ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas Allegations of working while incapacitated

#176 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 May 2007 - 09:48 AM

The bottom line is ACC is liable for all medications needed for the injury. ACC bulk fund Pharmac. Whenever Pharmac do not fund a particular medication then ACC fund directly. This is the reason why ACC exert a lot of pressure to restrict medication to Pharmac approved medication only.

Gabapentin and Tramodol previously were not subsidised by Pharmac. Gabapentin has recently been subsidised for people who are epileptic or suffer from neuropathic pain. Pain comes in many different categories. Those who suffer from neuropathic pain are in the slippery slope of losing ACC cover.

Each year ACC try to stop treatment providers prescribing certain types of medication or at least to shift liability to Pharmac. This is why ACC accept liability to fund medication only up until a certain date. ACC want the claimant to make a new application for funding each year.

In this case ACC are probably hoping the prescription can be changed for neuropathic pain so they don't have to pay.

This process has been occurring it year after year whereby each year my medication stops because of bureaucratic bungling. Last year the Corporation were notified that the pain medication would be required until surgery that no change to the reason which in effect overrides this letter.

Changing the reason for treatment as a medical matter and nothing to do with the ACC. The reason I am taking these medications is because of pain from the injury and not neuropathic pain. The ACC exert a lot of pressure to gradually change the reason for treatment and a justification for medications the same way a relabel people's occupations without any evidence whatsoever that the change or label is justified.

To relabel something falsely is fraud. Being a party of a relabelling process is to be a party of the production of a document for fraudulent purposes. I am not a fraudster.

Last night I submitted a Review Hearing application for this decision that occurred last year and was not changed with the additional information provided to the Corporation.
0

#177 User is offline   bughunter 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 01 May 2007 - 09:06 PM

Those who suffer from neuropathic pain are in the slippery slope of losing ACC cover.
that statement is incorrect.........
and without going into a long winded explanation, as im not sure if this is the place to state your own personnal story, i suffer from neuropathic pain.in fact due to acc,s complete incompetance they do every thing possible to keep me quiet.
if my story was to become public knowledge acc would be in a lot of legal trouble.
and what does it matter if you get your meds from acc or pharmac, just so long as you get them, with minmull cost to you.in fact getting funding from pharmac is a far better way to go as it can be done for many years and unlike acc you dont have to re apply annually.
and just so you know pharmac has nothing whats so ever to do with acc and certainly doesnt recieve any kind of funding from acc....PHARMAC, the Pharmaceutical Management Agency, is a Crown entity established by the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. The Agency is directly accountable to the Minister of Health. http://www.pharmac.g...sp...........as you can plainly see pharmac has nothing to do with acc........
tramadol is nothing more then lollie water, thou it is a opiate precurser it is so weak recipiants dont even have to be weaned off it,unlike morphine for example ( yes ive read the preamble on tramadol its laughable if you actually know something about pain and how the body deals with pain messages sent by the spinal cord to the brain )the side effects of tramadol are no more then if your a coffee drinker then suddenly stop, exactly the same side effects are experienced of caffine withdrawl as tramadol, hardly life threating....
in private hospitals like wakefeild they dish tramadol out like water to every patient who comes in the door.
i was on tramadol for a week or so couple years ago it did nothing for me was about as good as panadol.
tramadol is only for mild to moderate pain. ( exactly the same kind of pain that panadol or panadine are designed to cope with )if your really suffering then oxynorm is far superior
but the point of my original posting is that no one has to rely on acc for funding of there meds. you can apply directlty to pharmac and there is nothing acc can do about it.
if your hell bent on making acc pay then you will lose everytime.simply because the whole acc act is set up in acc,s favor and patients or recipiants of acc have little in the way of real rights.
i would have thought given your long experince with acc , judical reviews etc and all the other so called patient avenues if acc do something wrong, are a waste of time as they will get you no where....acc simply change the rules to suit them selves.....
but you can play acc at there own game, and that is a far better strategy for success, if rehabilitation so you can return to work is concerned, or in my case your quality of life is maintained as best it can be given the nature of your injury.
ask yourself this question........given all the fights you have had with acc how successfull have you really been at getting acc to look after you in acorrdance with the acc scheme.........looking at all your posts on this forum the answer is not to much.....so perhaps a change of strategy is needed.........just a thought.........
im not looking for a fight or argument.....im just susgesting that given your vast knowledge on this subject that perhaps a change of attack maybe more beneficial then a toe to toe head to head punch up with a bunch of bullies has been.
0

#178 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 May 2007 - 12:50 PM

Bughunter

If you would like to start your own personal story just go to start new topic on personal stories in the general lounge. You look like you have a significant story to tell that involves a significant injury and how you have been treated. I get the impression that you might be something of a write-off where you have been abandoned into the pain treatment arena with no more treatment on offer. It is clear that you have been either through the mincing machine or I currently in the bowels of the mincing machine. Your suggestions appear to say do whatever is necessary to achieve an immediate result regardless whether it is the right or wrong thing to be doing.

