplace full-time immediately without surgery which was not possible within any of these plans despite my very rigourous and extensive research in an effort to reach that target.
The ACC suspended my entitlements again based on s 73 (2) of the 1992 act on the basis that they were unhappy with the business plans I have produced with the notion that I have not been working hard enough on them.
Two months later ACC cancel my entire claim under s73 (1) on the basis that the witnesses had seen me working on these business plans.
The ACC has a very large volume of specialist reports all who agree that I am very significant injuries preventing me from returning to my preinjury occupation with by Doctor summarising everything to the extent that I have a very limited capacity of two hours per day that can only be utilised in a fragmented throughout the day so long as it does not involve the use of my right hand.
There has never been a work trial because no work task activity has been approved for me to undertake by any medical professional. I have not engaged in any work activity for the purposes of earning and have not generated any earnings.

The basis of the information a rely upon as the legislation itself.
In addition I have the ACC staff instruction manuals for the 1982 legislation and 1992 legislation. The computer based ACC staff instruction is known as the INFORME Program which I acquired under the official information act.

Greg what else would you like to know?

[tommy]

That does clarify i believe has been reiterated before , but it is of being to digest postings to establish of what a claimant is correct in reposting .

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 07 August 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

That does clarify i believe has been reiterated before , but it is of being to digest postings to establish of what a claimant is correct in reposting .

Tommy everything that I write is supported by independent documentation produced by a qualified third partys.

You must understand that given the accusations levelled against me I do not make any statement of any fact without being supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt documentation. Over the years I have posted documents on this site which inevitably don't even get read so I no longer bother.

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 21 August 2007 - 04:44 PM, said:

I note with interest that this thread is approaching 10,000 hits and is hot on the heels of "A LAUGH A DAY".

I note with interest that it is now approaching 600.000 hits and IS THE LAUGH OF THE DAY
Well done Alan
I must contact Hal9000 before i decommission Hal and ask for the Hector award to be sent to you asap
Dave.

[tommy]

Iam sure then that can be achieved , just thru because we can , lets stay focused on this goal. in response to daves question.?

[doppelganger]

Alan Thomas, on 07 August 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

ACC funded business course based on MBA principles after my first surgery with the knowledge that surgery they funded could not return to my preinjury occupation. I funded my de facto wife on that course and she wanted to start her own business.
I explored a significant number of obscenities and produced a number of business very rudimentary concept plans For the purposes of a variety of business discussions and notified the ACC in writing an outline of each of these proposals.
In 1995 the ACC made a decision that I was to rehabilitate into a new occupation or Face earnings compensation suspension. A rehabilitation plan was started which included medical rehabilitation, vocational rehabilitation and social rehabilitation.
The ACC rejected all of these proposals and required me to provide more sophisticated business plans of which they kept on rejecting as they wanted something they would return to the workplace full-time immediately without surgery which was not possible within any of these plans despite my very rigourous and extensive research in an effort to reach that target.
The ACC suspended my entitlements again based on s 73 (2) of the 1992 act on the basis that they were unhappy with the business plans I have produced with the notion that I have not been working hard enough on them.
Two months later ACC cancel my entire claim under s73 (1) on the basis that the witnesses had seen me working on these business plans.
The ACC has a very large volume of specialist reports all who agree that I am very significant injuries preventing me from returning to my preinjury occupation with by Doctor summarising everything to the extent that I have a very limited capacity of two hours per day that can only be utilised in a fragmented throughout the day so long as it does not involve the use of my right hand.
There has never been a work trial because no work task activity has been approved for me to undertake by any medical professional. I have not engaged in any work activity for the purposes of earning and have not generated any earnings.

The basis of the information a rely upon as the legislation itself.
In addition I have the ACC staff instruction manuals for the 1982 legislation and 1992 legislation. The computer based ACC staff instruction is known as the INFORME Program which I acquired under the official information act.

Greg what else would you like to know?

