ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#21 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 18 March 2007 - 11:15 PM

I'm not sure what you are trying to do here. Are you:
(a) trying to compel ACC to carry out a s60 assessment under the "King" principle; or
(B) trying to overturn a fraud conviction; or
© trying to compel ACC to reinstate entitlements; or
(d) something else?
BTW, why was legal aid declined. Was it because, in the opinion of the Legal Services Agency, your case has no reasonable prospects of success? If so, did you instruct your lawyer to appeal the LSA decision to the Legal Aid Review Panel?
1

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 18 March 2007 - 11:48 PM

MG
Yes to a b & c
BTW? whats that mean?
legal aid declined because of b
The delayed only provided 10 hours pretrial funding for b
John Miller has already been provided legal aid and used it up asking ACC for a complete and legible copy of the file
Before he gave up and I took over.
Since I have received considerable portions of my file but not the critical portions describing work task activities at the material times.
There is simply no way to tell whether the ACC thought I was engaged in a new occupation, return to my previous occupation or had the ability to determine capacity from some activities equate to my pre injury occupation activities.
lawyer to appeal but judge does not want to wait. Its been 10 years.
-1

#23 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 19 March 2007 - 12:38 AM

BTW = By the way.
Get your lawyer to obtain complete disclosure of your file from ACC and file a memorandum with the Court saying that ACC has not provided it. The Judge should issue a memorandum requiring ACC to disclose. The issue of "working" while self-employed is a vexed one and ACC does not understand it. The focus will be on the activities you performed, not whether you earned any money or not.
In regards to (a) the s60 assessment, simply to ACC asking it to carry out a s60 assessment. Wait for them to say no (as they will) and post their letter on the forum. Note that this is a separate matter from © and you can apply for a fresh grant of legal aid for it.
I can't say too strongly that you need competent legal advice, preferably from someone practicing in Auckland.
2

#24 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 19 March 2007 - 01:10 AM

MG
These things have already been done. The ACC claim that they have released all the information in their possession at each stage along the journey from 1997 and any stage they keep releasing additional information. In a letter just this last week I am informed that there are 8 file boxes containing my file while I have only received 4 file boxes. I only have a very poor distant cousin of my file of which most critical items are not legible. The paper trial identifies that the ACC legal services has possession of my original file. My case manager obviously does not have an original copy and only has rubbish of which I keep getting copies.

I ceased to be self-employed June 1989 and continued until October 1989 as an employed person. Since stopping work October 1989 I have never worked since so the issue of being self-employed is a nonstarter. The issue is owning companies and various third parties thinking I am working when in fact I am observed doing other things which is simply assumed to be working which in turn is assumed that I am no longer incapacitated. Apparently no verifying facts or medical information necessary.

At the heart of the problem is the proper interpretation of S37 (1) (a, B) (2) (3) & S37A(3) with special emphasis on how the Corporation goes about making a determination that a person can return to his pre injury occupation while the medical certificates continuing to state ongoing incapacity to return to the pre injury occupation. The ACC have relied upon S73 claiming that they have possession of information that I was working and therefore may cancel entitlements and the claim. The pathway notes state that the decision is total declinature. The file and pathway notes change my pre injury occupation from Mechanical Design Engineer/Project Manager to Chief Executive/Management Director. No doubt they are trying to the reconfigure directors fudiciary duties into an occupation. Pre injury I was not the company manager in my own company and was not the company manager of trigon although a senior staff member. I have had my own companies for almost all of my working life and of course was shareholder/director.

With regards to requesting a S60 decision that request has already been made with a rejection letter and the issue has orally gone before a reviewer with a negative outcome. I think this issue should be resolved prior to the cancellation of claim appeal as if I rated as permanently incapacitated it would not matter if I was working while incapacitated in any event, unless they decided that there was information to show that I was no longer incapacitated and could return to my pre injury occupation.

The underlying situation here is that there is no suggestion that I was ever working more than two hours per day fragmented throughout the day as described on my medical certificates. The ACC simply don't make any disclosure or providing a clue.

My generous spirit of the ACC suggests that as there was a change in legislation surrounding the assessment procedures September 1996 and the ACC still had not carried out the creation of the regulations under S51, which was of course the Work Capacity Assessment Procedure, until late 1997 the ACC staff probably thought they could exit me claiming a new occupation that found they could not because they had not carried out the necessary procedure so then tried to argue that I could return to my pre injury occupation S37A but failed there also as there was no information relational to my pre injury work tasks so therefore change the name of my occupation to force that their assumptions with a fabrication. As S37A was probably not even understood properly they probably just stuffed up and then got ACC legal services to cover for them so as not to undermine public confidence in the ACC.