You obviously have significant unresolved injuries and are suffering at a significant level. You appear to have also had significant interactions with various providers that include ACC and others. Naturally your experiences would be very valuable to the site.

We all have different viewpoints developed from our experiences. Some information provided to us may be different to that I was provided to others and we may not agree with one another. Other times we discover that we have been told the wrong information. This is because providers frequently get it wrong, we get a wrong, or there is more than one way to deal with the same problem. This site however is not going to be very precise or claim great competence.

We can only describe our own experiences and sheer what information we have gathered.

Gabapentin
If you have a significant story to tell it may be embarrassing they would prefer that you are drugged into oblivion. The dosage of gabapentin that you are taking will make it very difficult to focus your mind. Gabapentin as a antiepileptic drug and was never designed for the treatment of pain. It appears to be working in a completely different way in the way that is not properly understood. In America, and in particular New York, there is a huge battle running as there is no proper medical evidence supporting the use of gabapentin for pain. While the anecdotal evidence is very strong there is no empirical evidence, no scientific evidence for its use.

The drug companies have seduced New Zealand for what is not short of a massive trial. Who knows what background deals were done. When you go to the Auckland pain clinic you can see brochures advertising gabapentin and suggestions that you ask your medical provider about gabapentin. In the same rating room the New York Times has an article describing the lawsuit against medical providers offering gabapentin for pain treatment and are threatening a multibillion-dollar prosecution of the drug companies falsely advertising for the drug as a pain treatment of when there is only anecdotal evidence. What the hell is going on??

Notwithstanding the lack of rock the scientific evidence for the drug gabapentin I was described at, accepted it and it does work. In my part of a medical experiment without obtaining my consent? The New York Times seems to think so.

Why does gabapentin make you feel more comfortable?
What is the clinical reason why gabapentin works and will it harm me in another way, such as making a permanently stupid? Apparently quite possibly.
Is the risk of suicide extraordinarily high for the sudden termination of gabapentin? Yes it is extraordinarily high. Have all those who are involved in the maintenance of this treatment being notified of the risks? Yes including ACC and WINZ.
These questions about gabapentin is about something big, very big and we are part of the drug company experiment.

Pharmac have a criteria whereby the taxpayer has a liability rather than the ACC. Epilepsy or neuropathic pain from such things as diabetic disorders that include kidney dysfunction and so forth.

ACC should not shift the liability from themselves as the insurer to the taxpayer if the pain is directly associated with the injury. Gabapentin is not the proper drug to use on acute pain or long-term acute pain. We need to differentiate between long-term acute and chronic pain. In biological terms they are different. For insurance purposes they want to relabel pain as a chronic pain syndrome as soon as possible so they can stop treatment and even a tribute the pain to something else. Chronic pain syndromes seen to spread to other parts of the body and then become pains in various quadrants. From there other factors start to be included such as being an overweight woman past their use by date. If you don't fit that category to find another category for you. At this stage the insurance company can shift gears and again and then relabel again into a different disorder that gets further and further away from a medical condition for which there is insurance liability. This is where we get other syndromes such as fibromyalgia.

People who are in pain are often desperate to have a label for the reason due to continual instability from the ACC relationship and uncertainty/insecurity of continued care, ACC paying insurance, and gladly accept any label so long as the person giving the label has a big hat or has enough starch in their white coat to satisfy the ACC.

Pain from a result structural damage should have a big-name that looks like it is in another language. The ACC get fizzy with excitement when they can persuade the medical fraternity to get the injury settled down (often with financial inducements to have the injury so-called settled) and use an umbrella name that might even have the word syndrome in it. Names like chronic pain syndrome or fibromyalgia are very common. With words like these the ACC can get the small end of the wedge in and even secure the services of a psychologist under the guise of helping with the treatment. The psychologist will then do things like tick boxes and count up scorecards looking for so-called pre injury conditions.