You mean ACC has not made a decision under this section

49 CESSATION OF WEEKLY COMPENSATION WHEN PERSON HAS CAPACITY FOR WORK
49 Every person assessed under section 51 of this Act as having a capacity for work shall cease to be entitled to receive compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity upon the expiration of 3 months after the person is notified of that assessment.

and this section;

51 ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY FOR WORK
(1) For the purposes of determining whether or not a person who is receiving compensation for loss of earnings or for loss of potential earning capacity, or who may have any entitlement to compensation for loss of potential earning capacity, has a capacity for work, the Corporation shall determine the person's capacity for work in accordance with this section.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the term "capacity for work", in relation to any person, means the person's capacity to engage in work for which the person is suited by reason of experience, education, or training, or any combination of those things, and that capacity shall be determined having regard to the consequences of the person's personal injury.
(3) Every assessment under this section shall be carried out—
(a) In accordance with the procedure for the time being determined by the Corporation under section 50 of this Act; and
( In accordance with the principles of natural justice.
(4) Every assessment under this section shall be undertaken by or on behalf of the Corporation and at its expense.
(5) The Corporation may require a person to be assessed at any time and from time to time at such reasonable intervals as the Corporation considers appropriate in each case.
(6) If a person's entitlement to compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity has ceased, whether by virtue of this section or otherwise, and the Corporation considers that the person's capacity for work has deteriorated since that cessation,—
(a) The Corporation may reassess the person's capacity for work under this section; and
( If the person is assessed as no longer having a capacity for work, then, subject to the provisions of this Act, the person shall be entitled, as from such date as the Corporation shall determine, to compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity.
(7) If a person is assessed under this section as having a capacity for work, then,—
(a) For the purposes of section 37A of this Act, that assessment shall be regarded as a determination that the person is able to engage in employment in which the person was engaged when the personal injury occurred:
( For the purposes of section 37B of this Act, that assessment shall be regarded as a determination that the person is able to engage in work for which the person is suited by reason of experience, education, or training, or any combination of those things.

[Alan Thomas]

doppelganger, on 07 August 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

You mean ACC has not made a decision under this section

49 CESSATION OF WEEKLY COMPENSATION WHEN PERSON HAS CAPACITY FOR WORK
49 Every person assessed under section 51 of this Act as having a capacity for work shall cease to be entitled to receive compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity upon the expiration of 3 months after the person is notified of that assessment.

and this section;

51 ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY FOR WORK
(1) For the purposes of determining whether or not a person who is receiving compensation for loss of earnings or for loss of potential earning capacity, or who may have any entitlement to compensation for loss of potential earning capacity, has a capacity for work, the Corporation shall determine the person's capacity for work in accordance with this section.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the term "capacity for work", in relation to any person, means the person's capacity to engage in work for which the person is suited by reason of experience, education, or training, or any combination of those things, and that capacity shall be determined having regard to the consequences of the person's personal injury.
(3) Every assessment under this section shall be carried out—
(a) In accordance with the procedure for the time being determined by the Corporation under section 50 of this Act; and
( In accordance with the principles of natural justice.
(4) Every assessment under this section shall be undertaken by or on behalf of the Corporation and at its expense.
(5) The Corporation may require a person to be assessed at any time and from time to time at such reasonable intervals as the Corporation considers appropriate in each case.
(6) If a person's entitlement to compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity has ceased, whether by virtue of this section or otherwise, and the Corporation considers that the person's capacity for work has deteriorated since that cessation,—
(a) The Corporation may reassess the person's capacity for work under this section; and
( If the person is assessed as no longer having a capacity for work, then, subject to the provisions of this Act, the person shall be entitled, as from such date as the Corporation shall determine, to compensation for loss of earnings or loss of potential earning capacity.
(7) If a person is assessed under this section as having a capacity for work, then,—
(a) For the purposes of section 37A of this Act, that assessment shall be regarded as a determination that the person is able to engage in employment in which the person was engaged when the personal injury occurred:
( For the purposes of section 37B of this Act, that assessment shall be regarded as a determination that the person is able to engage in work for which the person is suited by reason of experience, education, or training, or any combination of those things.

Doppelgänger No ACC did not

I was extraordinary surprised that the ACC claimed in 2006 that they have not based their s73(1) decision that it possessed information in regards to the above is of legislation as the accusation was I had successfully gained vocational independence in a new occupation, matter of business manager and immigration consultant after a preinjury background was was an entirely engineering and nature no relevance whatsoever to what they thought I was doing.

When I pointed out that it was impossible to determine a capacity to work in a new occupation under the above sections of legislation because they had not produced the regulations Until November 1997, three months after the decision, they then change their tune asserting that they had not made a decision in regards to a new occupation. They then started trying to make out that the decision was an end of incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation under s37 but the problem with that claim was that they had no information about The nature of work I carried out prior to being injured. The judge adjourned and gave the ACC permission To set about trying to find out what I did before I was injured but the ACC made a mistake only enquiring into my activities after my first injury when I was on light duties. Frustrated it seems that the judge decided to set aside all of the facts and make up his own facts and the rest is history.