The whole way through they have always been alleging fraud simply because they don't know what to do with people who own companies. I would imagine that there is some confusion between shareholder/directors when there are only fudiciary duties against professional directors of large corporations of which being a director as a full-time job.

MaybeBlack as the new red and being a director is the new parking attendant.

Legal aid has said the 1999 seven-week trial used up all legal aid for all time. While this is bollocks the reality is they seem to think they are a law to themselves. They certainly are the principal decision maker as to the outcome of any legal issue because of you cannot get legal aid you are not represented and therefore you lose.

Time for my pills before my PTSD gets me. I will Escape into a forced sleep.
0

#25 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 19 March 2007 - 01:17 AM

Go to Legal Aid Review Panel. Also get your lawyer to apply for judicial review of s60 matter - aka King - and apply for legal aid as separate matter. Appeal each unfavourable legal aid decision - in the same way you do with ACC decisions. They'll soon change their tune.
1

#26 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 19 March 2007 - 01:26 AM

MG

I agreed that we are dealing with matters that should be before a High Court in the form of a judicial review. I have been deprived of judicial remedy at many levels of the least of which is the district court itself indefinitely delaying my right of appeal to enable the information form the basis of the appeal to be withheld from a so as to permit a fraud prosecution to proceed unopposed and indefensible. In these cases the fraud prosecution has to stand if the ACC claim to the court that they had carried out the correct procedures. It is simply that if you don't have an entitlement but have been claiming entitlements then you have committed fraud. This is a circular argument which makes the judicial process a nonsense, obviously judicial review.

My case would be much stronger than King's on the S60 issue.

There has been 120 Review Hearing applications regarding my claims. Senior barristers have estimated the ACC has been more than $1 million fighting me thus far and are unlikely to back down for anything. The stakes are a little bit too high as senior staff members have committed perjury, perverted the course of justice, have become involved in causing actual physical harm etc etc. They are aware that I followed the Professor Allan Fels viewpoint that public servants who break the law at this level should be put in jail as a discouragement to all ACC employees from doing the same to others.

Are the pills working yet??
-1

#27 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 19 March 2007 - 01:54 PM

Alan

In one of your more recent postings, you say something along the lines as to having a permanent injury or not.

I cannot recall if you have ever had the Independence Allowance or Lump Sum assessment as it was previous to June 1999.

This is/was a sure way to prove that your injury is/was always deemed to be permanent. If so, would that in itself not help your case.

I realise the main issue is to overturn a conviction, but if you had/have a permanent impairment and could prove it, unless ACC watched you as you worked, how could they assess how much actual 'work' you were doing?? (Work=production=income)

I mean, is it reasonable to expect a person to keep up the routine of a 30-35 hour working life, when they have a hand/arm that is seriously impaired? Especially if that hand/arm is their writing one.

Then another aspect to look at is how much longer it takes you to look after yourself, (Independence) in that you have shirt buttons, zips etc to do up when getting ready for the day.

I have found there is less stress, when I do not have a timelimit placed upon me to have things done within. Therefore, to keep the stress at a minimum I actually take longer to get ready for the day. This is not taking the pain of the actual injury into consideration.

What I am trying to say is that, unless someone was actually standing beside you watching you the whole day, they could hardly say if you could or was working or not.

I honestly think that the combination of the multiple companies, as well as their sightings of you doing various things that they consider to be 'work', has ended up in a huge big mess.

Don't get me wrong, I also think that those companies were there for a reason. As companies were in those days and probably still are, they are there to look like they are not trading, but can have bank accounts and money flowing through them, even if it should be money that is going through another entity. I am not surprised they were thinking that you could be 'earning' income from them. (Therefore, generating income).

However, I consider what you have shown is that their investigation has been deplorable. They obviously needed more competant investigators. What does sitting in your car travelling to Taupo have to do with anything. You could be going for a 'dirty weekend'. You can still drive with one hand. They obviously didn't get much useful information out of that very long day.