Tramol
depending on what type of injury you have will depend on what type of pain you have which will depend on what type of pain medication is appropriate. Tramol is a very good post injury/post surgery analgesic. It is recommended to be used for six weeks only. If somebody catered for more than a year or two the effectiveness will drop to about 50%. The effectiveness and increases with alcohol.

It is quite an old-fashioned drug which has the compound is causing psychological dependency removed although persons taking it was still become inebriated and perhaps a little exuberant. For my part taking the maximum allowable dose of tramol together with other medications including zopiclone together with a cocktail of other medication I can confidently state that tramol is the drug of choice for acute pain but the principal ingredient for over exuberance and poor decision-making. Under no circumstances should anybody be taking an opiate and zopiclone as there will be a bizarre interaction. I would not normally drive 180 km per hour in a 50 km per hour area, especially knowing I was driving past three schools. Medicated in this way decision-making and perception of consequence is significantly reduced.
On another occasion I drove my Mazda 929 straight into the side of a Toyota Corolla making the Corolla go airborne impacting with other Parked cars 25 meters away before landing on the ground. We were both taken to hospital by ambulance, The woman was almost killed. With this accident had happened if I wasn't on tramol? I refuse to answer that as it may incriminate me.
I have asked the ACC to have me assessed for the safety of driving while inebriated with the proper trial of medication prescribed. The ACC Branch Medical Adviser suggested I reduce my medication. The ACC made a decision not to assess Transport for Independence on the basis of the BMA advice. Should my prescription be changed based on the BMA advice? Or should I keep taking the medication as prescribed by my treatment provider?.
Your suggestion that tramol is like having a cup of coffee is at issue here. I am having interesting and bizarre side-effects and certainly enjoy significant relief from pain but find it does significantly dropped my IQ. Professor Gill Newburn recommends a proper assessment as it is his opinion that with this medication I most probably would not be able to stand trial for ACC fraud alleging I can work and are therefore no longer entitled. ACC had declined this medical recommendation because they want to prosecute me for fraud and not being sufficiently cognisant to stand trial might interfere with this dastardly plan.
I do not agree that tramol is like lolly water. It is an opiate type drug acting in the same way that opium or morphine will act. The hospital have wanted to transfer me to morphine which of course is more potent but as the ACC had not provided me with sufficient social rehabilitation and has just been too dangerous to do so. Having the full range of the various pain treatment medication regimes my personal experience is that tramol reduces pain probably at the rate of 80% of the pain I experience. The remaining 20% is still capable of instigating a chronic pain syndrome.
Under the treatment plan provided by Professor Boaz I was able to knock out the chronic pain syndrome. It has re-emerged from time to time. A chronic pain syndrome takes time to develop and time to resolve. It is complex but treatable. Long-term acute pain however is only resolved by treating the source of the problem. Many times practitioners have become confused with acute pain, long-term acute pain and chronic pain. The ACC has been aggressively promoting chronic pain syndromes so as to avoid addressing the causal matter.
As an employer I certainly would not employee anybody if they were on the maximum dose of tramol or any equivalent with strong medication. Such persons should only work in sheltered workshops or work with a contract from the ACC that ACC will fund any stuffups.
Tramol is a very significant and potent opiate. I would agree with you that it is not particularly noticeable when on other medications at the same time such as codeine patches and other medications designed to drop of blood pressure. The drop of blood pressure is a very effective means of pain control. I have a painful wrist and frequently find myself raising my hand above my head which will offer perhaps a 25% or more reduction in pain and certainly reduces the throbbing. Tramol in the sufficient dosage is lethal whereby suicide by coffee is only possible by drowning.

Psychotropic drugs
Amiltriptaltne, and other medication prescribed by a trick cyclist (psychiatrist) are prescribed because you are either depressed or you are depleting serotonin to quickly because of the pain which will of course then make you exhibit the same symptoms as a depressed person. Prozac works in a slightly better way and would be worth a try.

Antidepressants insufficient dosages are quite capable of spacing you out to the extent that you don't care that you're in pain and not even remember the pain moment by moment.

Has your Amiltriptaltne been prescribed as necessary for pain or depression. If it is for depression is it for a pre injury condition or a depressed because of your injury? For a long time I thought I was depressed but then I realised I was not depressed I was traumatised. This realisation came not from myself but from a team of psychiatrists and psychologists. I suffer from PTSD from the original injury which has then been significantly aggravated by my relationship with the ACC and WINZ. Over and above that PTSD I also suffer from a different form of PTSD acquired from the accommodation is arranged by the ACC 2000-2001. If you have read my other postings you will understand my increased distress, humiliation and lack of self-worth.


