ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 902
  • 903
  • 904
  • 905
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#18061 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 08 July 2018 - 09:23 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 08 July 2018 - 02:01 PM, said:

After reading through all of the sections of legislation you have provided for you able to determine the criteria by which the ACC must make their decisions?
Do you think that the ACC could merely receive information from a private investigator who has had a discussion with private individuals who have provided their opinion resulting in the private investigator having some form of information? Regardless as to the information collected that way is it even remotely possible that any of that information could be usable for the ACC to make a decision? What do the above sections of legislation instruct the ACC to do with regards to the gathering of information?
What is the criteria for the measurement?

What type and quality of information is necessary for the measurement?
What's information does legislation permits the ACC to rely upon in order to compete with the treatment providers medical diagnosis of the injury and degree of capacity or incapacity?



I will gather that you have read MICHAEL ERNEST ELLWOOD V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC WN CIV 2005-485-536 18 December 2006 as it described ACC requirement to section 73. 116. and 117.

Take note that an opinion is not part of the requirement. A belief is not either but as ACC has to show the information presented to them is not correct. This is the information in your case that claims that you could not work and was not working.

The Phone call to a business is not enough, but making an appointment and having a planned meeting with you would have been, but they did not need to show you were working, all they needed to show that you had the necessary skills and was able to be employed in employment you were at the time the commence of your incapacity.

There was no need to prove that you were working and that is what the decision that you had reported that you were unable to work when you had the ability to work.

You were question on how to use CAD and you choose to do it one was the opposite the way you could do and opposite to the help section I Solidworks CAD which is free.

Here is what is in there help section on dimentions

Placing dimensions
To add dimensions to elements, you can use a dimension command, such as Smart Dimension, and then select the elements you want to dimension.
As you place dimensions, the software shows a temporary, dynamic display of the dimension you are placing. This temporary display shows what the new dimension will look like if you click at the current cursor position. The dimension orientation changes depending on where you move the cursor.
For example, when you click the Distance Between command and select an origin element (A) and an element to measure to (B), the dimension dynamically adjusts its orientation depending on where you position your cursor © and (D).

Because you can dynamically control the orientation of a dimension during placement, you can place dimensions quickly and efficiently without having to use several commands. Each of the dimension commands uses placement dynamics that allow you to control how the dimension will look before you place it.
You also can place dimensions automatically as you draw. For more information, see Adding dimensions automatically.
Using dimensions to control elements
You can place a dimension that controls the size or location of the element that it refers to. This type of dimension is known as a locked dimension. If you change the dimensional value of a locked dimension, the element updates to match the new value.

The value of an unlocked dimension is controlled by the element it refers to, or by a formula or variable you define. If the element, formula, or variable changes, the dimensional value updates.
Because both locked and unlocked dimensions are associative to the element they refer to, you can change the design more easily without having to delete and reapply elements or dimensions when you update the design.
For more information about driving dimensions and dimension locking and unlocking, see the help topic Using driving dimensions to control elements.
Dimension color
Locked and unlocked dimensions are distinguished by color. The default colors are different in the synchronous modeling environments than they are in the Draft environment.
In the Draft environment:
The default color for locked dimensions--Black/White--is set by the Driving Dimension option.
The default color for unlocked dimensions--Dk Cyan--is set by the Driven Dimension option.
Note:
The color defined for each dimension type is part of the dimension style, which you can edit using the Styles command on the View tab in the Style group. You can change the default color for locked and unlocked dimensions on the General page of the Modify Dimension Style dialog box.
Snapping to keypoints and intersection points
When placing a dimension, you can use shortcut keys to select and snap to keypoints or intersections. After you locate the line, circle, or other element that you want to snap to, you can press one of these shortcut keys to apply the point coordinates to the command in progress: M (midpoint), I (intersection point), C (center point), and E (endpoint).
To learn more, see Help topic Selecting and snapping to points.
Making dimension lines collinear and concentric
You can drag an existing dimension so that it snaps into alignment with another dimension.
As you drag a linear dimension (A), you can locate another dimension to display a dotted alignment indicator (B). When you release the mouse button, the first dimension snaps into collinear alignment with the second.

You can use the same technique to move a radial dimension so that it snaps into concentric alignment with another radial dimension.
Aligning dimension text and leader break points
You can use the Line Up Text command to align dimensions by their dimension text, using alignment and justification options you select on the Line Up Text command bar. Two other options on the command bar align linear dimensions using the leader break points instead of the dimension text.
Placing dimensions with the dimension axis
The Dimension Axis command sets the orientation of the dimension axis on the drawing sheet or profile plane. You can use the new dimension axis, rather than the default axis of the drawing sheet or profile plane, while you use the Distance Between or Coordinate Dimension commands. After you define the dimension axis, you can place dimensions that run parallel to or perpendicular to the dimension axis.
Placing dimensions between drawing views
You can add dimensions that measure the true distance between edges in different views of the same model, such as between a principal view and a detail, cropped, or broken view.
In addition to being of the same model, the drawing views must share the same view plane and view rotation angle. For example, you can add a dimension between an edge in a front view and an edge in a detail view with the same front orientation, but not between a front view and a side view.
You can:
Place dimensions between drawing views using any of the commands that measure distance or angle between two elements.
Select edges, center marks, bolt hole circles, centerlines, sheet metal bend lines, tube centerlines, keypoints, and hidden lines within the drawing views for dimension placement.
Dimensioning with a grid
You can easily create and align dimensions using a grid and the Snap To Grid options on the Grid options dialog box. You can snap to a grid point or to a grid line.
While modifying an existing dimension, you can select any part of the dimension--line, text, or handle--and drag it, and it will snap into position. When you turn off the grid, you turn off the snap-to-grid feature.
Editing 2D dimensions
Depending on the dimension type (model-derived, synchronous sketch, ordered profile, or draft), its behavior (driven or driving), and where you click, a single click can display all of the dimension editing functions, or display only the dimension value edit box. You also can use Alt+click to get the opposite behavior.
Example:
In the Draft environment:
When you click the dimension text of a model-derived dimension, the dimension formatting command bar is displayed. If you click the dimension text again, you can modify the dimension value (A).
When you click the dimension text for a dimension placed on 2D drawing elements, then both the dimension formatting and dimension value can be edited at once.
If a dimension was locked when created, the lock symbol (B) is displayed.
If you override a dimension value retrieved from the model, the not-to-scale symbol is displayed ©.

For more information, see Edit a 2D dimension (sketch, profile, draft).
Formatting dimensions
If you want two or more dimensions to look the same, you can select the dimensions and apply a style with the command bar. If you want to format dimensions so that they look unique, you can select a dimension and edit formats with the command bar or the Properties command on the shortcut menu.
To learn how to format dimension terminators, see Set Terminator Size and Shape.
You can add prefix, suffix, superfix, and subfix text and supplementary information to a dimension value using the options in the Dimension Prefix dialog box. You can use this dialog box while you place or edit a dimension. To learn how, see Add and edit dimension text.
Copying dimension data
In the Solid Edge Draft environment, you can copy data such as prefix strings, dimension display types, and tolerance strings from one dimension to another. You also can copy the style properties associated with a dimension or annotation to another dimension or annotation using the Copy Attributes command.
Setting or modifying units of measure
You can set the units of measure for a dimension by selecting the dimension and using the Properties command on the shortcut menu. You can set the units of measure for a document using the Application menu→Info→File Properties command.
Tracking changed dimensions and annotations
When a drawing view is updated in the Solid Edge Draft environment, you can track dimensions and annotations that have been changed or deleted from the model. To open the Dimension Tracker dialog box so you can identify these changes, use the Tools tab→Assistants group→Track Dimension Changes command.
On the drawing, every changed dimension and annotation is flagged by a balloon.
In the Dimension Tracker dialog box, changed items are displayed in columnar format. You can sort the changes by clicking a column heading.
You can select one or more items in the list and assign a revision name to the balloon labels on the drawing.
To learn more, see the help topic Tracking dimension and annotation changes.
0

#18062 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 July 2018 - 10:48 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 08 July 2018 - 09:23 PM, said:

I will gather that you have read MICHAEL ERNEST ELLWOOD V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION HC WN CIV 2005-485-536 18 December 2006 as it described ACC requirement to section 73. 116. and 117.

Take note that an opinion is not part of the requirement. A belief is not either but as ACC has to show the information presented to them is not correct. This is the information in your case that claims that you could not work and was not working.

The Phone call to a business is not enough, but making an appointment and having a planned meeting with you would have been, but they did not need to show you were working, all they needed to show that you had the necessary skills and was able to be employed in employment you were at the time the commence of your incapacity.

There was no need to prove that you were working and that is what the decision that you had reported that you were unable to work when you had the ability to work.

You were question on how to use CAD and you choose to do it one was the opposite the way you could do and opposite to the help section I Solidworks CAD which is free.

Here is what is in there help section on dimentions

Placing dimensions
To add dimensions to elements, you can use a dimension command, such as Smart Dimension, and then select the elements you want to dimension.
As you place dimensions, the software shows a temporary, dynamic display of the dimension you are placing. This temporary display shows what the new dimension will look like if you click at the current cursor position. The dimension orientation changes depending on where you move the cursor.
For example, when you click the Distance Between command and select an origin element (A) and an element to measure to (, the dimension dynamically adjusts its orientation depending on where you position your cursor © and (D).

Because you can dynamically control the orientation of a dimension during placement, you can place dimensions quickly and efficiently without having to use several commands. Each of the dimension commands uses placement dynamics that allow you to control how the dimension will look before you place it.
You also can place dimensions automatically as you draw. For more information, see Adding dimensions automatically.
Using dimensions to control elements
You can place a dimension that controls the size or location of the element that it refers to. This type of dimension is known as a locked dimension. If you change the dimensional value of a locked dimension, the element updates to match the new value.

The value of an unlocked dimension is controlled by the element it refers to, or by a formula or variable you define. If the element, formula, or variable changes, the dimensional value updates.
Because both locked and unlocked dimensions are associative to the element they refer to, you can change the design more easily without having to delete and reapply elements or dimensions when you update the design.
For more information about driving dimensions and dimension locking and unlocking, see the help topic Using driving dimensions to control elements.
Dimension color
Locked and unlocked dimensions are distinguished by color. The default colors are different in the synchronous modeling environments than they are in the Draft environment.
In the Draft environment:
The default color for locked dimensions--Black/White--is set by the Driving Dimension option.
The default color for unlocked dimensions--Dk Cyan--is set by the Driven Dimension option.
Note:
The color defined for each dimension type is part of the dimension style, which you can edit using the Styles command on the View tab in the Style group. You can change the default color for locked and unlocked dimensions on the General page of the Modify Dimension Style dialog box.
Snapping to keypoints and intersection points
When placing a dimension, you can use shortcut keys to select and snap to keypoints or intersections. After you locate the line, circle, or other element that you want to snap to, you can press one of these shortcut keys to apply the point coordinates to the command in progress: M (midpoint), I (intersection point), C (center point), and E (endpoint).
To learn more, see Help topic Selecting and snapping to points.
Making dimension lines collinear and concentric
You can drag an existing dimension so that it snaps into alignment with another dimension.
As you drag a linear dimension (A), you can locate another dimension to display a dotted alignment indicator (. When you release the mouse button, the first dimension snaps into collinear alignment with the second.