Mini
2

#28 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 19 March 2007 - 03:22 PM

Mini
the S79 (1982 act) assessment rated me at 60% and I was paid
the S78 (1982 act) was delayed because they wanted to see if I would get any better even though three years had already gone by. When this section timed out mid-1995 they obtained a letter from one of the top hand surgeons in New Zealand is said I was still knackered but the ACC made a decision not to provide entitlements because they had not made a decision yet. Naturally they sent the letter to the wrong address so the three months expired and then they said I was out of time for appeal. Recently the reviewer says she does not have jurisdiction.

In regards to the original injury and other injuries and independence allowance application has been submitted was no decision yet. I have been assessed for seven hours home help per week but consistently with all of the other things I don't receive it yet.

The ACC have agreed to fund the surgery 2002 and continue to fund pain medication to the present based on the permanence of the injury despite the decision of total declinature 1997. No new decision to revoke the first decision so as to allow to provide entitlements.

There has been no work task activities ever described in terms of the nature of the task by direct evidence or the duration or the material time.

Essentially the ACC are alleging that I have been working in activities that could be applied to my pre injury occupation, without actual evidence or assessment, and that therefore no longer incapacitated based on their gut feeling.

With regards to companies I owned, the functional companies were managed and had employees. I was not employed and did not participate in the company activities. I did however signed various contracts, guarantees, lease agreements etc in my capacity as director. These duties are fudiciary and are not income generating and their duties that cannot be carried out by the manager as the manager is going to accept liability for something like a loan guarantee or lease agreement.

With regards to travelling to Lake Taupo and back I had a vision of loveliness (dirty weekend) with me who shared the driving, as is recorded on the investigator's worksheet. I wonder what else they took photos of, bunny rabbits, if you like that sort of thing?
1

#29 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 19 March 2007 - 04:56 PM

ACC made a decision of total declinature 1997 under S73

Dr Monash (ACC medical assessor) makes a medical report 2 February 2000 without benefit of medical information or clinical examination stating...
"... capable of returning to his previous occupation (variably described as "engineering" and "project manager."
ACC paid Dr Monash

Dr Emrys (ACC medical assessor) makes a medical report 8 been February 2000 with total access and benefit of medical information including high-resolution scans and specialist reports together with clinical examination and comprehensive description of pre injury occupation stating...
"I do not believe he is fit to return to his pre injury occupation due to the combination of loss of fine dexterity of his dominant right-hand and reported reduced sustained cognitive skills."
I paid Dr Emrys.

ACC choose Dr Monash but whose report is to be relied upon? Both the ACC approved specialist occupational medicine specialists.

The ACC legal counsel makes a nice clear statement 2006...
"When the 18 August 1997 decision was made, it stopped his weekly compensation; it wasn't a work capacity decision. It didn't alluded to be a work capacity decision; it wasn't made under section 51 or any similar legislation. It ceased his weekly compensation and while Mr Thomas says he did not know the basis of that until the review decisions this year, as I said in my submissions, my written submissions and DCA 129/98, which I provided to you earlier-could have let no uncertain ddckre#%@@!^*( as to what the decision was and the effect of a decision in 1997. In other words, he was no longer incapacitated and therefore not entitled to weekly compensation."
1

#30 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 19 March 2007 - 08:26 PM

doppelganger
I was not disentitled regarding an IRP. Ultimately I signed the IRP even though there was no plan to rehabilitation within.
He was total declinature of the claim because the ACC thought I was working.

From the time of injury 1989 until late 1995 the ACC claims that as surgery could not return me to my pre injury occupation or making available for any other occupation they were not obliged to fund the surgery. They also decided not to provide occupational rehabilitation. This means they had decided that I was permanently incapacitated and not worth rehabilitating, justifying the failure to provide an IRP.

I repeat nobody had been decided that I would become an employment consultant. He was no possibility I could be an employment consultant without surgery and if I had the surgery I was simply return to my pre injury occupation.

It was never vigorous medical rehabilitation in fact there was no medical rehabilitation whatsoever and he was no decision to rehabilitate the the medically or vocationally. An application was submitted for surgery which the ACC refused because they thought I was working 1990-1992 because I owned companies. The reviewer told them that they would alluding themselves and instructed them to pay for the surgery so I could get back to work. Still no rehabilitation plan and still no surgery.
You are right that the case manager in 1997 had disobeyed the Review Hearing decision of 1992 regarding the mode of rehabilitation, trying to talk me into being employment consultant, or any other job for that matter instead of surgery.