The problem of course is the way that everything unfolded was that the 1999 conviction for ACC fraud contradicts judge Barber decision 10 years later on many many counts bringing both judgements into very serious conflict.

[David Butler]

Thomas Did you enter into a vocational irp plan to enable a future return to other employment?
And before your injury was nailed as being stable set in stone as to the severity of it.
If do what particular injury would have been the one that actually had you off work and thus entitled to medical assistance and also weekly erc


We had what were known as Rehabilitation officers then working with or as case managers and that was there job Rehab / to see what else claimants could may want / like do if pre-injury work was not suitable.

UNLESS of course you fell into the area of one was completely medically physically disabled from doing anything and or sat back and did nothing at all re injury issues. and your case manager was only a paperwork , document handler administration officer via an 0800 number.

Those were the days of our life's- as Van Morrison sung to us all back then,Of the yearly Merry Xmas letter and the yearly wage % notice. and that was all unless you wanted something / assistance which they sorted from acc.


dave

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 07 August 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

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.

Firstly, Mr Thomas, what was your injury at that time?

Also it sounds as though you have had what happens at IOA = Initial Occupational assessment. List of skills, tasks done etc.

It also sounds as though you have had another assessment which is IMA + Initial Medical assessment. Doctor list what of the skills you had, he beleives you can still do.

Lastly VIMA + Vocational ?? Assessment. Which is the decision and list of jobs you should be assessed on, to be able to do. Maybe a lot less that you were able to do at time of injury.

I was not put through the last one as I was considered by the IMA assesser to need not only pratical things like carpark outside workplace and no stairs, but also would need vocational computer training and expertise to do the jobs they had picked for me as I had only ever had basic training on e-mail and typing letters and other bib and bobs on the computer. I had only had MYOB trainin on accounting computer packages, which is where I would have been more likely to get a job given my experience. So ACC agreed to w/c and put me on one year Med cert.

You actually know when they are confident that you cannot work becuase of the one year Med cert. You know they agree with the IA and the IMA assessor that you are permanently stuffed. And that is that!!

If anyone wants to test the permanency level, ask ACC for a one year Med Cert. That way you can be pretty sure they are not going to expect you to work, at anything other that you social independence.

Mini

[David Butler]

There was an inbetween step re your data'd info as above Claire
Which is why i asked the questions of Thomas.


Dave

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 07 August 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

The courts have ruled that the processes and rationale I have described apply to all ACC decision making, without exception.

A minority number of courts however have advocated for commonsense for the sake of expediency. I along with appellate courts consider such an approach to be unlawful which reconfirmed the foundation for what I have described.

Mini what typically happens is that there are departures from the sequence of rehabilitation entitlements whereby the ACC has leapfrogged part various duties followed by asking themselves the wrong questions and becoming entirely confused then attempting to make "commonsense" type decisions in order to fight their way through the mess. This seems to be what has happened with you and you have my sympathy.

When Humpty Dumpty has a great fall...
The best thing to do is reassemble Humpty Dumpty.

By all means you go and reassemble Humply Dumpty.
Me, I don't give a dam whether the decision is precisely correct or not. All I care about and I believe rightly so, is that at the end of the day, it is appreciated I need the extra assistance than 'modification' and they are not putting me in harms way, by expecting me to accept that an unknown person of such a 'cheap' calibre that even Judge Barber, said it was a ludicrously cheap amount of money to quote to get the desired results.

In other words I am not letting ACC do 'dodgy' work on my car which would have no 'come back' if I ended up in a paddock, half dead, instead of remaining as I have been since 15 years of age, accident free.

Your rational maybe important to you, but its unimportant to me, why the Judge made the correct and only decision that he could in my case.

Mini

[MINI]

David Butler, on 08 August 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

There was an inbetween step re your data'd info as above Claire
Which is why i asked the questions of Thomas.


Dave

What were the Q's Mr Butler and what was the 'inbetween' step?

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 08 August 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Thomas Did you enter into a vocational irp plan to enable a future return to other employment?
The ACC issued an ultimatum requiring me to sign a vocational rehabilitation plan or have my entitlements suspended. I ensured that the plan started with compliance with the 1992 review hearing decision to fund reconstructive surgery to return me to my previous occupation. The ACC leapfroged past the medical remedy and required me to produce business plans to new occupation is and have me what by their private investigators and informants. With the information collected by the private investigators the ACC cancel my claim because of the observations of people who thought I was working not realising that I was producing business plans. I believe this is called entrapment.