Coffee
coffee is an effective analgesic! Yes I am serious. Coffee (caffeine) acts as a blogger to the receptors of adrenaline which slows the rate of adrenaline depletion which in turn increases the capacity to endure pain. Drink lots of coffee it's good. Chocolate and red wine also has an effect on the capacity to endure unpleasant circumstance and can even lift the spirits. I don't mean by comfort food, pigging out etc, I mean there are ingredients that initiate various other chemical productions within the body that affect the mind.


Surrender and Compliance or Stand up and Fight

An injured person needs comfort and care. We injured are not receiving this prepaid comfort and care in accordance with our ACC comfort and care contract. We have precious little residual capacity to stand up and fight.

Bughunter I sympathise with your recommendations to go with the flow but the implications of doing that in the long-term has got me to where I am today. I haven't been brutalised by the ACC like this because I stood up against them. They just kept taking from me until there was nothing left and only then did I rise up.

The ACC has entered into various contracts with various government departments such as hospitals and Pharmac. This is bowled funding based on guestamations. Those working in government departments work to a lower standard of care than the ACC insurance is legislated to provide an accident victim.

The standard of treatment between public hospitals and Pharmac is lower than the standard of treatment we are insured for with the ACC. In bulk funding these entities ACC are trying to have asked accept a lower standard of care. This is dishonest.

I object to Pharmac funding ACC's liabilities to the extent that people who are dying on the public health system are dying because ACC are laughing all the way to the bank with the way they have manipulated medical liabilities.

I am not playing a game with sorting out who has liability to pay for what. I find it morally a reprehensible that someone needing expensive life-saving medication for an illness cannot have that funding because injured people have depleted the public health system funding illegally. It is a moral responsibility to ensure our insurance company does not steal from the taxpayer.

With my last dying breath I will stand up for what is right and good. I will not put my pain ahead of someone else's right to live simply because ACC has been playing fast and loose with contracts arranged with naive government servants whereby the ACC has accessed taxpayer dollars rather than paying out on its liabilities in accordance with ACC legislation.
0

#179 User is offline   bughunter 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 03 May 2007 - 08:22 PM

bingo you got it,pretty nice summery really,( you got access to my medical file ? joking )
i agree with you totally about responsibilty of acc , but getting them to pay without making yout life a nightmare is a different animal all together.
what they did to you is unbelieveable...........nothing more needs to be said..................
all i was saying is sometimes being subtle with acc is more beneficial then getting in there faces,
and its better to get your meds with minimull hassel to you (pharmac) and then go about beating acc up, using pharmac against them.
thou i guess since yourve been at this longer then most your past the lets try and be nice approach, and just see acc as pure evil reincarnated.
i hope you win your battles with acc, as that can only be of benefit to the rest of us and future acc claimants

regards

bughunter
0

#180 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 May 2007 - 09:33 PM

Bughunter

About 10 years ago my case was being managed by the Henderson branch and I recognised that the front-line staff were behaving in quite a bizarre manner toward virtually every single claimant. I noticed this rather bizarre behaviour was in stark contrast to the commercial world and alarmed by what appeared to me to be very obvious I brought a problem to the attention of the branch manager of several occasions with the last occasion my making an actual appointment exclusively to admit that problem. I warned the manager that more probably than not there would be trouble. I simply envisaged someone might smash up the place.

Two month after that last meeting a manunsuccessfully seeking reimbursement for his mental stability medication for about the fifth or sixth time was turned away once too many times. He went next door to the warehouse to buy a baseball bat, much as I had predicted, but with only offered a child's toy. He then asked for a carving knife and went back to the ACC Henderson branch. With a level of bravado that was not uncommon in the Henderson branch Mrs Pike went out to see him off. Instead she was executed. He waited for the police to arrive with the confidence that he would be getting his medication.

I was trespassed from this point on for being the messenger.

The psychologist brought into council ACC staff for their distress later agreed that he lied when he told them they were safe.

From that point on I found myself very distressed and particularly unforgiving of ACC management treating their front-line staff as cannon fodder while the same time treating claimants as stock. People on this site may have noticed I have become something of a purist, seeing only in black and white. I see the legislation and the facts as something like a mathematical equation.