The Allegation of Work
the allegation of work has progressed beyond a simple belief. A Review Hearing decision not to disturb the Corporation's decision to cancel the claim for that reason has occurred from which a criminal court relied upon which resulted in a conviction still without any information about working, capacity to work or more importantly capacity to earn. The ACC simply told the judge that they had carried out the correct procedures and that as in the ACC were able to prevent an appeal to the Review Hearing until after the criminal case there is no choice for the judge except to make a finding of guilty. Quite a powerful exit strategy as there is no possibility of defence!

The ACC does have paperwork confirming that I did not work, documents seized from my home by search warrant which they were told from both myself and the court. The search warrant was obtained with the claim that people who are directors of companies are not entitled to ERC. At great expense the Corporation simply confirmed to themselves that they were wrong but they pressed on with the case regardless.

The ACC has never calculate abatement but made a promise to calculate reparations 2003 and then never did.

The dishonesty of private investigators, and in particular Robert Cheetham, is quite incredible. An endless succession of dishonesty even causing witnesses to be removed from New Zealand by lying to New Zealand immigration services. He even does not stop at breaking and entering into private property. He was caught red handed rummaging through my staff after getting himself through locked doors. Even though he was caught red-handed he successfully stole at least two magazines. I asked him to put them down and he didn't and then went with them. The magazines contained articles and photographs about me.

It is proven that I was followed to Taupo and back as confirmed by his own hand writing and reports, interactions between himself and the ACC in the ACC notes, the person who greeted me and my beloved at the seminar, who was well known to me and provided me with the PI's hand written request, and and my own observations of them. While being followed by even attempted to outrun them by travelling in excess of 140 km per for more than five minutes.
These people routinely break the law. Again and again in other reports the report states that they lose me in traffic. This is not difficult if you know what you're doing. One favourite is to go round and around and around the roundabouts. Another is to park on the side of the motorway which forces them to go past. Etc etc . No doubt my ability to thwart their reference drove them into a frenzy to get the better of me. Am I to blame for my own demise in this regard? Do we commit ourselves to be of use by those who stalk us?

The ACC have relied upon the impressions of the private investigator to determine an end of incapacity. This information has been passed on to Dr Monash so as he can produce a medical report. No medical information that clinical examination yet a decision that incapacity has ended. Clearly ACC were seeking in developing a new exit strategy.

Dr Emrys disagrees with Dr Monash. All the medical professionals having dealings with my case all disagree with Dr Monash and the ACC. Even WINZ disagrees with Dr Monash and ACC by providing me with an invalids benefit which has the criteria of no capacity in any occupation more than 15 hours per week. My medical certificate allows me 10 hours per week of which I did not use for work that could generate earnings. The only work that I did do was to investigate opportunities to utilise my residual capacity for that 10 hours only while I waited for surgery.
1

#31 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 19 March 2007 - 11:05 PM

The search warrant does not describe the end of incapacity nor any return to pre injury occupation or new occupation but asks for the search warrant on the basis that crime has been committed because I was a director. The search warrant then sets out to describe the evidence and has that I am a director. The ACC had already been informed that I was a director pre injury, continued to be a director post injury and became a director of a number of other companies.

Most importantly the Review Hearing decision of 1992 confirms that being a director is not an occupation and neither is a shareholder/director grounds for the ACC to tamper with earnings insurance. It would seem that the private investigator doesn't know this or simply misled the court registrar. The senior court registrar has since confirmed with me that the warrant should never have been issued and has apologised. What I should do is address the matter in the High Court as a judicial review given that the reviewer thinks that the decision to obtain a search warrant, the taking of my property and the failure to return my property is an administrative matter that is not reviewable.

The ACC also claim that the code of complaints does not deal with this as the cocaine in after the event even though they still retain my property which I need for this appeal next week of the 1997 decision.

The following is typical of the paragraphs within the search warrant affidavit submitted by the private investigator the most certainly will have known better thus committing perjury to the court in this affidavit.

Attached File(s)

  • Attached File  sw.png (11.1K)
    Number of downloads: 2

-1

#32 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 19 March 2007 - 11:22 PM

You will need to provide fresh evidence that ACC's decision to cease entitlements contained an error of law. But first, I think, you need to challenge the LSA decision so you've got some $$$ to get into the fight. That's for your lawyer to do on your instructions.
You say you have a 10 year old outstanding appeal (or review) - at level of Court (eg District/High)? What are the grounds for the appeal/review? What does your lawyer say about your chances of success? These issues are the ones that matter from a legal perspective.
0

#33 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 March 2007 - 12:06 AM

MG
What you mean by fresh evidence? It hasn't been any evidence yet??