You can use the same technique to move a radial dimension so that it snaps into concentric alignment with another radial dimension.
Aligning dimension text and leader break points
You can use the Line Up Text command to align dimensions by their dimension text, using alignment and justification options you select on the Line Up Text command bar. Two other options on the command bar align linear dimensions using the leader break points instead of the dimension text.
Placing dimensions with the dimension axis
The Dimension Axis command sets the orientation of the dimension axis on the drawing sheet or profile plane. You can use the new dimension axis, rather than the default axis of the drawing sheet or profile plane, while you use the Distance Between or Coordinate Dimension commands. After you define the dimension axis, you can place dimensions that run parallel to or perpendicular to the dimension axis.
Placing dimensions between drawing views
You can add dimensions that measure the true distance between edges in different views of the same model, such as between a principal view and a detail, cropped, or broken view.
In addition to being of the same model, the drawing views must share the same view plane and view rotation angle. For example, you can add a dimension between an edge in a front view and an edge in a detail view with the same front orientation, but not between a front view and a side view.
You can:
Place dimensions between drawing views using any of the commands that measure distance or angle between two elements.
Select edges, center marks, bolt hole circles, centerlines, sheet metal bend lines, tube centerlines, keypoints, and hidden lines within the drawing views for dimension placement.
Dimensioning with a grid
You can easily create and align dimensions using a grid and the Snap To Grid options on the Grid options dialog box. You can snap to a grid point or to a grid line.
While modifying an existing dimension, you can select any part of the dimension--line, text, or handle--and drag it, and it will snap into position. When you turn off the grid, you turn off the snap-to-grid feature.
Editing 2D dimensions
Depending on the dimension type (model-derived, synchronous sketch, ordered profile, or draft), its behavior (driven or driving), and where you click, a single click can display all of the dimension editing functions, or display only the dimension value edit box. You also can use Alt+click to get the opposite behavior.
Example:
In the Draft environment:
When you click the dimension text of a model-derived dimension, the dimension formatting command bar is displayed. If you click the dimension text again, you can modify the dimension value (A).
When you click the dimension text for a dimension placed on 2D drawing elements, then both the dimension formatting and dimension value can be edited at once.
If a dimension was locked when created, the lock symbol ( is displayed.
If you override a dimension value retrieved from the model, the not-to-scale symbol is displayed ©.

For more information, see Edit a 2D dimension (sketch, profile, draft).
Formatting dimensions
If you want two or more dimensions to look the same, you can select the dimensions and apply a style with the command bar. If you want to format dimensions so that they look unique, you can select a dimension and edit formats with the command bar or the Properties command on the shortcut menu.
To learn how to format dimension terminators, see Set Terminator Size and Shape.
You can add prefix, suffix, superfix, and subfix text and supplementary information to a dimension value using the options in the Dimension Prefix dialog box. You can use this dialog box while you place or edit a dimension. To learn how, see Add and edit dimension text.
Copying dimension data
In the Solid Edge Draft environment, you can copy data such as prefix strings, dimension display types, and tolerance strings from one dimension to another. You also can copy the style properties associated with a dimension or annotation to another dimension or annotation using the Copy Attributes command.
Setting or modifying units of measure
You can set the units of measure for a dimension by selecting the dimension and using the Properties command on the shortcut menu. You can set the units of measure for a document using the Application menu→Info→File Properties command.
Tracking changed dimensions and annotations
When a drawing view is updated in the Solid Edge Draft environment, you can track dimensions and annotations that have been changed or deleted from the model. To open the Dimension Tracker dialog box so you can identify these changes, use the Tools tab→Assistants group→Track Dimension Changes command.
On the drawing, every changed dimension and annotation is flagged by a balloon.
In the Dimension Tracker dialog box, changed items are displayed in columnar format. You can sort the changes by clicking a column heading.
You can select one or more items in the list and assign a revision name to the balloon labels on the drawing.
To learn more, see the help topic Tracking dimension and annotation changes.


And what is you answer to my questions?



After reading through all of the sections of legislation you have provided for you able to determine the criteria by which the ACC must make their decisions?
Do you think that the ACC could merely receive information from a private investigator who has had a discussion with private individuals who have provided their opinion resulting in the private investigator having some form of information? Regardless as to the information collected that way is it even remotely possible that any of that information could be usable for the ACC to make a decision? What do the above sections of legislation instruct the ACC to do with regards to the gathering of information?
What is the criteria for the measurement?

What type and quality of information is necessary for the measurement?
What's information does legislation permits the ACC to rely upon in order to compete with the treatment providers medical diagnosis of the injury and degree of capacity or incapacity?
0

#18063 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 09 July 2018 - 12:59 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 08 July 2018 - 10:48 PM, said:

And what is you answer to my questions?



After reading through all of the sections of legislation you have provided for you able to determine the criteria by which the ACC must make their decisions?
Do you think that the ACC could merely receive information from a private investigator who has had a discussion with private individuals who have provided their opinion resulting in the private investigator having some form of information? Regardless as to the information collected that way is it even remotely possible that any of that information could be usable for the ACC to make a decision? What do the above sections of legislation instruct the ACC to do with regards to the gathering of information?
What is the criteria for the measurement?

What type and quality of information is necessary for the measurement?
What's information does legislation permits the ACC to rely upon in order to compete with the treatment providers medical diagnosis of the injury and degree of capacity or incapacity?

The criminal court judge who convicted you clearly stated he never took into consideration your medical issues.
Go appeal that you tosser
0

#18064 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 July 2018 - 10:41 AM

View PostHemi, on 09 July 2018 - 12:59 AM, said:

The criminal court judge who convicted you clearly stated he never took into consideration your medical issues.
Go appeal that you tosser


But the law IS the medicals
0

#18065 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 09 July 2018 - 11:59 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 10:41 AM, said:

But the law IS the medicals

View PostHemi, on 09 July 2018 - 12:59 AM, said:

The criminal court judge who convicted you clearly stated he never took into consideration your medical issues.
Go appeal that you tosser





HHhhmmmm can you NOT read Alan?

Hemi posted about *medical issues* which is different to your incomplete or inadequate use of these words or concept ....

For example, there appears to be various differing and different opinions and concerns detailed within all of your expert medical reports ....

Are you now going to argue in here about the word *Report* &or the qualificatons of these experts perhaps?

The on top of this the basic medical certificates also essentially became invalid when the GP or certifying doctor said under oath that they were based on your storytelling Alan ie he was likely unable to corroborate various aspects perhaps?

Are you now going to argue about the word *Certificate* in here &or the qualifications of these general practitioners perhaps? Or perhaps you will change the issue again and claim that your GP is mistaken &or that there never was any history-taking or supposed facts or explanations that he has got from your gob?

Of course this is not including any medical issues which accompany the basic medical certificates such as deception, or exaggeration and malingering factors Alan ...

Plus do not forget there is also another big issue ... which is that you NEVER progressed your basic medical certificates and claimed medical problems to the next steps! Unfortunately Alan you comprehension of the legislation is still very flawed IMHO because you still do not understand that there was a specific Medical Assessment accepted by ACC or available to the courts for scrutiny either Alan ie corroboration of basic GP certificatates with 1982 Section 78 examination etc etc

I do not know if you ever sought Review of the 14.5% assessment which you spoke about yesterday. Goodness I do not even know if you took these lumpsum dollars $2465 from ACC or not?

I do know that unlike many other claimants that your initial Section 79 was also apparently minimal &or basically below average ... and you had to review that simple lumpsum just to get it to the same levels as everybody else Alan ...

Short version with my POV is that way back then in the early 90s, or nearly 30 years ago, it is unclear if you took all this potential money [or $12465.00] and from this deducted your contribution to the private surgery undertaken [or approx $1500-$2000] which was briefly outlined in your NZLII court judgements etc

Another difficulty is that in these very same court judgements critically analysing the various medical reports Alan is that many of your interpretations today were dismissed back then. For example, you alleged Rees undertook surgery which you classed as an assault. This allegation was not proved. You have since then tried to get these same facts snuck into the ACC system by using the legislation concerning medical mistakes or misadventure etc I do not know yet how that different strategy is working etc etc

And of course there is provision within the legislation that addresses the difficulty from when claimants can deliberately injure themselves too Alan. Clearly you would be regarded as having skated on this thin ice with your reckless sailing behaviours. Goodness even post-surgery Alan you could have reinjured yourself at any time but back then 30 years ago the ACC and MOH systems were still endeavouring to help you...

Add to this that there seemed to be zero restrictions on your daily activities as you were clearly gallivanting around the world &or often seen doing other stuff too. This is where the witnesses testimony clearly contradicted your zebra tactics too. For another simple example, I even think there was an MSM report about you carrying your own briefcase with your injured arm/wrist but you have possibly been blind to this observation by the journalists. Again another issue which could have influenced your GP reporting within his basic medical certification Alan. Plus your opinion or unsettling focus on your clothing decisions &or image presentations way back then has never washed with me either unfortunately but that not specifically a physical impairment issue but something else possibly Alan ...

Lastly there is also all the legislation relating to injuries sustained while not qualifying under Earner Status for earnings related compensation. This could be another hurdle if your original wrist injury did not satisfy this determination; followed by the clear evidence that you were functioning with a defective wrist for years Alan, so there could be many more *medical issues* raised here IMHO. Basically much like claimants who hurt themselves while unemployed but wait months or years until after they get a job and then make a delayed claim etc

HTH :wacko:
0

#18066 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 09 July 2018 - 12:42 PM

fudgecake ... hit the wrong button as brainstorming a work in progress or deciding if keeping as personal thought and not posting any of etc ...thought i did the preview click :(
bbl
0

#18067 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 July 2018 - 12:46 PM

My response to your thoughts in blue

View Postanonymousey, on 09 July 2018 - 11:59 AM, said:

HHhhmmmm can you NOT read Alan?

Hemi posted about *medical issues* which is different to your incomplete or inadequate use of these words or concept ....
Is reference was to the district court judge who and his decision decided to disregard the medical evidence put before him. If you look further back into his judgement you will see that he did this on the basis that he considered all medical professionals had been tricked by me as there was no other explanation for the ACC's viewpoint that I was working. He did this on the basis of his special magical abilities to detect if someone before him was lie and anti-and therefore concluded that if I'd like to them I had also lied to the medical profession. It is interesting to note however that throughout the entire proceedings I have never once expressed to the court my own viewpoints concerning anything but always relied upon documented evidence that I put before him of which she made absolutely no comment on with them has decision despite the fact that ACC decisions are entirely dependent upon the medical condition of an individual after injury.

For example, there appears to be various differing and different opinions and concerns detailed within all of your expert medical reports .... Are you now going to argue in here about the word *Report* &or the qualificatons of these experts perhaps?
Every single medical professional who has ever had any clinical examination of me has confirmed that I suffer from numerous different injuries with the most readily recognisable being that my hand is no longer connected to my arm properly for the purposes of any kind of function. Although there is a full range of movement for some tests those tests are entirely a relevant for people who have suffered a distraction injury whereby limbs are pulled apart and only hanging on by skin and other soft tissue. No medical professional looking at this is considered there to be any possibility of using my right dominant hand for any work whatsoever. Effectively this makes me a one handed person with elbow injuries to that non-dominant hand combined with numerous other injuries that make me an effective as an earner.The only dissenters were Doctor Nicholson and Doctor Moneghetti although producing a document called medical reports both acknowledge that they had not actually reported medical information but rather reiterated what the ACC had given them to put in their report. Doctor Moneghetti narrowly missed criminal prosecution for insurance fraud on this issue. Interestingly the ACC have continued to attempt to use this documentation without first checking with the authors. I have never met Doctor Moneghetti and he has never received any medical information about me whatsoever and Doctor Nicholson had only ever been asked to have a look at my left elbow and had therefore not reported on anything else.The bottom line is that you will not be able to point to any medical information of any sort that portrays me as being able-bodied without the authors acknowledging that the report is not usable. Doctor Moneghetti for example removed his reports on the recommendation of the court to avoid criminal prosecution. The fact that you try to use this type of information demonstrates your own criminal mind.


The on top of this the basic medical certificates also essentially became invalid when the GP or certifying doctor said under oath that they were based on your storytelling Alan ie he was likely unable to corroborate various aspects perhaps? That is a load of nonsense. You are misinterpreting what the doctor has stated as fact polar opposite is to be intention of the author. This is confirmed by the fact that the same doctor kept on giving me medical reports and certificates, a fact which puts an end to your misinterpretation.