The sad thing is senior ACC staff would rather concern themselves with the reputation of the ACC rather than its core function. Nothin has chaneged and it will be happening agian. This causes me to believe that change can only come about by legal force. But that is my personal opinion based on my own observation and experiences.
0

#181 User is offline   bughunter 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 03 May 2007 - 10:36 PM

yes i remember the case, there were a few around that time, front line staff of various govt departments were abused or attacked.
throught history so often the messenger becomes the focus of hostile intention, seems to be the way of things.
pitty acc seem more interested in getting out of the obligations, rather then fullfilling there obligations under the act, and i guess those of us that are long term recipiants bare the brunt of all this, and those that dare to point out accs failings get singled out for SPECIAL attention.

i suppose thats why were all here, because we refuse to give up or give in, and only want what is lawfully ours........even if we have to go to hell and back to achieve this...........

regards

bughunter
0

#182 User is offline   Al9lifes 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16-October 05

Posted 04 May 2007 - 07:23 AM

So working for the ACC can kill and has done so.
ACC is a real killer.
0

#183 User is offline   Benson 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 09-May 06

Posted 04 May 2007 - 09:27 AM

So hardwired when Alan gives up his driving license are you going to come round and take him to the Doctors,supermarket and hospital ect.
Winz wont give him enough to live on never mind get taxis!
I help as much as I can but live on the other side of town and have difficulty driving myself with back pain.
How else is Alan to get to any appointments.
Are you on this forum to help people or just antagonize people.
Be proactive in helping instead of giving useless advice. :angry: :angry:

PS you attacked Alan about his invalids benefit being cut off like it was his fault!
and them the winz scum just reinstate his benefit without any explanation.The B*****ds were just F****** him about and all you and mini could do is attack his credibility.

This forum came about to HELP people.
0

#184 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 May 2007 - 01:32 PM

Hardwired

You seem to have migrated other subject matter concerning myself and my requests for transport for independence on to this thread which by all accounts is quite appropriate. I am a single male living on his own with no friend or family being able to offer help on a routine basis for such simple tasks as getting myself to earn from the hospital, doctor, food shopping and so forth in order that I might survive. Both ACC and WINZ have not provided any contributions towards transport despite the protests of the hospital specialists and my own doctors over the years.

Being without safe mobility the result has been that I have been self transporting while in a medicated state. I do ramp down on my medication but this is a little bit like a person who was drunk deciding at what stage they are sufficiently sober to drive. This concept has been explained to the ACC.

My doctor has been placed in the difficult position of deciding whether or not to pull my licence knowing that I am driving. The police have recently been issued with devices that measure pupil dilation and I suppose it is only a matter of time before measurements are taken when I make the wrong decision to drive before the effects of my medication have diminished.

From time to time it is fair to say that I have made a mistake and driven while inebriated. Perhaps the ACC should provide me with these pupil measuring devices or other such mechanism.

I did not agree with your colloquial term to the effect that I might be in constant danger of going blind in the manner in which you believe Tispinoza is at risk. I think I am trying my best to cope and yet by. Generally speaking and meticulous when it comes to being obedient to the law. For example I will not take Pharmac funded pharmaceuticals out of the mouths of the limited that it is of the taxpayer when I have access to the rich resource is in surplus funds of my insurer the ACC. I would rather die at the hands of my insurer rather than a cancer victim die from the of lack of funding from Pharmac.

I do my best to make do with what I have got while at the same time utilising the judicial resources to put wrong matters right. In the meantime I must still breathe in and out, go to the hospital, doctor and forage for food. Despite my best endeavours accidents have been happening where more probably than not needed the medication itself or the fact that I was going into a crash withdrawal from the medication either of which will impact upon my capacity to react in the way I might if I was able bodied. I also drive leading with one hand given that the dominant hand is semi functional. I also have a left elbow injury and had partial blindness in my left eye. I had sparkly type visual effects in my focal points prior to a mini stroke coming on without warning which means I don't necessarily see smaller objects until the symptoms become more obvious whereby I might even miss seeing a whole person.

The bottom line hardwired is that I will continue to take the risk if the alternative is that I die through starvation or lack of medical treatment. I have established proof beyond reasonable doubt that this will happen as I have pressed the matter to the wire on numerous previous occasions. Both WINZ and ACC won't even pay for the ambulance when it is needed reasoning that I only need the ambulance for emergencies and I am not having my emergencies on a regular basis for assessment purposes.

