not their victim, on 08 March 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:
I dont need to understand anything lol....
acc lawyers have already interpreted the law correctly
the law is clear
when on acc, you dont rip them off, and then in an act of revenge plan to blow up the building...
whoever signed the production orders, ie acc, means they were the paymaster....
the paymaster does NOT have to compensate you for crimes against them....
How then do you explain Judge Beattie's decision that in the case of a claimant who could not returned to his preinjury occupation as a painter because of his brain injury yet worked up to 70 hours per week as a truck driver was on ERC and after being imprisoned for double dipping and having his ERC cancelled hackers ERC reinstated after coming out of prison?
The position that Judge Beattie took was that even though he was double dipping the ACC could not cancel his ERC entitlements simply because he was working as a question of the end it was incapacity in his original occupation had not been addressed by the ACC despite that he was working up to 70 hours per week in a different job. Judge Beattie took the position that the ACC were required to continue funding is ERC and reinstate is ERC back to the time it was cancelled as working was entirely irrelevant to the legislated criteria.
I think what the judge was getting at is that if a claimant was working and earning while incapacitated to return to their old occupation the ACC can only Late abatement of earnings as work does not mean an end of incapacity in itself.
NTV it seems that the ACC had taken a rather intuitive approach to the issue whereby they may have been tempted into thinking that he was not incapacitated to work because he was working. Now if you think about it, the man had a brain injury and was driving a heavy truck up to 70 hours a week was Dr told them that he should not be working with such an injury.
We have a situationWith this man had been to prison because he was convicted of committing a crime against the ACC yet a judge comes along and says that he is still entitled to is ERC. Does this mean that he has not committed a crime for taking his ERC without being entitled to it. Of course not as he was entitled. so how do we eexplain this conundrum? Quite simply when the ACC somehow suspected intuitively that he could work because he was working for the ACC is required to do by the legislation is to arrange for an independent assessment so as to determine whether the medical certificates were provided in error or dishonestly. The ACC staff members are simply not entitled to reach their own intuitive conclusions as legislation does not permit it. The ACC are required by that legislation to seek third-party information. In this situation it should have been obvious to the ACC that a brain injured person should not be driving a heavy truck and in the interest of public safety should have interceded on behalf of the public whereby they help the claimant not drive the truck which of course may involve rehabilitation into a new occupation was actually safe.
NTV I do notice that with what you write it is very much based on your intuition rather than a solid knowledge of legislation which is somewhat similar to the ACC policy approach. The lesson given to the ACC and like-minded persons here is strip away the arrogance and self obsession based on power and focus on the obedience to legislation by only relying upon information sources from the qualified and experienced information sources that the ACC requires.
You wrote of a concept that the ACC have had a crime committed against them by me yet the ACC themselves have no knowledge of what that crime is. As previously stated the ACC cancelled my claim and prosecuted for fraud on the basis that they had information that I was working. They never produced any information of any type describing a single work task activity at any material time rendering it impossible for me to defend myself. all the ACC did was bring in a few of the informants who told the court that they thought I was working without knowing what I was doing with my time. It seems that they thought I was working because I owned a number of businesses. It is true that I was seen having discussions with numerous people and was a director of numerous companies but that in itself does not mean that I was working in a manner that has any relationship to the word work in the ACC legislation. What I could have been observed doing was complying with the ACC ultimatum to produce business plans law have my earnings compensation suspended. The ACC case management unit failed to tell the ACC fraud unit this very important fact which may have led to numerous people making unsubstantiated assumptions followed by the ACC relying upon those assumptions to make allegations. So what is it that I meant to have done wrong and what could I have done differently?
Help
/>
/>
/>