Are you now going to argue about the word *Certificate* in here &or the qualifications of these general practitioners perhaps? Or perhaps you will change the issue again and claim that your GP is mistaken &or that there never was any history-taking or supposed facts or explanations that he has got from your gob? All medical professionals providing me with medical to delegates have relied upon the expertise of scientific diagnostic procedures and equipment along with specialist consultations with experts in their field.Please stop using insulting language.

Of course this is not including any medical issues which accompany the basic medical certificates such as deception, or exaggeration and malingering factors Alan .The ACC has accused me of having a work ethic to the extent that I worked while disabled so that puts an end to your nonsense suggestion of malingering. It seems to me that you are clutching at straws whereby you follow your traditional mode of rationalisation whereby you start with a speculation on their progress at on through to an assumption from which you then conclude that you cannot the wrong and therefore making factual statements. This type of mental disorder renders you as a person that should not be near children as you will severely damage their mental functioning and processes..
Plus do not forget there is also another big issue You cannot have another big issue when you have not yet addressed a first big issue
... which is that you NEVER progressed your basic medical certificates and claimed medical problems to the next steps! Unfortunately Alan you comprehension of the legislation is still very flawed IMHO because you still do not understand that there was a specific Medical Assessment accepted by ACC or available to the courts for scrutiny either Alan ie corroboration of basic GP certificatates with 1982 Section 78 examination etc etc
Neither the ACC nor yourself are capable of having an opinion regarding medical matters without superior medical information to that that has already been given. I note with interest that the ACC has never asked me to make myself available for their own independent medical assessment procedures and suchlike and as such there is no posing medical viewpoint. Quite obviously viewpoints such as that derived by ACC informants, ACC themselves and people like you are entirely irrelevant to the legislated procedure of the determination of information to the extent that the ACC may claim possession of information.


I do not know if you ever sought Review of the 14.5% assessment which you spoke about yesterday. Goodness I do not even know if you took these lumpsum dollars $2465 from ACC or not? Yes. The reviewer confirmed that the ACC quite clearly failed to provide the assessor with the medical information describing the injury and had specifically instructed their assessor only to look at an elbow injury to the exclusion of all of the other injuries. The injury to my hand alone without reference to my elbows shoulders and suchlike rendered a disability of 60% which is the figure that the ACC were required by the reviewer to accept. This figure was then later relied upon for the lump sum payment of 100% of a section of legislation. Why are you making stuff up in the negative all the time? That seems to be some kind of a personal attack doesn't it

I do know that unlike many other claimants that your initial Section 79 was also apparently minimal &or basically below average ... and you had to review that simple lumpsum just to get it to the same levels as everybody else Alan ... No assessment has been made as the ACC are waiting for my deteriorating injuries to settle.


Short version with my POV is that way back then in the early 90s, or nearly 30 years ago, it is unclear if you took all this potential money [or $12465.00] and from this deducted your contribution to the private surgery undertaken [or approx $1500-$2000] which was briefly outlined in your NZLII court judgements etc
I have no idea what you are talking about???it seems to me that your wayward imagination has got the better of you once again whereby you start off with a speculation and assume you speculation is a fact and then start talking about court judgements. This is clear evidence of your cognition type problems whereby you have got to the point of believing your own imagination. This type of disorder is similar to seeing things that aren't there and hearing voices etc.

Another difficulty is that in these very same court judgements critically analysing the various medical reports Alan is that many of your interpretations today were dismissed back then.
The judges not capable of examining a medical report or series of medical reports on a stand-alone basis. They simply don't have the necessary qualifications and the law doesn't permit them to make medical decisions. Even if the ACC were to fund the required medical assessments from their contracted independent medical assessors more often than not these complex cases still the judge would not be allowed to determine which medical report he chooses to believe which is the reason why the legislation instructs the court to have a medical professional sitting with them on the bench to explain and clarify the meaning of the medical matters.

For example, you alleged Rees undertook surgery which you classed as an assault.
I did not class is surgical activity as an assault. This determination was made by the medical Council and the legal profession. It was not the first time this surgeon had involved himself in medical activities that resulted in legal censure due to his failure of requiring consent. In fact he was prosecuted and is in the law books with a guilty conviction either the same year for the year before as reckless behaviour with me.

This allegation was not proved.
There is a difference between civil assault and criminal assault. You need to familiarise yourself with the difference and until you do you are not in a position to comment.
You have since then tried to get these same facts snuck into the ACC system by using the legislation concerning medical mistakes or misadventure etc I do not know yet how that different strategy is working etc etcNo sneaking about it. There is an accept the claim for cover for the damage that Mister Rees did to me when carrying out surgical activity without my permission on a different part of my body which has caused measurable harm of which other medical professionals have submitted claims with those claims also being accepted for cover in order that the ACC determine entitlements. When you don't know what you are talking about it is always best to remain silent's earning your imagination which will avoid your tendency to escalate your imagination into the real world in your head. Again you are advised to stay away from children as they will most certainly get screwed up if you were to do any more than make the sandwiches and suchlike.

And of course there is provision within the legislation that addresses the difficulty from when claimants can deliberately injure themselves too Alan. Clearly you would be regarded as having skated on this thin ice with your reckless sailing behaviours. In the event of equipment failure resulting in an accident event and injury you cannot seriously believe that anyone would speculate some kind of self harm as you do. It is this deranged type of thinking process of yours where you imagine something and then speculate that imagination into some kind of fact in your mind that gets you and those around you into trouble. You do need to get some kind of control over your propensity towards allowing imagination to live towards facts in your mind as I have said before this defect within your mental function will certainly cause harm to any children in your vicinity and as such if you do not seek help and refrain from being with children six will have to take place to protect those children from you.


Goodness even post-surgery Alan you could have reinjured yourself at any time but back then 30 years ago the ACC and MOH systems were still endeavouring to help you...
What causes you to imagine that? I won't ask because you're Lucy goosey brain runs wild will all manner of silly imagine rethinking that no one could possibly predict or comprehend your thoughts.

Add to this that there seemed to be zero restrictions on your daily activities as you were clearly gallivanting around the world &or often seen doing other stuff too.
This is where your imagination continues to get you in trouble is quite clearly the medical certificates and reports describe limitations. For example no work function activity with my right dominant hand whatsoever and the rest of my activities are restricted to only two hours a day so long as those hours are fragmented throughout the day. This is not difficult information for you to comprehend so I am puzzled as to how your imagination has managed to get you in such a grip where you ignore information right before you in favour of that imagination. Again such imagination indicates very significant illusionary dysfunction similar to that of someone with voices was these things that are there.

This is where the witnesses testimony clearly contradicted your zebra tactics too. As the only information relevant to the ACC legislation is medical information the ACC have not presented any witnesses as such. Instead what the ACC has done is octane a number of people that they thought were going to be informants for which the ACC, like you, imagined would say that I was working at a particular work task activity for material time and that information could be used to challenge the medical profession. The problem is when there witnesses were placed under oath they confirmed that they had not actually seen any work task activities as such but simply have perceived that I might be working because I owned various companies and those companies were punishing and I was in the facility of those countries by living on the premises. Facts such as that do not come close to describing someone who was working. However work does not feature in the ACC legislation as criteria of any sort. The only close elements to work is the word employment which by its interpretation section 6 necessitates that the work result in earnings for have a capacity to of earnings which were then invoke a abatement of earnings refund for the ACC. That is where that portion of information eends and goes no further. If the ACC was to perceive that someone was working in contradiction to the medical certificates then they would be justified to require the claimant to undergo an independent medical assessment to ensure that the medical reports that decisions have been made on were either correct or were many of the factual records altered accordingly. The ACC did not see any need to do this and as such have no basis to claim an end of incapacity.It seems to me that you are seeing zebras that are not there.
For another simple example, I even think there was an MSM report about you carrying your own briefcase with your injured arm/wrist but you have possibly been blind to this observation by the journalists.
Have you considered carrying a briefcase relevant to anything? Businessmen who own businesses or invest in businesses carry briefcases. None of this type of activity or the carrying of the briefcase impacts upon the degree of disability to return to my preinjury occupation. What of the earth are you trying to come drop in your imagination now? Are you tried to create some kind of impression with young impressionable minds? Quite clearly you need treatment for this type of disorder.


Again another issue which could have influenced your GP reporting within his basic medical certification Alan.
There you go with your imagination again. All of the medical professionals I go to only carry out any kind of assessment to reach conclusions by way of clinical examination in reliance upon their qualifications, experience in conjunction with references to other specialists to further confirm the precision of the diagnosis.


Plus your opinion or unsettling focus on your clothing decisions &or image presentations way back then has never washed with me either unfortunately but that not specifically a physical impairment issue but something else possibly Alan ...Your imagination is got so out of whack with reality I cannot even understand what you are trying to say.

Lastly there is also all the legislation relating to injuries sustained while not qualifying under Earner Status for earnings related compensation. This could be another hurdle if your original wrist injury did not satisfy this determination; followed by the clear evidence that you were functioning with a defective wrist for years Alan, so there could be many more *medical issues* raised here IMHO. Basically much like claimants who hurt themselves while unemployed but wait months or years until after they get a job and then make a delayed claim etcHTH
There you go with your could be's and maybe's again with your arms flailing about trying to gain some kind of traction between your imagination and reality. When a person is injured and then subsequently suffers an additional injury such as having a yachting injury resulting in further injury at the hands of the surgeon and then injured yet again in the medical professionals that are trying to determine the nature of the damage caused by the surgeon cause yet another injury. In such circumstances there is no basis for imagining a lack of earning compensation based on not working at the time of the additional injuries. It is truly risky on your part to be making comments on subjects well beyond your capacity of understanding particularly when dealing with matters of law.

0

#18068 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 09 July 2018 - 12:50 PM

View PostHemi, on 09 July 2018 - 12:59 AM, said:

The criminal court judge who convicted you clearly stated he never took into consideration your medical issues.
Go appeal that you tosser



View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 10:41 AM, said:

But the law IS the medicals


which is what you had filled out by the doctors on the acc18 re your ability and YOU SIGNED as TRUE then you went about something else other than what your stated ability was
the law was under the criminal acts and did you deceive mislead not abide by the requirements fo you to the acc to be honest upfront about yourself in everything as required on the acc18 medical forms
as said-go appeal the criminal courts verdict thomas

but you wont because you cant as youll lose again so you attempt the trickery using doctors medical info which is NOT what the fraud trial was about at all
it was about YOUR DISHONESTY and that was proven with the verdict of guilty as charged,Even tho you were wearing a suit :lol:/>

your a joke thomas
0

#18069 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 July 2018 - 01:32 PM

View PostHemi, on 09 July 2018 - 12:50 PM, said:

which is what you had filled out by the doctors on the acc18 re your ability and YOU SIGNED as TRUE then you went about something else other than what your stated ability was
the law was under the criminal acts and did you deceive mislead not abide by the requirements fo you to the acc to be honest upfront about yourself in everything as required on the acc18 medical forms
as said-go appeal the criminal courts verdict thomas

but you wont because you cant as youll lose again so you attempt the trickery using doctors medical info which is NOT what the fraud trial was about at all
it was about YOUR DISHONESTY and that was proven with the verdict of guilty as charged,Even tho you were wearing a suit Posted Image/>

your a joke thomas


I rely on the integrity of my treatment providers and in particular their expertise concerning the degree of damage I've done to myself and the certainty of further damage if I continue to do what I'm doing thus necessitating my obedience to the medical decisions that I should not return to my preinjury occupation until after I have received medical treatment in the form of reconstructive surgery and that surgery to be successful. I have had the first stage of reconstructive surgery that has increased by capacity up to 4 KG. Unfortunately this is not enough to allow me to return to my preinjury occupation. This being the case I do not understand the nature of your confusion and why you would think that there was some kind of problem with the medical certificates provided to the ACC for the purposes of pecuniary advantages in the form of medical treatment and earnings compensation etc.
You talk about issues of honesty. What discrepancy are you perceiving is an existence because you to imagine some kind of dishonesty?
When I look at the x-rays, CT scans and MRI scans from which the medical professionals have described the nature of my injuries and the reasons why I am unable to carry out certain types of activities I failed to comprehend why you think that the medical certificates do not entitle me to ACC entitlements.