The following photo is of an accident of someone's car I crashed into the side of whereby the driver's seat ended up occupying less than one third of its original space causing quite significant injury. There are of course other car crashes the most recent on the motorway on my way back from medical treatment whereby the treatment provider wanted to treat me well for a medicated and had asked ACC to provide transport funding. The result has been that treatment has been discontinued.

Hardwired if you are unhappy with my plight and the lack of arrangements or suitable alternatives perhaps you could make representation to the police, members of Parliament, ACC and WINZ on my behalf as all my request for help have been rebuffed.

Attached File(s)


0

#185 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 04 May 2007 - 01:42 PM

Well I have to comment here that at least one other claimant that I know ( there would be many I do not) has crashed their car (acc had just upgraded and paid for it too), fortunately that person didn't hit another thing, but the specialist and drs wrote after that, that the person was capable of driving safely on those same sorts of strong meds.....pity then that the meds combined with the late hour had the person fall asleep at wheel. Could have been one of my kids or yours out on the highway.......wiped out or worse....injured.

Don't blame the injured person; blame the corporation who not only leaves the injured person without recourse, but also the rest of the population and their kids, relations and friends at risk in one foul swoop.....and then broadcasts falsely that you are "covered." Yeah right! In the brown stuff maybe.

Gloria.
0

#186 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 May 2007 - 02:28 PM

Gloria I am talking about my case, to the exclusion of any other case, when the specialist prescribing physician says I may not drive while taking these medications as I will be at the level of cognisance of driving purposes equivalent to a person driving over the blood alcohol limit. It is against the law.

I am raising the issue of the ACC Branch Medical Adviser overriding the specialist physician and advising ACC staff the exact opposite. There is no way of telling whether or not the ACC staff had provided the BMA all relevant information from the specialists.

Should there be a fatality, is the BMA and ACC staff member in some way liable? A fatality could range from dying of starvation, lack of medical care or a car accident that may involve myself and others. I am raising the issue of the ACC duty of care to both myself and the public.

I might be covered, but what does that mean?
0

#187 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

  Posted 04 May 2007 - 04:20 PM

Alan - you raise a very important (and interesting) point ... about ACC denying you the ability (and right) to use common sense (and following medical advice) when it comes to driving while taking medications ...

ACC are once again putting not only the ACC "victim" (claimant) at risk, they are potentially putting anyone else on the road (or elsewhere should you wind up driving onto a crowded sidewalk or heaven forbid into a school grounds during a recess) at risk of serious harm ... which also brings up another point - MANY medications advise the patient NOT to operate machinery while taking the medication .

The warning is there for a reason ... (and not just so that the manufacture can avoid liability). Many of these medications impair judgement and may cause drowsiness. And that is if taken solely. They also interact with other medications. And can have some bizarre effects (Paradex is contraindicated for those with a TBI(traumatic brain injury) for example - I've been warned of this repeatedly ... it's one of the standard prescriptions for analgesics for those allergic to codeine. So, have to rely on reduced doses (as in one-two a week, and tramadol, which is also risky) - NEITHER of which will I take if I'm about to drive or expect to have to drive ... however I wind up with nasty ouchies instead - also not the best condition to be in while driving ... it's hard to concentrate when you're doing your best not to scream with the pain ... )

If someone is operating heavy equipment - would you like to be one of his/her workmates if the operator is taking heavy duty pain medication because ACC has said they have to work and that is the only way they can cope?

What if that operator makes a mistake and maims or kills someone? He/she was only doing what ACC forced them to do, in order to make a living and be able to put food on the table. They were given little choice by ACC, but ACC can take the high and mighty road and say they're not to blame. I know I'd not be too keen on working in an open pit mine if the drivers of the 150 tonners were on pain killers ...

It's the sad case of more of the ACC You know what ... as in the farmer hauled another load of you-know-what smelly stuff away ... You know, if we could capture and bag all of the ACC you-know-what, we'd all make a fortune in the fertiliser business. :rolleyes:
0

#188 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 04 May 2007 - 06:38 PM

I can only repeat...this time with capitals.....

DON'T BLAME THE INJURED PERSON; blame the corporation who not only leaves the injured person without recourse, but also the rest of the population and their kids, relations and friends at risk in one foul swoop.....and then broadcasts falsely that you are "covered." Yeah right! In the brown stuff maybe.