And before your injury was nailed as being stable set in stone as to the severity of it.
The ACC complains that might injury was not stable which was the reason why they would not pay the independence allowance. They claimed that it needed to be stable first.

If do what particular injury would have been the one that actually had you off work and thus entitled to medical assistance and also weekly erc
The strain injury June 1989.
Before the ACC accepted that claim I had another injury to my elbows and wrist/hand.

We had what were known as Rehabilitation officers then working with or as case managers and that was there job Rehab / to see what else claimants could may want / like do if pre-injury work was not suitable.
I had the case management training officer who taught case managers what to do.

UNLESS of course you fell into the area of one was completely medically physically disabled from doing anything and or sat back and did nothing at all re injury issues. and your case manager was only a paperwork , document handler administration officer via an 0800 number.

Those were the days of our life's- as Van Morrison sung to us all back then,Of the yearly Merry Xmas letter and the yearly wage % notice. and that was all unless you wanted something / assistance which they sorted from acc.


dave

My response in blue

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 07 August 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

All I am attempting to do is to determine whether or not the ACC have been complied with legislation in regards to the sequence of events you have described concerning your own experience. Of course it was relevance to my own and probably many others and as such examining the sequence of your experience will certainly be of benefit so as we all improve our overall understanding of the legislation as opposed to what the ACC are actually doing.

While I owned a number of actors businesses of which I was a co-owner with others whom others managed and I remained as an inactive director I also explored how I made best utilise my residual capacity on my own account without the ACC contributions towards rehabilitation in any way or form. Should the ACC have interpreted the 1992 review hearing as I have a viewpoint would have been that I was permanently incapacitated until we benefited from successful reconstructive surgery which the ACC had already made a decision not to provide. In the event of a permanent incapacity decision I am free to utilise my time as I see fit and should I generate any earnings beyond my preinjury earnings than the ACC would be entitled to an abatement of earnings, that it.

Our experiences intersect in as much as ACC have to some degree supervise your ventures into self-employment was in my case the ACC have had me secretly watched by private investigators with a similar concept of supervision and/or monitoring. Your outcome apparently yielded a negative result. My situation likewise yielded a negative result in as much as there is no evidence whatsoever in the participating in any work task activity let alone generating any earnings which is consistent with what I had told ACC in writing together with copies of my plans as to how to best utilise my residual capacity while waiting for the reconstructive surgery.

Keeping in mind that one out of five people in New Zealand are self-employed and many injured people who were employed in the ordinary sense find themselves faced with the only way forward is to become unemployed so as they can eke out some form of existence utilising their residual capacity as and when they feel well enough without the burden of being in and employed environment which carries with it obligations of attendant time at work etc. The freedom to work as and when able for an invalid is a very important freedom as it maximises the residual capacity. ACC however don't just avoid Self-employment but actively discourage Self-employment. Am I sensing some form of dissatisfaction that you have not continued with your attempts of self-employment and that ACC have not provided you were the backup that you had hoped?

You signed the cheques of all the companies. You have said so in your writings. This makes you responsible for them, even if someone got paid to 'run' them.

Don't get all 'dorky' on us as though we have no idea of how involved a company director/shareholder/owner has to be. Although I must say ripping you off would have been very easy if you didnt even sign the cheques to pay the bills and the wages.

You would have been considered to be a very disassociated Director from the Companies Act point of view, therefore not seen in a good light when you went bankrupt. How many years were you bankrupted for Thomas. That will tell me a lot about your interest in the companies.

Mini

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

My response in blue

MINI, on 08 August 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

Firstly, Mr Thomas, what was your injury at that time?

Also it sounds as though you have had what happens at IOA = Initial Occupational assessment. List of skills, tasks done etc.
No. There was no initial occupational assessment. Even when I wrote to the ACC describing in general terms the nature of my preinjury occupation they told me they did not want that type of information.

It also sounds as though you have had another assessment which is IMA + Initial Medical assessment. Doctor list what of the skills you had, he beleives you can still do.
No. Each time my doctor made an appointment for a specialist hand surgeon to carry out surgery and the ACC were asked to paper that appointment, the ACC wrote to the surgeon and asked if I could still return to my old occupation with the report from the surgeon same to the ACC no and that my hand was not available for any type of use with tools including pen keyboard and mouse.