0

#18070 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 09 July 2018 - 04:20 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 08 July 2018 - 10:48 PM, said:

And what is you answer to my questions?



After reading through all of the sections of legislation you have provided for you able to determine the criteria by which the ACC must make their decisions?
Do you think that the ACC could merely receive information from a private investigator who has had a discussion with private individuals who have provided their opinion resulting in the private investigator having some form of information? Regardless as to the information collected that way is it even remotely possible that any of that information could be usable for the ACC to make a decision? What do the above sections of legislation instruct the ACC to do with regards to the gathering of information?
What is the criteria for the measurement?

What type and quality of information is necessary for the measurement?
What's information does legislation permits the ACC to rely upon in order to compete with the treatment providers medical diagnosis of the injury and degree of capacity or incapacity?



You might want to read the ILO declaration about what is covered. What is not!

when a claim is made with fraudulent intent the claim can be dismissed.

your claim was Fraudulent when you claimed that you could not work in your preinjury employment when you failed to find employment as a so called engineer, project manager or what ever you called your self.

You asked the question Can ACC use a Private Investigator the answer is yes.

The fact that they can ask any one they like, just like the police can ask any one when investigating a criminal matter.

The Police are not dumb and don't ask every person in the world just because they can.they target the persons specific to the needed information.

Here is article 22 of C121.
Article 22
1. A benefit to which a person protected would otherwise be entitled in compliance with this Convention may be suspended to such extent as may be prescribed--
· (a) as long as the person concerned is absent from the territory of the Member;
· (b) as long as the person concerned is maintained at public expense or at the expense of a social security institution or service;
· © where the person concerned has made a fraudulent claim;
· (d) where the employment injury has been caused by a criminal offence committed by the person concerned;
· (e) where the employment injury has been caused by voluntary intoxication or by the serious and wilful misconduct of the person concerned;
· (f) where the person concerned, without good cause, neglects to make use of the medical care and allied benefits or the rehabilitation services placed at his disposal, or fails to comply with rules prescribed for verifying the occurrence or continuance of the contingency or for the conduct of beneficiaries; and
· (g) as long as the surviving spouse is living with another person as spouse.
2. In the cases and within the limits prescribed, part of the cash benefit otherwise due shall be paid to the dependants of the person concerned.
0

#18071 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 July 2018 - 05:00 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 09 July 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

You might want to read the ILO declaration about what is covered. What is not!

when a claim is made with fraudulent intent the claim can be dismissed.

your claim was Fraudulent when you claimed that you could not work in your preinjury employment when you failed to find employment as a so called engineer, project manager or what ever you called your self.

You asked the question Can ACC use a Private Investigator the answer is yes.

The fact that they can ask any one they like, just like the police can ask any one when investigating a criminal matter.

The Police are not dumb and don't ask every person in the world just because they can.they target the persons specific to the needed information.

Here is article 22 of C121.
Article 22
1. A benefit to which a person protected would otherwise be entitled in compliance with this Convention may be suspended to such extent as may be prescribed--
· (a) as long as the person concerned is absent from the territory of the Member;
· (B) as long as the person concerned is maintained at public expense or at the expense of a social security institution or service;
· © where the person concerned has made a fraudulent claim;
· (d) where the employment injury has been caused by a criminal offence committed by the person concerned;
· (e) where the employment injury has been caused by voluntary intoxication or by the serious and wilful misconduct of the person concerned;
· (f) where the person concerned, without good cause, neglects to make use of the medical care and allied benefits or the rehabilitation services placed at his disposal, or fails to comply with rules prescribed for verifying the occurrence or continuance of the contingency or for the conduct of beneficiaries; and
· (g) as long as the surviving spouse is living with another person as spouse.
2. In the cases and within the limits prescribed, part of the cash benefit otherwise due shall be paid to the dependants of the person concerned.


Caselaw has confirmed that claims which the ACC has secured a criminal prosecution based on ACC fraud were a conviction has been achieved based on the claim being made for deliberately and under false pretences et cetera that the ACC may not revoke cover nor entitlements And so congested where they have not carried out the legislated procedure to determine that the medical information relied upon for the claim decision and entitlements has been addressed in accordance with the legislation which of course is and always will be a challenge by way of ACCs independent medical assessors challenging the validity of the medical reporting and medical certificates by the treatment providers. This is the law.
ACC have never challenged the medical soundness of the information relied upon to provide cover and entitlements. ACC did not revoke cover and entitlements based on medical evidence for any criteria of the legislation. ACC proved to the standard asked for by the judges of both criminal and civil courts to the extent that they were satisfied that the ACC had carried out the legislated administration processes necessary to revoke cover and entitlements without the need to buy the ground medical matters. None of the transcription or the judgement of the court clearly identified any basis in law for the decisions while upholding the ACC decision to revoke cover and entitlements.
In a criminal trial the court found that the ACC could cancel the claim on the basis that the claimant is working despite the ACC never providing the court with a smoking gun of any work ever taken place which that the court to make a decision based on the balance of probabilities instead of the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As the court did not rely upon the legislated criteria for the ACC to make a decision the criminal court had no basis in law for its decision at all.
So a criminal conviction is achievable by the ACC, a multibillion-dollar Corporation, without the ACC providing the court any information or bases in law for the conviction. Doppelgänger are you suitably morally outraged as I am or do you want the ACC to be doing this to the week and invalided citizens of New Zealand as a mechanism to evade financial liabilities?
With regards to the civil court judge's decision to the effect that he thought I had somehow lied to the entire medical profession, including their CT and MRI machines, Of which she had detected by way of this very unique and unusual skill to have a lie detection abilities and Wonder Woman's wip of truth So as he can be his own provider of medical information to make up for the fact that the ACC had never seen fit to acquire the required information in accordance with the legislated procedure found in section 37 of the 1992 act prior to claiming to possess information under section 73 is claimed to both civil and criminal courts. What was he thinking? This question has been asked by the greater ACC specialist legal experts in New Zealand! Doppelgänger are you truly understand by and allow the ACC to blatantly lie to judges that have passed their use by date to the extent that they spout forth such ridiculous nonsense of being superior to the higher medical profession based on their magical skills? Surely you cannot be so stupid

However since you think that the ACC can rely upon private investigators for information for the purposes of challenging the medical professionals you must be is about the stupid as can be or perhaps just completely gullible given the fact that the legislation quite clearly requires the ACC to acquire medical information for the decisions to determine degree of injury and incapacity while information sources such as neighbours who describe people lifting rocks is totally irrelevant. If the ACC suspect that a person is less injured and what is described on medical reports and medical certificates provided by treatment providers the legislation instructs the ACC to acquire the Reformation from its own authorised independent medical assessors. If you think legislation expected ACC to acquire information of any merit from your friends neighbours and family collected by private investigators, reconfigured interpreted by various ACC staff and then reinterpreted again by legal representation followed by further reinterpretation by judge then you must be crazy.
Doppelgänger consider the possibility that you have been socially engineered into accepting the ridiculous conduct that has resulted in the unexplainable certainly stands whereby I'm accused of working despite the fact that it is quite impossible for me to work. Those who argue against the impossibility such as legless tap dancers tap dancing have got to be about a stupid as can be. How is it that you can be trained monkey and believe such rubbish. Others are merely corrupt.
Doppelgänger why have you quote from something that has no connection to the ACC legislation? Do you think we on the side of righteousness and all that is good And to uphold truth and integrity for the purposes of promoting integrity of the ACC legislation are stupid? Tell me doppelgänger did someone else give you that material to quote and did you fail to check its origin. If that is the case I make my point that you are a person who is easily manipulated and made use by others who are seeking to promote the interests of the ACC ahead of the interests of those the ACC are required by law to serve.





0

#18072 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 09 July 2018 - 05:50 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

Caselaw has confirmed that claims which the ACC has secured a criminal prosecution based on ACC fraud were a conviction has been achieved based on the claim being made for deliberately and under false pretences et cetera that the ACC may not revoke cover nor entitlements


This is not correct but in some cases the ACC have wrongly made the assumption a person does not have a claim.

Most of the time ACC had caused hardship which was not in your case to prevent Vocational Rehabilitation and then made decision were they were wrong in other parts of the legislation.

Your case is that you claimed that you could and was not working. You continue to claim that there was no remuneration benefit for you or others (this is wages and employment through dishonesty)

then you on top of that you claimed that you were incapacitated to return to your pre-injury employment. You kept telling everyone that your injury stops you from doing CAD as you can not use a mouse.

That was a lie as you could not find work as you owed persons money. $350,000.00 . Those people then spread the word you were unreliable and unable to produce a machine to make plastic bags.

The Courts show that your machine did not work and it was over the time limit in what you said it could be completed in.

There is no case law for all of the reasons that ACC presented or the Judge made his decision on that show the Judge is incorrect.

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

However since you think that the ACC can rely upon private investigators for information for the purposes of challenging the medical professionals


the Private Investigators did not challenge the medical professionals they challenged the information that you presented them.

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

Doppelgänger why have you quote from something that has no connection to the ACC legislation? Do you think we on the side of righteousness and all that is good And to uphold truth and integrity for the purposes of promoting integrity of the ACC legislation are stupid? Tell me doppelgänger did someone else give you that material to quote and did you fail to check its origin.


it seams that you don't know much as you preach. The ACC legislation and most of our legislation is made taking the guide lines from the UN amd ILO.

This is part of out basic human rights that you think no one is entitled to.

Again showed that you are not too bright. or as other people would say a bit of a dummy.

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

If that is the case I make my point that you are a person who is easily manipulated and made use by others who are seeking to promote the interests of the ACC ahead of the interests of those the ACC are required by law to serve.


You believe what you want.
0

#18073 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 July 2018 - 06:26 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 09 July 2018 - 05:50 PM, said:

This is not correct but in some cases the ACC have wrongly made the assumption a person does not have a claim.

Most of the time ACC had caused hardship which was not in your case to prevent Vocational Rehabilitation and then made decision were they were wrong in other parts of the legislation.

Your case is that you claimed that you could and was not working. You continue to claim that there was no remuneration benefit for you or others (this is wages and employment through dishonesty)

then you on top of that you claimed that you were incapacitated to return to your pre-injury employment. You kept telling everyone that your injury stops you from doing CAD as you can not use a mouse.

That was a lie as you could not find work as you owed persons money. $350,000.00

The Courts show that your machine did not work and it was over the time limit in what you said it could be completed in.

There is no case law for all of the reasons that ACC presented or the Judge made his decision on that show the Judge is incorrect.



the Private Investigators did not challenge the medical professionals they challenged the information that you presented them.



it seams that you don't know much as you preach. The ACC legislation and most of our legislation is made taking the guide lines from the UN amd ILO.

This is part of out basic human rights that you think no one is entitled to.

Again showed that you are not too bright. or as other people would say a bit of a dummy.



You believe what you want.