The reviewer adjourned the hearing because the ACC did not show up and did not provide any evidence. He did not reconvene but decided not to disturb the ACC decision.

It has been waiting for the ACC evidence for 10 years so I can appeal to the district court!

The grounds for the appeal is that I was not working and working is not grounds for total declinature of the claim as working while incapacitated at best can only be an abatement of earnings issue if they were actual earnings.

The ACC is attempting to suggest that because they think I was working again extrapolate that hypothesis in leaps and bounds to one of no longer incapacitated so I can return to my pre injury occupation.

I have thousands upon thousands of exhibits describing what everybody else that to my exclusion. How to disprove a negative. I can only prove what I was doing which was not what they said I was doing, but they won't tell me what they think I was doing.

So as not to have any inconvenient witnesses such as a 24-hour a day seven-day per week witness who was brought into the country especially for the appeal 15 December 1999, adjourned because the ACC still haven't found the information, Bob Cheetham approached New Zealand immigration to have her removed. She was deported on the basis that she had misled immigration into believing that she was a witness for my defence when the ACC, prosecution don't want me to have any defence. She has been submitted from New Zealand and for 5years. We waited the 5years the immigration still would not process her immigration application. The ACC claimant that she was a customer of mine yet we had known each other for over four years and had been living together for 3 1/2 years. Immigration law requires immigration to treat couples living together for two years or more as being the same as married.

My de facto wife was waiting outside New Zealand because ACC and immigration, who worked on the same for the same building, were sharing information and immigration had been told by ACC that she was a customer. Obviously she needed to come to New Zealand on a limited purpose visa to testify in both the criminal and civil court. ACC fought against this so that permit was granted so as she would arrive after the trial. The trial lasted several days longer than expected so she arrived on the last day. The civil hearing was set down for a few weeks later. Immigration tried to have her removed but were initially unsuccessful so ACC district court appeal was delayed until next year. Fearing that I would get a High Court injunction on the immigration services ACC and immigration conspired to have her removed from New Zealand.

The following statement made to immigration by Robert Cheetham caused her removal against her will (kidnapping) with the result that she was sent back to China pregnant and lost our child. I hold Cheetham directly responsible for the death of our child. No matter what happens there will be justice in this case.

What makes this matter really bad is that she was booked to fly out on the very next flight available after immigration made their final decision 14 December 1999. She was put in prison and a point on the exact same flight that she was booked to go out on anyway. This is what happens when government departments collude together to conspire against citizens and defeat justice.

The manager of the company committed suicide with the ACC being the principal contributing factor.

Attached File(s)


-1

#34 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 20 March 2007 - 05:09 AM

Alan
Start writing a book. You have many good proof readers and editors on line. I am sure we can get it published.
This is a serious suggestion. Warren is taking a similar approach by writing (and threatening to publish) a report in an attempt to change the system. From my experience I dont believe the Govt want to change anything. Hence I see the way out of this is enlisting public support for your plight. I also have as little faith in the Court system as you do - as all outcomes depend on how much money you can spent, and against ACC's billions we dont stand a chance.
1

#35 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 March 2007 - 08:52 AM

Alan

You have put the flow chart on line which i have dropped down to use.

It is very helpful. It shows clearly how ACC are supposed to treat you for rehab and IRP.

Could you tell me where you got it? Is it out of ACC own Manual. I have a previous one which is out of their own Manual and it has been very helpful in 'showing me the way. But you also have to watch the wording of the letters to assessors compared to what you are told. Sometimes they are not the same thing.

The Ramsay case shows clearly that once in the cycle of Voc Rehab, there is no mistake, although the case put online by MG recently overshadows this a bit if it can hold its ground.

Sounds like you are getting somewhere with H/H and Ind Allow. 7 hours is a lot of time. I have two buggered shoulders (arms hands) and only get 1&1/2 hrs so you are doing pretty good.

must fly
Mini
2

#36 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 20 March 2007 - 10:34 AM

Alan - this is too big for you to do by yourself. Get a lawyer. I take it you are appealinga decisin by the reviewer to uphold ACC's decision when ACC did not attend the hearing and offer any submissions. I understand the reviewer was our old friend Mr Orange. Get a lawyer.
1

#37 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 March 2007 - 10:43 AM

Spacecadet
you have suggested that I should write a book. Is that before or after the vengeance takes place.

Would that be something like the book written by the judge that coined the phrase "an unmitigated litany of lies".