Mini I keep on stating on this thread that the s51 regulations did not come into effect until November 1997 three months after the ACC decision. Does regulations otherwise known at that time as Work Capacity Assessment Procedure introduced the IOA & IMA.

Lastly VIMA + Vocational ?? Assessment. Which is the decision and list of jobs you should be assessed on, to be able to do. Maybe a lot less that you were able to do at time of injury.
As above. In addition that so-called list of jobs does not reflect the requirements within the legislation or even the work capacity assessment procedure of s51 in any event.

I was not put through the last one as I was considered by the IMA assesser to need not only pratical things like carpark outside workplace and no stairs, but also would need vocational computer training and expertise to do the jobs they had picked for me as I had only ever had basic training on e-mail and typing letters and other bib and bobs on the computer. I had only had MYOB trainin on accounting computer packages, which is where I would have been more likely to get a job given my experience. So ACC agreed to w/c and put me on one year Med cert.
If this was taken prior to November 1997 there was no legal basis for it and any decisions right from it cannot be enforced by the ACC and will certainly be overturned by the court. If you have not done this I would suggest you do an out of time appeal based on new information acquired which of course will be granted to you.

You actually know when they are confident that you cannot work becuase of the one year Med cert. You know they agree with the IA and the IMA assessor that you are permanently stuffed. And that is that!!
The ACC are still entitled to assess you again from time to time but if the process was under the 1992 legislation they may only fund rehabilitation for no more than three years. If there has been no success from the rehabilitation into a new occupation the only recourse is to medically cleared to return to your of occupation..

If anyone wants to test the permanency level, ask ACC for a one year Med Cert. That way you can be pretty sure they are not going to expect you to work, at anything other that you social independence.
Many you are quite wrong about a permanent seat type level. That simply isn't in legislation and neither does it appear in any of the ACC staff operations manual/policy.

Mini

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 07 August 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

All I am attempting to do is to determine whether or not the ACC have been complied with legislation in regards to the sequence of events you have described concerning your own experience. Of course it was relevance to my own and probably many others and as such examining the sequence of your experience will certainly be of benefit so as we all improve our overall understanding of the legislation as opposed to what the ACC are actually doing.

While I owned a number of actors businesses of which I was a co-owner with others whom others managed and I remained as an inactive director I also explored how I made best utilise my residual capacity on my own account without the ACC contributions towards rehabilitation in any way or form. Should the ACC have interpreted the 1992 review hearing as I have a viewpoint would have been that I was permanently incapacitated until we benefited from successful reconstructive surgery which the ACC had already made a decision not to provide. In the event of a permanent incapacity decision I am free to utilise my time as I see fit and should I generate any earnings beyond my preinjury earnings than the ACC would be entitled to an abatement of earnings, that it.

Our experiences intersect in as much as ACC have to some degree supervise your ventures into self-employment was in my case the ACC have had me secretly watched by private investigators with a similar concept of supervision and/or monitoring. Your outcome apparently yielded a negative result. My situation likewise yielded a negative result in as much as there is no evidence whatsoever in the participating in any work task activity let alone generating any earnings which is consistent with what I had told ACC in writing together with copies of my plans as to how to best utilise my residual capacity while waiting for the reconstructive surgery.

Keeping in mind that one out of five people in New Zealand are self-employed and many injured people who were employed in the ordinary sense find themselves faced with the only way forward is to become unemployed so as they can eke out some form of existence utilising their residual capacity as and when they feel well enough without the burden of being in and employed environment which carries with it obligations of attendant time at work etc. The freedom to work as and when able for an invalid is a very important freedom as it maximises the residual capacity. ACC however don't just avoid Self-employment but actively discourage Self-employment. Am I sensing some form of dissatisfaction that you have not continued with your attempts of self-employment and that ACC have not provided you were the backup that you had hoped?

Thomas

See where you fall down. Read what you have written above Thomas. It is all me, me, me.

None of it anywhere states the most important of facts, and that is, if you make money or do business you must let ACC know how much and who with. This is a prerequist and most important to obtaining and coninuousey getting your e/r/c. It says so on the documentation you sign and date before it is given to you. If you should like I will get the exact wording for you. I keep it all handy. It should also have been part of your evidentual evidence put before the court in some many instances.

Mini

[MINI]

tommy, on 07 August 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

There was an urgency from the corporation to try encourage a small minority whom did venture into self employement originally to surreder that personal right,as i see it to then decide of how monitoring, surveilence, was of more advantage of whom then could give an appraisal of what their activities they the claimant were capable of , hence i have no disagreement with that , and i then to date can see how there has become confusion of whom then decides of actual work task activities , and then residual activities etc, and general publics giving views eviidence ie then giving if fraud was committed ?