Okay when all is said and done the ACC has acknowledged in the High Court that it had no information to form the basis of cancelled my claim. What do you think that the ACC should now do about that mistake?
The ACC has also acknowledged that they have a liability to fund surgery, pain medication and home help because they have decided that the 18 August 1997 decision to revoke my cover was wrong and that I am entitled to cover and certain entitlements. So why is it that the ACC have not gone the extra distance and restarted the earnings compensation? Do they have any information that suggests that I no longer injured and have medical evidence from medical professionals that confirm all the medical profession to be wrong and that it is safe for me to return to the original work task activities? As the ACC have any reason not to obtain medical information from its own medical professionals to determine whether or not my treatment providers were wrong as they had led the courts to believe ?
As I cannot use CAD, which is possibly about one third of the work that I used to do, how is it that you think I can when my right dominant hand is not available for use at all?As the CAD work would be safely described as the latest duties of what I used to do how is it that you could expect me to be doing the heavy duty such as caused and abdominal strain injury requiring me to stop work altogether? Do you understand the medical terminology that references heavy keyboard and mouse use? You understand what that means in medical terms?
Do you have any evidence that I have recovered from the abdomenal injury that continues to prevent me from heavy work of the type that I used to do?
Why are you imagining I owed anybody any money at all? Where on earth did you get that silly idea from?
All of my machines and especially those machines of the same type that you are referring to work perfectly. Why would you imagine that have no evidence was ever presented that anyone could conclude any of my machines to work? Are you by any chance referring to machines that have not been finished because of my injuries? Have you been asked to say something that you don't understand again?
There is nothing to support the judge usurping the authority of the medical profession in total defiance of the legislated criteria which requires ACC decisions to be based on the medical evidence. When ACC presents no medical evidence of any description to challenge the existing medical evidence the judges absolutely and totally obliged to accept the medical evidence yet the judge decided to challenge the medical profession based on his magical skills of which he considered to be superior to CT scans, MRI scans, x-rays and the leading medical professionals. What a plonker! Do you really think that what the judge did was make a legally based decision? On what basis in law that the judge makers decision? If you can provide a sound legal basis for's decision I will give you $100

I didn't present any information of any sort of which the ACC private investigators challenged. I did not claim I was working in any occupation of any sort and neither did the ACC private investigators present any information of any sort that described a single work task activity at any material time despite the ACC paying them hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the absence of ACC having any contrary evidence to the medical evidence that I could not work and no information of any sort that I didn't work on what basis do you think the ACC cancelled my claim?
The basic human rights of our legislation ensures that we have a right to self-determination so on what basis do you think the ACC have to challenge my right to invest in companies of my choosing and in particular companies of my immediate family? On what basis do you challenge my right to be a director of those companies or any other company? On what basis would you even challenge my right to work utilising my residual capacity if I decided I wanted to? Are you some kind of maniac lunatic idiot despot seeking to take control of the injured and confirm of New Zealand will gladly accept ACC doing just that? Are you absolutely crazy?
What I have learnt in life is those that seek to have power over others of those who are most ready to have others have power of the and are currently subservience type individuals. I don't you take a stand for righteousness and defend those who cannot defend themselves?



0

#18074 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 09 July 2018 - 07:12 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 10:41 AM, said:

But the law IS the medicals

ONLY as to actual medical issues re injures based on ,1 -what the medical profession arrived at and 2, -what you actually stated to the medical profession on your actual ability was at the time so they can base there report to acc on acc 18 forms using YOUR INFORMATION= and NOT the medical profession info -INFORMATION THAT YOU YOURSELF PERSONALLY PROVIDED
AND Thomas you personally signed as being the truth under an aoth of honesty..
which turned out that you were dishonest n those disclosures to the acc18 medical doctor and thus the acc.

so the law IS in respect to mislead/ lies to the medical profession and the acc as to your ABILITY.
0

#18075 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 July 2018 - 07:42 PM

View PostHemi, on 09 July 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

ONLY as to actual medical issues re injures based on ,1 -what the medical profession arrived at and 2, -what you actually stated to the medical profession on your actual ability was at the time so they can base there report to acc on acc 18 forms using YOUR INFORMATION= and NOT the medical profession info -INFORMATION THAT YOU YOURSELF PERSONALLY PROVIDED
AND Thomas you personally signed as being the truth under an aoth of honesty..
which turned out that you were dishonest n those disclosures to the acc18 medical doctor and thus the acc.

so the law IS in respect to mislead/ lies to the medical profession and the acc as to your ABILITY.


The medical treatment providers decided the issues.
I didn't describe the injuries and disabilities. The medical treatment providers do that. I always listen to the experts.
My doctor of 17 year already knew the type of work I did.
So I didn't provide any information.


I sign that the doctor is a doctor and I trust that he knows his job.

As the ACC have never challenged the information on the acc18 medical certificates what is it that you think ACC have got wrong?

How do you figure or reason that I have control of what the doctor writes on the acc18 medical certificates. Are you stupid or something?

I see that you have also confused capacity with ability. Now that is the foundation of your failure to understand the Act.

0

#18076 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 09 July 2018 - 08:02 PM

For context ...my original sentences in green. Alans replies in blue. My responses to Alans comments are in wonderful starry black fonting....

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:

My response to your thoughts in blue


Hemi posted about *medical issues* which is different to your incomplete or inadequate use of these words or concept ....

Is reference was to the district court judge who and his decision decided to disregard the medical evidence put before him. ...

** Okeydokey ...thank you for clarifying Alan ... I see that you have now expanded the words *medicals* plural into *medical evidence* and the use of this evidence material within the NZLII court judgements

If you look further back into his judgement you will see that he did this on the basis that he considered all medical professionals had been tricked by me as there was no other explanation for the ACC's viewpoint that I was working.

** Without the transcripts or evidence I would call this deeply misleading because the Judge has clearly detailed the medical experts who have reported their Professional Opinions Alan. ie it is all of these experts telling the Judge that you tricked them, or even in some cases harassed them too Alan.

Are you aware that even your own certifying doctor Wilcox stated under oath, for examples ...

<< Dr Wilcox stated at pages 366-368, inter alia:
"A. ... I had to go on the patient's description of how he was managing.
Q. Would you have declared Mr Thomas unfit for any type of work and thus entitling him to ACC if you understood him to be involved in managerial and consultancy work to be attending an office five days a week and employing staff?
A. No
[377] The appellant disputed his own GP's evidence when these matters were put to the appellant in cross-examination. The appellant stated on 30 January 2008, at page 75:
Q. It was Dr Wilcox's evidence (page 367) that you never told him about the businesses you were involved in.
A. Sony, where are we looking at now?
A. He knew of the activities. Um, I wasn't there to discuss business but in relation to the things I was trying to do the investigation into various projects I was interested in and whether or not I could do things, just like the, Ian Westwood letter, my doctor was intimately involved with my rehabilitation ..."

or
[378] The appellant's own general practitioner then, who certified the appellant unfit for most of the seven year period, acknowledged that he would not have issued a certification for the appellant if he had been aware of the appellant's correct level of activity from 1990 to 1997.

or
[20] On 13 October 1989 the appellant saw his general practitioner, Dr Jonathon Wilcox, in respect of a hernia. A Cl Advice of Injury claim dated 19 October 1989 was lodged with ACC for a hernia injury suffered at Trigon on 27 June 1989.
[21] According to the appellant, on 27 December 1989 he suffered an injury to his right hand/wrist while yachting by himself in the Marlborough Sounds.
[22] On 25 January 1990 the appellant had surgery to repair his hernia. A 1 March 1990 medical certificate indicated that the appellant may be able to return to work in six weeks.
[23] On 13 March 1990 the appellant attended his GP, for the first time in respect of the hand/wrist arm injury.
[24] On 11 April 1990 the appellant's earnings-related compensation for the hernia ceased.
[25] Thereafter, the appellant received a benefit from the Department of Social Welfare. On 8 June 1990 he commenced employment with Herd Park Personnel but such employment was terminated by the employer on 13 July 1990.
[26] In September 1990 the appellant was adjudged bankrupt. Lodgement of ACC Claim re Wrist
[27] On 7 September 1990 the appellant lodged a claim for cover for the right hand and wrist injury apparently suffered on 27 December 1989. A C14 medical certificate was completed by Dr Wilcox on 4 September certifying the appellant unfit to work from 3 April 1990 as having epicondylitis. Dr Wilcox noted that he first saw the appellant for that injury on 3 April 1990. He certified the appellant unfit for two weeks. ACC subsequently wrote to the appellant for further information regarding the claim and his prior employment.
[30] On 26 September 1990 ACC received a report from Dr Wilcox advising that he considered the appellant's prognosis excellent.



** I have noted that you disputed this all of evidence from your GP Alan and IMHO I feel that unfortunately the insinuations you are writing about his testimony is very unsettling IMHO. Is he aware of what your write about him online at all Alan?

Plus I see you have tried to refashion some of these issues into something quite different. Nowhere above does it show in those transcript excerpts that the GP was being asked about a hypothetical preinjury occupation or your secret squirrel jobbies ...he was specifically asked to comment upon the *correct level of activity* and then this was reinforced by further scrutiny where the GP was asked additional direct questions concerning his knowledge of any of your activities "in managerial and consultancy work to be attending an office five days a week and employing staff?

Therefore it is my POV that this idea in your head about hypothetical anythings is not just helpful to any meaningful discussion Alan ...


<< "My doctor was merely asked a hypothetical question as to whether or not he would have given medical certificates if I was hyothetically working in my preinjury occupation which is also hypothetical. My doctor simply provided an answer to a hypothetical question and in no way reflected the medical information with by preinjury occupation.">>

** If I refine the information material by a small fraction of testimony uploaded from those missing papers, I see that Wilcox clearly is stating that it was your feelings of unfitness and self-reporting which he relied upon.

Criminal trial material

2.28 Dr Wilcox was questioned about his knowledge of the appellant's involvement In the businesses described above and asked whether he would have certified the appellant unfit had he been aware of such activities. Dr Wilcox stated at page 366:
"It was my interpretation he felt unfit to work at that time . .. so I had to go on the patient's description of how he was managing.
Q. Would you have declared Mr Thomas unfit for any type of work and thus entitling him to ACC if you understood him to beinvolved in managerial and consultancy work to be attending an office 5 days a week and employing staff?
A. No ....
Did he ever tell you that he had helped set up companies, employment consultancy type companies?
A. .No, in fact he may possibly have purely from memory refe"ed to the possibility of looking into possible types of businesses. But Iwouldn't have gone into it in any more detail than that.

2.34 As stated above, the appellant did not inform the Corporation of his roles and activities with the businesses. As is evident from the evidence from Dr Wilcox at the criminal hearing, he did not inform his General Practitioner either.



He did this on the basis of his special magical abilities to detect if someone before him was lie and anti-and therefore concluded that if I'd like to them I had also lied to the medical profession. It is interesting to note however that throughout the entire proceedings I have never once expressed to the court my own viewpoints concerning anything but always relied upon documented evidence that I put before him of which she made absolutely no comment on with them has decision despite the fact that ACC decisions are entirely dependent upon the medical condition of an individual after injury.

** I cannot even begin to share how offensive I find this paragraph Alan. Actually the first sentence is nonsensical to me as I am still uncertain of what you are saying due to the spelling problems Alan.

However speaking generally, you were and are still clearly slamming all your doctors and their reports as being wrong etc There are so many allegations of malpractice voiced by you that I will not be repeating any of this Alan; and then there are all the disturbing allegations against numerous other people being detailed in the Judgements Alan.



For example, there appears to be various differing and different opinions and concerns detailed within all of your expert medical reports .... Are you now going to argue in here about the word *Report* &or the qualificatons of these experts perhaps?


Every single medical professional who has ever had any clinical examination of me has confirmed that I suffer from numerous different injuries with the most readily recognisable being that my hand is no longer connected to my arm properly for the purposes of any kind of function.

** NO they do not confirm any such thing Alan. This is just your wishful thinking unfortunately.

Although there is a full range of movement for some tests those tests are entirely a relevant for people who have suffered a distraction injury whereby limbs are pulled apart and only hanging on by skin and other soft tissue. No medical professional looking at this is considered there to be any possibility of using my right dominant hand for any work whatsoever. Effectively this makes me a one handed person with elbow injuries to that non-dominant hand combined with numerous other injuries that make me an effective as an earner.


** Again this is not what the medical reports are opining Alan.

For example,


August 1992 Surgery


[320]There is no medical evidence to support the appellant's assertion that his wrist injury has been worse since the surgery in August 1992.

[321] Contrary to the appellant's assertion, none of the medical specialists have subsequently suggested that the 1992 surgery made his condition worse. Some simply note that the surgery was not successful in improving the wrist condition (although Mr Rees himself in his contemporaneous medical notes following the surgery indicated that there had been improvement).