If acc did its job properly and gave entitlements which are owed....we (the royal wee) wouldn't have to be worrying about this at all......covered?? Yeah right!!
Gloria.
0

#189 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

Posted 05 May 2007 - 08:41 AM

Good point, Doppelganger!

Statutes available on new site
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.a...et=pal_statutes

The relevant section of the Transport Act 1998 is

Quote

Persons not to drive while under influence of alcohol or drugs

A person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle … while under the influence of drink or a drug, or both, to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.


This would apply to anyone taking painkillers under the direction of ACC when being forced back to work (or whatever) when not yet able to do so without medication. The issue now becomes one of culpability - if the claimant is forced into this situation by ACC, then there may be a case in law for criminal culpability should an accident arise (I'm not so sure in the "you can't sue" NZ if ACC could be held liable for damages in a civil suit - would LOVE to see a test case taken forward on behalf of any third party injured or suffering damages as a result of an ACC Claimant having an accident while being forced into driving/working when clearly not able to do so without substantial pain/other medication that impares ability to function)

A bit farther down in the act is a provision which includes term "Causes a moter vehicle to be driven ..." - this appears to spread liability to others who might demand a claimant to drive ...

Quote

Contravention of section 7, or section 22 where no injury or death involved

(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)Operates a motor vehicle recklessly on a road; or

(b)Drives or causes a motor vehicle to be driven on a road at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person; or

©Without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, after an accident where no other person has been injured or killed.

(2)If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—

(a)The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and

(b)The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.

(3)The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.



Hmm - it would appear that by insisting a claimant drive, ACC may be in breach of this section and therefore the Case Manager (or their superiors) may be in breach of this section of the act - anyone care to try a test case? There may be evidence in this thread above from Alan to provide enough to take the "non illegitimus" on ....
0

#190 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 May 2007 - 10:43 AM

Hardwired

I have to agree with you again, this is a definate no-no!!

Mind you it is the thinking of a purely self-centred individual who tries to manipulate everything and everyone around him.

He would end up in jail if he hurts someone while driving now, after posting the stuff he has...............if I were him I wouldn't take the car out in a hurry!!!

Cheers
Mini
1

#191 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 05 May 2007 - 10:49 AM

Cover and rehab,

If you cant drive due to any reason while on ACC then you are entitled to transport to meet your needs.

Weather or not this is a bus train or taxi, or reimbursment of costs.

This bebate is not about Alans driving its about ACC not supplying transport to medical appointments, while he is incapabile of driving, as they are required under the act.


Tell me why ACC will fly a claimaint anywhere for a appointment with any of there favourite assessors, but refuse to transport anyone for other reasons.

It is easy to sit back and toss stones,

But more rewarding when you help instead.
0

#192 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 May 2007 - 12:37 PM

ACC are liable for social rehabilitation costs. This means that all costs that are necessary to restore my life to the pre injury circumstance is the ACC liability. If I cannot or should not drive when I otherwise would have driven giving me bus fare is not social rehabilitation to the standard of my pre injury condition. Notwithstanding that buses are unsuitable given my injuries as confirmed by medical professionals. I have suggested my home help be incorporated into my transporting needs driving my own vehicle for me as being the most cost-effective but I would accept a taxi as and when the need arises.

The cheapest option would be to comply with the 1992 Review Hearing decision requiring the ACC to promote soft tissue reconstructive surgery which will more probably than not alleviate all of these problems and return me to my pre injury occupation.

People who know me know that I am a very law-abiding person who rigorously upholds the law. Left with no assistance rendered from the ACC or available from any other source I tried to make sure that I do not drive while inebriated. Please refer to my previous posting on this subject rather than make stuff up.
"Being without safe mobility the result has been that I have been self transporting while in a medicated state. I do ramp down on my medication but this is a little bit like a person who was drunk deciding at what stage they are sufficiently sober to drive. This concept has been explained to the ACC."
When asking for social rehabilitation assistance the nonmedically qualified Regional Manager of the ACC has suggested to the hospital designing the treatment plan that my medication should be reduced. Other ACC case managers and branch managers have repeated the suggestion to me as if it is a reasonable option.
Unfortunately the constant rapid withdrawal of an opiate and gabapentin causes horrible withdrawal side-effects which is contrary to the treatment plan for PTSD and indeed aggravate the PTSD as confirmed by the hospital treating the PTSD.