Any person having given fraud in Thomas' fraud trial, should have been in front of the Judge many years ago.

Mini

[David Butler]

David Butler, on 08 August 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Thomas Did you enter into a vocational irp plan to enable a future return to other employment?
And before your injury was nailed as being stable set in stone as to the severity of it.
If do what particular injury would have been the one that actually had you off work and thus entitled to medical assistance and also weekly erc


We had what were known as Rehabilitation officers then working with or as case managers and that was there job Rehab / to see what else claimants could may want / like do if pre-injury work was not suitable.

UNLESS of course you fell into the area of one was completely medically physically disabled from doing anything and or sat back and did nothing at all re injury issues. and your case manager was only a paperwork , document handler administration officer via an 0800 number.

Those were the days of our life's- as Van Morrison sung to us all back then,Of the yearly Merry Xmas letter and the yearly wage % notice. and that was all unless you wanted something / assistance which they sorted from acc.


dave

One could [82 regime acts,] undertake looking at other opportunities self bought to the table with acc and acc would look at that and if applicable they would assist where they could.
I went thru that process way way back on a number of occasions doing what was classed as a voluntary trial / unpaid time at a couple of things but was not able to handle the work i chose to do so i was basically refused to do that process with acc involvement as case managers re injuries being the problem
As my injuries had NEVER like a lot of us been diagnosed as to exactly what was the problem most things failed miserably so They were right as well but i wanted to resurrect some companies that had been sitting just idling along and needed My input or selling
Once the proper rehab assistance was given after proper assessing was carried re injuries, and I understood why the issues were arising =being me the problem-I managed them / problems / issues re head injuries and understood / knew my limitations I did the same again many years later and that is going exceedingly well as a part time occupation.

Why i asked thomas what i did was as i see reading his thread he apparently went ahead something similar -This is what id like to do = BUT NEVER TOLD THEM until he was CAUGHT OUT.
Thomas away behind what acc were doing re rehab as opposed to old days of we dont know whats wrong with these ones so pay them and leave them alone
which looking back now astoundingly they did just that -which the result of that tact was the moves in the late 90's to g thru each case in its office of origin and many were kicked off of treated
i was a lucky one as i never knew a thing about head injures and could just have easily been one who went to the sin bin of winz my languishing unknowingly in winz as a a wrong decision of acc
Thomas thought he was a man of the times
AS I SEE IT'
HE WAS WAY BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL AT THAT TIME HE DECIDED TO PLAY HIS OWN GAME AND ACC SYSTEN was slowly for a while and then had changed behind the scenes and he never knew that
As an aside the very first thing i did was to stop driving UNLIKE Thomas who blames everyone else for his driving whilst hes doped up
Any HONEST SELF INPUT by THOMAS re safety of others and his own ability's in conjunction with his providers of the MONETARY entitlements he wanted =THats a joke from him
Dave

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 07 August 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

This is the exact reason why legislation should be clearly understood whereby that criteria is applied to the rehabilitation plan.

In my case the ACC required me to produce business plans with the threat that they would suspend my earnings compensation if it failed to produce those plans as quickly as they wanted them.
They then had me watched while I carried out the research, had discussions and business meetings with various potential participants and of course learn to use voice software and various Microsoft office software to produce those plans while they had their private investigators who also had their own informants observed me complying with the ACC requirements then using that information to cancel my entire claim and prosecute for fraud based on the claim that the activities I was performing was "work".
When it got into court they tried to say that because there were assumptions that I was working therefore I could work and therefore I was no longer incapacitated from my injuries to return to my preinjury occupation without even knowing what that occupation was.
Legal expertise employed to defend me had no idea what they were doing as did the judge.

Tommy you dodged a bullet.

Thomas, you didnt need seventeen companies to do that.

Tommy did you have to have even one company to try to recuperate yourself or did you only need to have a plan and be a sole trader??

[Alan Thomas]

Mini you said

Your rational maybe important to you, but its unimportant to me, why the Judge made the correct and only decision that he could in my case.

My view is neither you or rationale nor my rationale is important. What is important is the independent qualified facts applied to the legislation, With the ACC carrying out nothing more than administrative duty in compliance. Under no circumstances can the ACC think they have any entitlement to determine policy, make so-called commonsense based on their personal life experiences without any training from the ACC and suchlike, nothing more nothing less.