[338] Mr Rees proposed surgery to provide greater stability to the wrist. He proceeded to state at pages 2 and 3:
"... I tend to agree that at present this man's hand is flexible and has a good range of movement for light work but obviously is not suited to heavy work. Because of this man's wrist joint instability he gets a lot of aching and discomfort in the wrist and he tells me that even with doing light work like using a computer keyboard or a mouse that this aching discomfort precludes him from using it except for very short periods of about half an hour or so. Clearly this is inadequate if he is to pursue using his computer and keyboard for a living. He does have a normal left hand...

[339]Significantly, Mr Rees concurred with Mr Nicholson's findings entirely, opining that the appellant was fit for light duties, but not for heavy physical work. With respect to the appellant's restrictions in relation to use of the computer keyboard and mouse, clearly Mr Rees relied entirely on the appellant's self-reporting of his restrictions.

[346] Leaving aside the appellant's self-reporting, Mr Rees was of the view that the appellant was able to use his right hand and wrist for light duties which included using the keyboard, mouse and writing. He accepted Mr Nicholson's findings and only watered down aspects of his initial report (regarding the appellant's restrictions) when he received contrary self-reporting information from the appellant.

[349] Mr Rees' post-operative findings in fact suggested that the appellant's condition had improved. He wrote to the Corporation on 4 September and 12 November 1992 [F9 and 10 of respondent's bundle]. On 12 November 1992 Mr Rees stated:
"He is going to start looking for a job now he is better able to use his right hand following his operation on 28/8/92. Once he has found himself a job he will let you and me know and we can write a final certificate ..."


"Q. Once Mr Thomas had recovered from the operation, would you have expected him to have benefit for light work?

A. Yes. Light work to me is, say, lifting less than 5kg and doing writing, computer work, that sort of work. I would have expected him to be able to do that sort of thing for a reasonable period."

[352] Mr Tonkin mooted the possibility of reconstruction to improve the situation and noted that improvement was only possible but a normal outcome was not expected. He opined:
"Regardless of whether or not a reconstruction is performed, Mr Thomas will not have a normal wrist. His ability to perform his activities as a mechanical design engineer will be limited. He has indicated the need to preserve find dexterity skills rather than the need to perform heavy manual work."

[353] Mr Tonkin's opinion, regarding the appellant's ability to perform the activities of a design engineer, was based on information from the appellant.


** I have included the Tonkin medical opinion as it is very similar to my own personal point of view. That is reconstructive surgery will not give Alan a normal outcome or a normal wrist. Basically you had an abnormal wrist in 1974 and worked for 16 years until the second injury, then 2 surgeries later, you will still have an abnormal wrist. IMHO you could have a thousand operations at a million dollars and still NOT have a reconstructed wrist and return to your secret squirrel alleged preinjury occupation and blah blah ....


The only dissenters were Doctor Nicholson and Doctor Moneghetti although producing a document called medical reports both acknowledge that they had not actually reported medical information but rather reiterated what the ACC had given them to put in their report. Doctor Moneghetti narrowly missed criminal prosecution for insurance fraud on this issue. Interestingly the ACC have continued to attempt to use this documentation without first checking with the authors. I have never met Doctor Moneghetti and he has never received any medical information about me whatsoever and Doctor Nicholson had only ever been asked to have a look at my left elbow and had therefore not reported on anything else.The bottom line is that you will not be able to point to any medical information of any sort that portrays me as being able-bodied without the authors acknowledging that the report is not usable. Doctor Moneghetti for example removed his reports on the recommendation of the court to avoid criminal prosecution. The fact that you try to use this type of information demonstrates your own criminal mind.

** WTF?? I certainly cannot and do not have a criminal mind of any sort Alan :angry:

I am not even going to get into such unsupported gobbing from you because it was & is crystal clear that a lot of the relevant court testimony is specifically discounting many of your malicious allegations against various professionals Alan!! Clearly you have IMHO defamed scores of people with such outrageous nasty comments long before you were ever convicted OR this forum was established ...



The on top of this the basic medical certificates also essentially became invalid when the GP or certifying doctor said under oath that they were based on your storytelling Alan ie he was likely unable to corroborate various aspects perhaps?


That is a load of nonsense. You are misinterpreting what the doctor has stated as fact polar opposite is to be intention of the author. This is confirmed by the fact that the same doctor kept on giving me medical reports and certificates, a fact which puts an end to your misinterpretation.


** Of course GP Wilcox and many other professionals will IMHO keep nodding their heads when you spout spiels at them PLUS giving you all sorts of bits of paper Alan etc etc I would say that you could even get them to goldplate such tissue material for you too ie an RCU management strategy IMHO ...

IMHO there will be even a number of special patients within NZ and around the world who are being managed like this too ...


Are you now going to argue about the word *Certificate* in here &or the qualifications of these general practitioners perhaps? Or perhaps you will change the issue again and claim that your GP is mistaken &or that there never was any history-taking or supposed facts or explanations that he has got from your gob?

All medical professionals providing me with medical to delegates have relied upon the expertise of scientific diagnostic procedures and equipment along with specialist consultations with experts in their field.Please stop using insulting language.

** So as you are also particularly disputing medical information exists which has guided the Judge, have your forgotten about this report too Alan? And it is clear that you were properly examined so you can not claim you werent here etc

Mr Tim Tasman-Jones - Hand and Upper Limb Surgeon reported on 18 November 1996,

<< [366] Mr Tasman-Jones set out his findings on examination at page 6, which included:

"Specific Examination of the Hand

The hand was normal to examination with no swelling, scarring or deformity present. There was no tenderness present over the CNC joints, metacarpals, MCP joints, and phalanges, PIP joints, DIP joints of the fingers or IP and DIP joints of the thumb. There was a full range of movement in the fingers and thumb (1-12). Power, sensation and circulation normal. Provocative test for median nerve, ulna nerve and radial nerve compression were all negative."




Of course this is not including any medical issues which accompany the basic medical certificates such as deception, or exaggeration and malingering factors Alan .


The ACC has accused me of having a work ethic to the extent that I worked while disabled so that puts an end to your nonsense suggestion of malingering.

Ohhh have I touched a nerve perhaps Alan? I was simply highlighting that some of these medical issues of exaggeration and malingering as being difficult for medics to unravel when used by conmen and this dishonesty is likely occurring for different reasons. ie not errors or mental health issues etc

Clearly as so many medical experts were stating that you should have been capable of light duties Alan, I would have written your sentence as such, "The ACC has accused me of having a work ethic to the extent that I worked while disabled " PLUS you clearly worked for 16 years with a defective wrist from 1974 until the second alleged injury in 1990 ...


It seems to me that you are clutching at straws whereby you follow your traditional mode of rationalisation whereby you start with a speculation on their progress at on through to an assumption from which you then conclude that you cannot the wrong and therefore making factual statements. This type of mental disorder renders you as a person that should not be near children as you will severely damage their mental functioning and processes..

I am disgusted that because I recently made a comment to another member about it being the *school holidays* that you have tried several times to push possible buttons here Alan. You are a prize POS and clearly forgotten that such abusive behaviour from sociopaths and malignant narcissists is never going to silence me. You are also talking utter garbage as you are clueless about ALL mental disorders and simply just offensive with such pathetic insults ...

You are even showing your lack of intelligence from never succeeding with any significant adult education which relates to the discipline & science and expertise matters. I refer to those factors which can be involved with *critical reasoning* situations &or any considerations of some of your irrational scenarios Alan. Plus now you have crossed lines again & just so you are hearing me loud and clear remember that I am not speaking hypothetically here to you ie I am clearly now calling you an arrogant ignorant ahole :angry:

Plus do not forget there is also another big issue

You cannot have another big issue when you have not yet addressed a first big issue


Goodness knows what issue you think I have missed here ... but I have strongly refuted your claims about your own GP and two other experts as agreeing with your broken wrist storytelling Alan ie Wilcox, Rees, & Tonkin have all said you could return to working under light duties... You have also still failed to produce a single medical opinion that clearly states what you are imagining is written on the paper etc Without any evidence material ALan your contradictions and misinterpretations are exhausting. Without any evidence material Alan you are just gobbing static sadly ...

Now as I think the other big issue you are trying to duck relates to the secret squirrel stuff you keep alluding to in lots of your balarney .... the good news is that I already know doppel and Hemi and others have mentioned the letter and invoice concerning design machinery projecting & all of your spindoctoring on this issue and blah blah Alan.

However I figured I could remind you of another significant document within the material evidence of your convictions Alan. This immediately tells me that you were busy, had long working hours, were in good health, and were seeking to reduce your management responsibility & workload in some business of clients ie nothing to do with marathon computer mouse sessions etc

I am referring to this extremely damaging statement by you in an email which was made on 16 October 1996 to Ms Maio Lin

[Document D27e of Respondent's Bundle]


"... Yes I have been very busy. My staff continues to grow which means I have
continually shown people what to do. We are enjoying a lot of success ...

I am now reaching a stage where some of my staff are almost ready to take management responsibility which will reduce my workload. A good manager just makes sure that everybody else is working that all the clients want me to personally look after their case which is not possible of course. ... I am still able to supervise every case personally but it is still not possible for me to work on any case unless there is some difficulty. The only cases that I am currently working on personally are the invitations for your clients ...

I am in good health even though I'm working long hours."

0

#18077 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 09 July 2018 - 08:05 PM

OMG ... you have added even more blue gobbing to the posting from this morning :wacko:

Again to try and help show context ...my original sentences will be in green. Alans replies in his blue gobbing. Once again my new responses to Alans comments will be in a wonderful starry black fonting....

More blah blah to come
bbl

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:

My response to your thoughts in blue




... which is that you NEVER progressed your basic medical certificates and claimed medical problems to the next steps! Unfortunately Alan you comprehension of the legislation is still very flawed IMHO because you still do not understand that there was a specific Medical Assessment accepted by ACC or available to the courts for scrutiny either Alan ie corroboration of basic GP certificatates with 1982 Section 78 examination etc etc


Neither the ACC nor yourself are capable of having an opinion regarding medical matters without superior medical information to that that has already been given.


** ACC have presented numerous superior medical reports to the Courts Alan.
There is not one single superior medical report which I have encountered in the NZLII library which even comes close to corroborating your thinking Alan. The extent of your misinterpretations is above and beyond any normal persons situation IMHO thus I would now read all of your gobbing in this forum as deliberate disinformation ...


I note with interest that the ACC has never asked me to make myself available for their own independent medical assessment procedures and suchlike and as such there is no posing medical viewpoint. Quite obviously viewpoints such as that derived by ACC informants, ACC themselves and people like you are entirely irrelevant to the legislated procedure of the determination of information to the extent that the ACC may claim possession of information.

** Of course the ACC will not ask you to be available for an independent medical assessment on your specific disentitled claims Alan. This would be frowned on as a waste of levypayer funds Alan.

They already hold superior medical information from various Medical Specialists which include their own consultants, and more astonishing is the fact that some of your own doctors were confirming many of these opinions and disputed factors for the courts ie various findings against your POV etc ...


I do not know if you ever sought Review of the 14.5% assessment which you spoke about yesterday. Goodness I do not even know if you took these lumpsum dollars $2465 from ACC or not?


Yes. The reviewer confirmed that the ACC quite clearly failed to provide the assessor with the medical information describing the injury and had specifically instructed their assessor only to look at an elbow injury to the exclusion of all of the other injuries.


**Is this another of your word and mindgames Alan?

So
  • 1. Did you take the money of $2465.00 under a Section 78 lumpsum payment of 14.5%?

  • 2. Are you now claiming that you had TWO medical assessments for this specific determination Alan?

  • 3. Do you have this Review Decision handy or is it another secret squirrel nut perhaps?


I need you to be accurate because the years of corrupted information material here is totally UNACCEPTABLE for any responsible forum discussions Alan.