A famous workers compensation attorney in the USA wanted to write my book for the American market to act as a discouragement for America going the ACC global insurance way. His interpretation of the situation in America is that they have difficulties with their system that the ACC system is unworkable and in the failure. He is not surprised that circumstances like mine are commonplace.


Hardwired
I have written to Gary Wilson and Dr Jane White on numerous occasions with the result that there has been no answer. When others replied to my correspondence they claim that they have already responded to my questions for information and when you trace back the response of the response of the response you find that there is a promise to provide the information.


Mini
My background as a project manager allows me to reverse engineer any system and establish procedural flow charts such as what I have produced. Only it takes me about 10 times as long because of my injury. I am glad that what I am doing is helpful. The ACC do not want front-line staff to have this level of expert systems.

Further up the food chain within the ACC they will have expert assistance that progressively diminished their liability. The progression of cases that got to achieve the Ramsey case is a case in point. This took years of standardising and manoeuvring. From the Ramsey case it means that any challenge must be made prior to a vocational independence assessment. This means preventing the occupational assessor from passing on information until the information is approved by the claimant and the same thing with the medical assessor. More about that later.
-1

#38 User is offline   Warren Forster 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:07 AM

MG,

You are correct, Alan is appealing ACC's s.73 decision and in particular the reviewers decision to "not disturb" ACC's decsion. Mr Orange was not the reviewer, but he was involved in the "managment of the review", just as he was involved in the "management of the claim".

Alan does have a lawyer in Auckland however this does not solve the legal aid issue.

Doppel,

Alan's entitlements were not suspended for refusing to supply rehabiliation information to the corporation, they were suspended because they "decided" he was working.

THE LAW

The issue at appeal is not overturning the fraud conviction, that will have to come later. The issue is the decision to decline entitlements.

It is my understanding of the case law from Hyde, Brown, Lintott etc, that ACC's decision under s. 73 regarding weekly compensation must still be made in accordance with s. 37 of the '92 Act.

At the relevant time, the 2nd 1996 Amendment Act had been enacted so that 37, 37A, 37B and 51 were the relevant sections.

The medical evdience is clear that he was not fit to return to pre-injury occupation. This remained from date of injury through to present.

The law required that if a person was fit for pre-injury occupation then they should be assessed under .37A, and if they were to be rehabiliated into another occupation they should be assessed under s. 51.


the facts

Alan was not fit to return to his preinjury occupation. It is accepted that deisgning complex machinery on a computer is not possible if one cannot use a mouse and keyboard. All of the Witnesses support the conclusion that Alan could not use a mouse and keyboard to the necessary extent.

Alan was not put through rehabiliation or a s.51 Assessment by the Corporation.

There was no determination of the medical facts in the Fraud case, or in the review. This means that there is no way that Mr Thomas can show deterioration etc.

I hope that this helps clarify the situation.


INFORMATION

The court has directed ACC to provide the evidence that he was "working" but they have not done so with due particularity. They have merely explained a few paragraphs of the criminal trial.

Cheers

Warren
0

#39 User is offline   Witchiepoo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 27-January 05

Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:27 AM

Robert Cheetham is a total scumbag - I know, he was stalking me. However, I took him to DC and although he wasn't found guilty of lieing but was found to be making FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, he and the scumbags he worked for were left holding all the court costs and their lawyer's costs. Diddims. No doubt the ANAL BLOOD FART is still stalking me for revenge.............

YOU SUCK CHEETHAM, I MEAN CHEETEM, I personally wish you all the worst happenings that life can throw your way !
1

#40 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:52 AM

Warren

The cue for your very clear and concise posting. If only I could be a wordsmith. Sigh....

You have suggested:

"INFORMATION

The court has directed ACC to provide the evidence that he was "working" but they have not done so with due particularity. They have merely explained a few paragraphs of the criminal trial. "

I think they have claimed the information is in the transcript, I have gone through the transcript thoroughly and can find no direct relationship between any assumption of work even that matters with my pre injury work task activities. I'm certainly not aware of the ACC explaining how they came to interpret the assumptions reported to them. The nearest I can see is that the ACC think I was managing companies so they changed the name of my pre injury occupation to that of Chief Executive/Managing Director so as to achieve a match of information. They had not however "explained" the rationale of this potential of a viewpoint.

What I mean the offended about is that the ACC have placed the burden upon me of guessing the the rationale of their decision so as I can create an argument in rebuttal. This is not our justice system should work.
-1

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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