Hardwired you appear to be the main culprit in relying upon your own guestamations that turns into prejudgment rather than reading the postings clarifying that I am acting as responsibly as I am unable given my circumstances with contradictory and derogatory postings such as this:
...have some accountability here .
Driving like you are,Blaming everyone else for the wacko driving....
..but from your writings / descriptions of of your driving you are the top TOSSER on the forum a far as im concerned.more so a complete wanker driving in the condition you say you are in when you do espescially when you know you are not capable of driving....
...I am not throwing stones...
...for Alan so proudly proclaim he is driving aound in a state of medicated bliss and blaing acc for the reason he is driving is socialy and personaly irresponsible....

Hardwired your postings are unjustified and I having the effect of humiliating me and I would like you to stop this kind of abuse please as I feel it is not justified. Please post well thought out helpful comments that are based on the information rather than making stuff up like "wacko driving".
In each of the crashes I was not the cause of the accidents. I do have the horrible feeling though that I might have been able to do better to deal with another driver's mistakes if I wasn't even partially medicated without realising or going through nasty withdrawals from to rapid withdrawal of my medication. Obviously whichever way you look at it I need assistance by suitably qualified expertise / transport for independence assessment from the ACC as repeatedly requested by my general practitioner who clearly states that I need assistance with transport for all things.
It must be very difficult for you criticising ACC were such gross misrepresentation of the facts when you yourself are as guilty as them. You are the type of person that exist in society which makes it completely impossible to have a fair and impartial jury. Your reinventing of what I write is not helpful as others aren't being influenced.
Please understand that a substantial portion of the PTSD is as a result of the ACC gathering information from persons in such as yourself so as to prosecute and wreck my reputation. Please understand that the ACC rely upon third parties to make up stuff rather than make stuff up themselves.
I understand that you are, or have been in the past, putting yourself forward as an ACC advocate. If I am wrong please make the necessary correction.
Please police yourself Hardwired and what you write a little more closely as you are causing me a great deal of distress, not to mention defaming my name which I am trying to hang onto after what the ACC had done to me.
0

#193 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 May 2007 - 01:32 PM

Hardwired

You have munched historical and current events and reconfigured so as to justify a viewpoint.

Compare past tense historical occurrences of driving inappropriately without being aware of the effects of the drugs in comparison with the current context.

The only time there has been an accident is when somebody else made a mistake, not me so how is it that you are placing the blame on me when I am doing all that I can to comply with law and believe I am doing so.

The problem I am raising is that I should not be placed in a position whereby the only solution was to reduce my medication solely to reduce the ACC liability.

I still think you should modify the way you address these matters by reading the postings properly BEFORE commenting.
0

#194 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 May 2007 - 02:07 PM

The ACC do not cause me to drive regardless as to my circumstance. I am responsible for my decision to drive and once disagreeing with the ACC advice and choosing to take the advice of my treatment provider may impose a greater level of responsibility upon myself. The difficulty is with limited cognisance while reducing the medication to a safe limit it is difficult to know what is safe.

"Persons not to drive while under influence of alcohol or drugs

A person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle … while under the influence of drink or a drug, or both, to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle."

It is appropriate that the ACC fund the proper assessment procedure so as I have proper guidelines. With alcohol we have well defined guidelines with a blood alcohol test and a reasonable understanding as to how much alcohol is acceptable. For example I would not hesitate to drive after going out for a meal and having 1 or maybe 2 glasses of wine.

The ACC Act clearly attempting to shift any form of liability or responsibility back into the community by not providing any assistance whatsoever when the Act clearly requires that they enhance public safety. The problem wouldn't be from my knowingly driving while medicated beyond the safety limit but not being a good judge as to when I have reduced my medication sufficiently to be safe.
0

#195 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 May 2007 - 02:36 PM

Reducing medication is not in the treatment providers medical plan for me but I this is what I do and I make a judgment call as to when I think it is safe to drive, just like someone having a bottle of wine with a meal been waiting for a time period at which point they decide it becomes safe to drive.

Perhaps the best answer is for the ACC to fund the assessments as recommended by the medical professionals. Driving safely is always a judgment call. Obviously a medicated person needs some form of guidelines. Hardwired perhaps you could be so kind as to make some inquiries on my behalf, to the manager of the Sensitive Claims Unit, as the ACC staff have been instructed by the Fraud Unit not to communicate with me. Your good faith will be demonstrated by you doing this for me and posting it on the this thread so as everybody in similar circumstances, but is now too afraid to ask, can benefit.
0

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

10 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users