So these are very simple questions Alan and it would be great if you could actually refer to the legislation properly instead of this deliberate incorrect blithering

That is you should stop your confused replies and be clear on these legislated facts Alan

Section 78 - ACC Report determined 14.5% or = $2465 payment. Did you accept or refuse this money? Yes or No

Section 79 - ACC Report reviewed and improved the below average finding from 60% to 100% = $10,000 payment & TAKEN

Basically you either banked $10,000 or you banked $12,465




The injury to my hand alone without reference to my elbows shoulders and suchlike rendered a disability of 60% which is the figure that the ACC were required by the reviewer to accept. This figure was then later relied upon for the lump sum payment of 100% of a section of legislation. Why are you making stuff up in the negative all the time? That seems to be some kind of a personal attack doesn't it


** This palaver is what I am describing as deliberate disinformation and nonsense Alan.

You were originally given what was probably a below average payout for your alleged subjective pain and suffering Alan. You reviewed this report and then ACC upgraded to the same as the majority of other claimants ie 100%. Also way back then there was progress being made by other claimants on these issues of subjective symptoms Alan so your likely benefited from their efforts too.

I do know that unlike many other claimants that your initial Section 79 was also apparently minimal &or basically below average ... and you had to review that simple lumpsum just to get it to the same levels as everybody else Alan ...

No assessment has been made as the ACC are waiting for my deteriorating injuries to settle.

**
WRONG you have mixed up the legislation again Alan. There is no excuse. FYI you will also never get another red cent for any Section 79 issues etc




Short version with my POV is that way back then in the early 90s, or nearly 30 years ago, it is unclear if you took all this potential money [or $12465.00] and from this deducted your contribution to the private surgery undertaken [or approx $1500-$2000] which was briefly outlined in your NZLII court judgements etc


**
In fact although you had an assessment at 14.5% and this either is still being recognised by ACC because either you took the money ... OR you never had it replaced with a better quantum etc Plus that application has probably been put into the archives and now become irrelevant as the claim has been disentitled. I actually think the Section 78 has been binned years ago Alan. The Section 79 was also paid in full to you, so IMHO all of your complaints about any wrist pain and suffering is pointless because you will never see another penny for this Alan



I have no idea what you are talking about??? it seems to me that your wayward imagination has got the better of you once again whereby you start off with a speculation and assume you speculation is a fact and then start talking about court judgements. This is clear evidence of your cognition type problems whereby you have got to the point of believing your own imagination. This type of disorder is similar to seeing things that aren't there and hearing voices etc.


** You clearly have no ideas of my POV because you are ignorant of 1982 legislation Alan. Even after a decade of forum membership and thousands of pages of postings from your gob ...this very basic simple information is still being corrupted by you Alan.

It is now my belief that you rejected the 14.5% quantum under Section 78 prior to your disentitlement claim. I am however not sure if any future Independence Allowance assessments will still deduct this quantum figure if they look to assess any subsequent injuries after you left prison. I am writing hypothetically though as I doubt you will resolve this issue in my lifetime ie there will never be any settling of your deteriorating injuries etc



Another difficulty is that in these very same court judgements critically analysing the various medical reports Alan is that many of your interpretations today were dismissed back then.

The judges not capable of examining a medical report or series of medical reports on a stand-alone basis. They simply don't have the necessary qualifications and the law doesn't permit them to make medical decisions.

** Again you are being deliberately obtuse Alan. FYI Judges make legal decisions. They are also competent to weigh medical evidence from competing medical expert opinions Alan ...


Even if the ACC were to fund the required medical assessments from their contracted independent medical assessors more often than not these complex cases still the judge would not be allowed to determine which medical report he chooses to believe which is the reason why the legislation instructs the court to have a medical professional sitting with them on the bench to explain and clarify the meaning of the medical matters.


**
HHHmmmm do you actually think that every single ACC and WINZ Courtcases should have a compulsory Medical Expert funded to instruct Judges Alan?

Personally I can not think of a great insult to the NZ Medical Profession Alan. Golly gosh if Medical Specialists can not be trusted to write professional reports to the Courts and they can not be trusted to consider opposing opinions and differential diagnoses for the benefit of their patients huh??



For example, you alleged Rees undertook surgery which you classed as an assault.


I did not class is surgical activity as an assault.

** FFS Alan ...your wordgames are exhausting Alan.

Your numerous postings plus lists of Reviews presented to this forum and likely the Courts have you describing this operation or surgical activity as an *assault* Alan


qv your words in action

"Non consensual Surgical Assault 28-05-1992

1/07/2002 Nonconsensual experimental surgery assault claim 155092
Deemed Decision Rees assault 4363846477

"He was also for the courts defending charges against me involving the surgery which was described to the judge as assault." [nb this seems to be a reference to Alan Thomas v Doctor Martin Rees 1999 civil court]


** As an aside when I did a quick scan of the forum archives, I see that you also have accused a Hernia Surgeon of Assault too Alan. As you rarely disclose having a hernia and wrist injury long before you submitted the significant ACC claims from Trigon era Alan, I am not sure who you are moaning about here sorry ...

" [22] On 25 January 1990 the appellant had surgery to repair his hernia.
I had surgery but it turns out that the surgery was a budget type of surgery, the fourth of its kind, is simply was not adequate for the severity of the injury.. This surgery failure as a direct result of ACC interference with the medical profession. I continue to be disabled by the hernia.I did not have surgery to repair the hernia as the surgery that took place was not capable of meeting the necessary standard. In some circles this approach would be considered criminal assault as is confirmed by a Prof of pathology."




This determination was made by the medical Council and the legal profession. It was not the first time this surgeon had involved himself in medical activities that resulted in legal censure due to his failure of requiring consent. In fact he was prosecuted and is in the law books with a guilty conviction either the same year for the year before as reckless behaviour with me.

** HHhhmmm so can you reference the law book Judgement Alan. If not, then there may even be a Medical Council decision if he was censured etc I wish to make sure we are both on the same page here due to so many surgeons having been judged as incompetent or criminal by you spanning a large number of injuries & operations etc



" With regards to the surgeon disregarding the issue of My consent for reconstructive surgery and instead performing a different operation in secret that would certainly fall under the umbrella of the Health and Disability Commissioner Et cetera. However I took the position that I had been assaulted by the surgeon and took direct action in regards to that assault bypassing the commissioner altogether. The courts of course were not particularly concerned and the week prior to the court case the surgeon was promoted on television as being the man of the week."


** One thing which may help you locate any of these 3 different Judgements is something which I did find in the archives inside the following commentary which seems to suggest the courts were not concerned, plus the fact that you never complained to the HDC Ombudsman apparently. So we may only have 2 Judgements that you should be able to identify and provide website link too. I am not sure why you specifically decided to bypass any Medical Investigations but I find it very strange that with all your trumpeting about holding significant Medical Evidence and alleging numerous Medical Malpractice incidents that you avoided any professional and likely free assistance at this level etc

This allegation was not proved.

There is a difference between civil assault and criminal assault. You need to familiarise yourself with the difference and until you do you are not in a position to comment.

** HHHhhhmmm are you referring yourself to your own law degree in Criminal Matters Alan? Once again I scanned the archives and found the following statements by you on this issue,

"In order to go down the private prosecution Road you need to look very carefully at the consent given for the treatment. The treatment will it had risks that should have been describe to you and understood by you in order that the consent be valid. Medical professionals are protected from various sections of the crimes act that would other wise be "battery", as assault and battery. A criminal assault is for purposes of the public good and you will not get any kind of financial compensation but just reduce the liability of someone else being reckless. It is not a crime to be incompetent.

There is such a thing as a civil assault Which the opportunity for redress is much more broad. "


You have since then tried to get these same facts snuck into the ACC system by using the legislation concerning medical mistakes or misadventure etc I do not know yet how that different strategy is working etc etc

No sneaking about it. There is an accept the claim for cover for the damage that Mister Rees did to me when carrying out surgical activity without my permission on a different part of my body which has caused measurable harm of which other medical professionals have submitted claims with those claims also being accepted for cover in order that the ACC determine entitlements.

** AFAIK all the legal judgements in the NZLII library dismissed your allegations of Surgeon Rees causing any damage to you Alan. This is wishful thinking only ie zero accepted ACC claims etc



When you don't know what you are talking about it is always best to remain silent's earning your imagination which will avoid your tendency to escalate your imagination into the real world in your head. Again you are advised to stay away from children as they will most certainly get screwed up if you were to do any more than make the sandwiches and suchlike.


** STOP these insults Alan. These nasty insinuations only show the ugliness within you.


And of course there is provision within the legislation that addresses the difficulty from when claimants can deliberately injure themselves too Alan. Clearly you would be regarded as having skated on this thin ice with your reckless sailing behaviours.


In the event of equipment failure resulting in an accident event and injury you cannot seriously believe that anyone would speculate some kind of self harm as you do.


** Tut tut Alan. Twisting wordgames and spindoctoring again huh ...

Have you forgotten you claimed a storm in your story...

Furthermore your attempts to blame the boat owner on your reckless decision to step foot on any boat fullstop while on a waiting list for abdominal surgery wont wash ..

Also I am very clear on the recklessness being more related to intentionally self inflicted Injury than anything else Alan. In fact I would not speculate on your behaviour as being close to any self harm factors Alan.

Your statement in an earlier dialogue clearly shows you knew this dangerous risk to your health from such untoward activity Alan.


"The yachting certainly was not reckless as once the intestine protrudes through the stomach wall it can easily be mass eyes back into position with the only risk of something untoward happening while out to sea in a storm but even if it had been reckless it is an irrelevancy as it certainly was not going to get any worse."

qv Can you die from a ruptured hernia?
Without a normal blood supply, the trapped tissues may die. A strangulated hernia will cause severe pain, nausea, vomiting and even death. A strangulated hernia requires immediate surgical attention at the nearest hospital



It is this deranged type of thinking process of yours where you imagine something and then speculate that imagination into some kind of fact in your mind that gets you and those around you into trouble. You do need to get some kind of control over your propensity towards allowing imagination to live towards facts in your mind as I have said before this defect within your mental function will certainly cause harm to any children in your vicinity and as such if you do not seek help and refrain from being with children six will have to take place to protect those children from you.


** I strongly suggest that you immediately desist from your threats Alan.

These particular insults and toxic abuse today concerning children is utterly evil behaviour from you and only shows your corruption as a human being. You would also IMHO actually upset and traumatise regular folks and parents who may have times with occasional mental health needs &or diagnosis &or interventions. I do not.

So STOP IT Alan. IMHO this is why I believe that you are so disordered with criminal sociopathy & the reason why I would call you BAD not MAD with these types of online attacks and outrageous behaviours Alan. :angry:



Goodness even post-surgery Alan you could have reinjured yourself at any time but back then 30 years ago the ACC and MOH systems were still endeavouring to help you...

What causes you to imagine that? I won't ask because you're Lucy goosey brain runs wild will all manner of silly imagine rethinking that no one could possibly predict or comprehend your thoughts.

** As we are discussing your storytelling incidents which happened nearly 30 years ago when you suffered some supposed accidents events that incredibly resulted in two NON-ORIGINAL injuries Alan!! Even more astonishing is that the legal evidence demonstrated both these injuries pertain to TWO DELAYED episodes where medical assistance was not sought and therefore unbelievably the Initial C14 Medical Certifications were backdated for both the reoccurring hernia strain and the reoccurring wrist strain Alan.

See despite the irrational and surreal elements to your self reported accidents, and these proclaimed injuries, and all the self reported ongoing symptoms presented to the doctors and ACC, they still all helped you Alan.

FYI here is some generalist information which may help you understand and alternate point of view ...

Nowadays Alan, remember that these things have changed


Checklist for whether your specific treatment is covered
ACC has to pay for your treatment if the treatment is:
given to restore your health as far as possible
necessary, appropriate and of the required quality
performed only as often as necessary
given at appropriate places and times
of a type normally provided by doctors and other treatment providers
provided by someone who’s qualified and who normally provides it, and
provided only after ACC has agreed to it (except for emergency treatment and some other special cases).
ACC may also have to cover some or all of the cost of other services related to the treatment (“ancillary services”), such as accommodation, transport, medicines and lab tests.

+
You can also be refused an entitlement if you:
deliberately injured yourself, or
were injured committing a crime that carries a maximum jail term of two years or more (even if you’re sentenced to less than two years or to home detention), or ..


Add to this that there seemed to be zero restrictions on your daily activities as you were clearly gallivanting around the world &or often seen doing other stuff too.

This is where your imagination continues to get you in trouble is quite clearly the medical certificates and reports describe limitations. For example no work function activity with my right dominant hand whatsoever and the rest of my activities are restricted to only two hours a day so long as those hours are fragmented throughout the day. This is not difficult information for you to comprehend so I am puzzled as to how your imagination has managed to get you in such a grip where you ignore information right before you in favour of that imagination. Again such imagination indicates very significant illusionary dysfunction similar to that of someone with voices was these things that are there.


** RUBBISH Alan. Try to read this medical evidence again - and understand it.

[318] The medical specialists' opinion, in relation to the restrictions and limitations placed on the appellant's use of his right hand/wrist by the wrist injury, were not based on objective medical findings. The opinions were based entirely on self-reporting from the appellant in relation to what he could and could not do. These self-reported symptoms and restrictions included pain, discomfort and the length of time the appellant could cope performing an activity with the right hand affected by the pain and discomfort.

[319]The medical practitioners accepted the appellant's self-reporting at face value. They were simply not aware of the appellant's work/business activities from 1990-1997. More importantly, the medical practitioners were not aware of the appellant's actual use of his right hand over that period. They were therefore ill informed, by the appellant, as to what limitations and restrictions the wrist injury caused the appellant.

[325] I agree with Mr Tui that the importance of the specialist medical evidence lies in the fact that none of the specialists suggest that the appellant's wrist injury precludes the appellant from undertaking normal activity with the right hand.

[370] Significantly, however, Mr Tasman Jones confirmed that medically, the appellant's wrist injury did not preclude him from normal use of the hand for writing and computer keyboard and mouse work. The only limitation, in this regard, was the duration of such hand use — again that opinion depended on the veracity of the information supplied by the patient.

[371] The contents of the above reports were, of course, put to the appellant in cross-examination. He did not accept that the medical practitioners relied on the appellant's self reporting despite the clear indication to the contrary in the report



This is where the witnesses testimony clearly contradicted your zebra tactics too.


As the only information relevant to the ACC legislation is medical information the ACC have not presented any witnesses as such. Instead what the ACC has done is octane a number of people that they thought were going to be informants for which the ACC, like you, imagined would say that I was working at a particular work task activity for material time and that information could be used to challenge the medical profession. The problem is when there witnesses were placed under oath they confirmed that they had not actually seen any work task activities as such but simply have perceived that I might be working because I owned various companies and those companies were punishing and I was in the facility of those countries by living on the premises. Facts such as that do not come close to describing someone who was working.


** I have previously brought to your attention that I have little regard or respect for your irrational zebra tactics Alan.

For example, if a witness states that many business reports were completed by you in your time on the computer, I would expect forensics to verify this. A zebra taunt you could have been videogaming would not wash with me.


However work does not feature in the ACC legislation as criteria of any sort. The only close elements to work is the word employment which by its interpretation section 6 necessitates that the work result in earnings for have a capacity to of earnings which were then invoke a abatement of earnings refund for the ACC. That is where that portion of information eends and goes no further. If the ACC was to perceive that someone was working in contradiction to the medical certificates then they would be justified to require the claimant to undergo an independent medical assessment to ensure that the medical reports that decisions have been made on were either correct or were many of the factual records altered accordingly. The ACC did not see any need to do this and as such have no basis to claim an end of incapacity.It seems to me that you are seeing zebras that are not there.


** OMG I am not seeing zebras Alan. I am calling your ridiculous stories zebras. If I hear the sound of hooves thundering I will expect to see horses ...not zebras or llamas or flying fish storytelling tactics being gobbed by you with your efforts to exaggerate extremist irrational ideas hunting for loopholes etc

Also because you have only gobbed and provided zero definitions of your *words* so I will ignore the palaver as you will likely change the issues &or contradict yourself again


For another simple example, I even think there was an MSM report about you carrying your own briefcase with your injured arm/wrist but you have possibly been blind to this observation by the journalists.

Have you considered carrying a briefcase relevant to anything? Businessmen who own businesses or invest in businesses carry briefcases. None of this type of activity or the carrying of the briefcase impacts upon the degree of disability to return to my preinjury occupation. What of the earth are you trying to come drop in your imagination now? Are you tried to create some kind of impression with young impressionable minds? Quite clearly you need treatment for this type of disorder.


** The point I was making was that these journalists appeared to be commenting on your injured arm carrying a heavy bag Alan. There are so many different ways to ensure weighty material files are transported Alan, that I am sure if you think a bit longer the lightbulb may dawn ...



Again another issue which could have influenced your GP reporting within his basic medical certification Alan.


There you go with your imagination again. All of the medical professionals I go to only carry out any kind of assessment to reach conclusions by way of clinical examination in reliance upon their qualifications, experience in conjunction with references to other specialists to further confirm the precision of the diagnosis.


** As above, Dr Jonathon Wilcox stated under oath, "It was my interpretation he felt unfit to work at that time . .. so I had to go on the patient's description of how he was managing."


Plus your opinion or unsettling focus on your clothing decisions &or image presentations way back then has never washed with me either unfortunately but that not specifically a physical impairment issue but something else possibly Alan ...

Your imagination is got so out of whack with reality I cannot even understand what you are trying to say.

** I am reminding you that many dangerous predators will wear disguises Alan.

You recently stated, "As you can see it would be ridiculous for anyone to imagine that I was ever threatening as I would always dress in a suit and speak in soft terms ..".

This is why alarm bells were ringing. ie criminal behaviours rather than mental illness underneath such thoughts. Of course many injured claimants will have both physical and mental health struggles when coping witht their injuries and ACC ... and a few others will have a far different inner psyche Alan



Lastly there is also all the legislation relating to injuries sustained while not qualifying under Earner Status for earnings related compensation. This could be another hurdle if your original wrist injury did not satisfy this determination; followed by the clear evidence that you were functioning with a defective wrist for years Alan, so there could be many more *medical issues* raised here IMHO. Basically much like claimants who hurt themselves while unemployed but wait months or years until after they get a job and then make a delayed claim etcHTH


There you go with your could be's and maybe's again with your arms flailing about trying to gain some kind of traction between your imagination and reality.

** LOL aaaaaaawwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhh dont you like some words huh? I guess you also do not like open ended questions either Alan. Please remember not everybody has entrenched concrete thinking patterns.

[/color]
When a person is injured and then subsequently suffers an additional injury such as having a yachting injury resulting in further injury at the hands of the surgeon and then injured yet again in the medical professionals that are trying to determine the nature of the damage caused by the surgeon cause yet another injury.

** Oh so are you trying to explain that you are accident prone &or medical attention seeking Alan? You can be reassurred that when doctors take xrays and then later on repeat tests, usually they look for improvements &or changes therein etc etc


In such circumstances there is no basis for imagining a lack of earning compensation based on not working at the time of the additional injuries. It is truly risky on your part to be making comments on subjects well beyond your capacity of understanding particularly when dealing with matters of law.


[font="Comic Sans MS"]** Wow so are you now arguing that earner status at the time of original injury and earner status at the time of reinjury or reaggravation is irrelevant to the legislation Alan?

This post has been edited by anonymousey: 10 July 2018 - 01:20 AM

0

#18078 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 09 July 2018 - 08:33 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 09 July 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

You might want to read the ILO declaration about what is covered. What is not!

when a claim is made with fraudulent intent the claim can be dismissed.

your claim was Fraudulent when you claimed that you could not work in your preinjury employment when you failed to find employment as a so called engineer, project manager or what ever you called your self.

You asked the question Can ACC use a Private Investigator the answer is yes.

The fact that they can ask any one they like, just like the police can ask any one when investigating a criminal matter.

The Police are not dumb and don't ask every person in the world just because they can.they target the persons specific to the needed information.

Here is article 22 of C121.
Article 22
1. A benefit to which a person protected would otherwise be entitled in compliance with this Convention may be suspended to such extent as may be prescribed--
· (a) as long as the person concerned is absent from the territory of the Member;
· (b} as long as the person concerned is maintained at public expense or at the expense of a social security institution or service;
· © where the person concerned has made a fraudulent claim;
· (d) where the employment injury has been caused by a criminal offence committed by the person concerned;
· (e) where the employment injury has been caused by voluntary intoxication or by the serious and wilful misconduct of the person concerned;
· (f) where the person concerned, without good cause, neglects to make use of the medical care and allied benefits or the rehabilitation services placed at his disposal, or fails to comply with rules prescribed for verifying the occurrence or continuance of the contingency or for the conduct of beneficiaries; and
· (g) as long as the surviving spouse is living with another person as spouse.
2. In the cases and within the limits prescribed, part of the cash benefit otherwise due shall be paid to the dependants of the person concerned.


Some excellent information doppelganger :)

I would say it may be too difficult for Alan to process properly though ... as he will likely do some of his usual BS about International Instruments and Caselaw not being relevant to his fraud convictions ...and then hypocritically spout that he expects the British Privy Council to do what he wants when he wants etc etc

View Postdoppelganger, on 09 July 2018 - 05:50 PM, said:

This is not correct but in some cases the ACC have wrongly made the assumption a person does not have a claim.

Most of the time ACC had caused hardship which was not in your case to prevent Vocational Rehabilitation and then made decision were they were wrong in other parts of the legislation.

Your case is that you claimed that you could and was not working. You continue to claim that there was no remuneration benefit for you or others (this is wages and employment through dishonesty)

then you on top of that you claimed that you were incapacitated to return to your pre-injury employment. You kept telling everyone that your injury stops you from doing CAD as you can not use a mouse.

That was a lie as you could not find work as you owed persons money. $350,000.00 . Those people then spread the word you were unreliable and unable to produce a machine to make plastic bags.

The Courts show that your machine did not work and it was over the time limit in what you said it could be completed in.

There is no case law for all of the reasons that ACC presented or the Judge made his decision on that show the Judge is incorrect.



the Private Investigators did not challenge the medical professionals they challenged the information that you presented them.



it seams that you don't know much as you preach. The ACC legislation and most of our legislation is made taking the guide lines from the UN amd ILO.

This is part of out basic human rights that you think no one is entitled to.

Again showed that you are not too bright. or as other people would say a bit of a dummy.



You believe what you want.


Again great insights and I fully agree with many of your points of view too doppel :)

One thing which you have now hinted at in the above posting is a matter which I used to mull over relating to his past allegations & statements about some anonymouse former employee stealing $350,000 from his personal business way back in the 80s somewheres etc

Now it makes a bit more sense as I was always flabbergasted at his nonchalance & disregard and just the fact that if anybody stole well over quarter of a million dollars from me or mine ... I would be into the copshop quicksmart etc Now that I know it was him who owed this money ...or even another business who would have lost clients due to his failures &or incompetence ... well this just makes much more logical sense IMHO :)
0

#18079 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 09 July 2018 - 10:34 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 July 2018 - 06:26 PM, said:


I didn't present any information of any sort of which the ACC private investigators challenged.


If you didn't present information then the Private Investigators could not challenge nothing.

Like here if you can not show that what the witness said is false and misleading then you can not challenge the decision.
0

#18080 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 July 2018 - 10:46 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 09 July 2018 - 10:34 PM, said:

If you didn't present information then the Private Investigators could not challenge nothing.

Like here if you can not show that what the witness said is false and misleading then you can not challenge the decision.


What do you think the ACC witnesses said?
0

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 902
  • 903
  • 904
  • 905
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

7 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users