ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#341 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 20 August 2007 - 05:17 PM

[quote name='Paradigm Shift' date='Aug 19 2007, 01:39 PM' post='49817']

I have thought that I would like to restart the old site that ran from 1998-2002 which was simply a provider of ACC related information. This would also enable a formalised representative structure.

No way, that totally defeats the purpose of a united front.

Also comes the problem, who controls the board ?

We have enough differences of opinion here to satisfy anyone, and we do not need or should we countanence a new site.
0

#342 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 August 2007 - 06:04 PM

Neddy how does one go about representing people with opposing viewpoints such as on the site? The problem we have in representing an open forum is that there are many different viewpoints. Perhaps we could have different organisations to represent each and every different viewpoint. Perhaps we could reduce the number of organisations by making them democratic organisations. At least on this site is everybody an equal opportunity to express themselves. At least with this site the ACC have staff members assigned to read each and every post.

If we had an organisational structure that represented us in an averaged way, such as in a democracy, the little person's voice would be watered down and the ACC would only need to listen to the representative which would mean only the majority viewpoint would be expressed which is not what this site is about. This site seeks to give even the little defenceless invalid who was not an extrovert a voice.

I do agree that we need it least one forceful organisation to coordinate maximum firepower.

Please draw comfort from the fact that significant activity forcing change is occurring as a direct result from this site in accordance with the original plans and principles set out when starting this site.
0

#343 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 August 2007 - 04:44 PM

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

I have two review hearings 31 August and another three review hearings 5 September. Although some of my submissions have been on the larger size some of these will only be one page.

The appeal to the 1997 decision will resume 18 September with the ACC claiming they need six more witnesses and they another two weeks court time. As I had not received a copy of any information describing the alleged work task activities demonstrating a capacity to return to my preinjury occupation I am not yet able to prepare submissions to refute the allegation. The ACC have simply claimed they are relying upon the 1300 pages of transcript approximately 1000 pages of exhibits and so forth without particularising what they referencing even though they have received a court direction to do so.
0

#344 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 23 August 2007 - 07:25 PM

This argument regarding the word "work" as it applies to the act is at the forefront of New Zealand's leading ACC fraud allegation appeal. It is going before the Privy Council as soon as the ACC release the particulars describing the alleged "work".

The ACC cancel the claim on the basis that I was working but would not release the information to describe the work and thus preventing the review hearing from proceeding. The reviewer had possession of the whole fraud file prior to the review hearing and acknowledged to be denied while at the same time preventing me from challenging it. The ACC did not attend the review hearing and neither made submissions but simply sent the reviewer a fax confirming that he had possession of the fraud file and lefted up to the discretion. The reviewer agreed that I would not be "heard" if the information I was accused of was not available for challenge.
The reviewer adjourned but did not reconvene. The reviewer decided not to overturn the ACCs decision even though I was prevented from challenging the information that the Corporation alleged to have in its possession.

The technique of the ACC use as to secure a review hearing decision while at the same time withholding the so-called "work" information that they alleged to have acquired by way of fraud investigation. I hold the information back with the protection of the privacy act in the "national interest".

Once the ACC have a review hearing in their favour then they prosecute for fraud relying upon the reviewers decision rather than actual information. Invariably a fraud prosecution of this type will succeed as you cannot appeal against a vacuum of information while at the same time there exists a judicial decision that you have no entitlement and had been applying for the entitlements you were entitled to have.

I have supplied a copy of the review hearing decision.





REVIEW NO: 45/98/3076


APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
BY
ALAN THOMAS.



HELD AT: PANMURE
DATE: 5 JANUARY 1998
BEFORE: G. M. SMITH, REVIEW OFFICER
PRESENT: THE CLAIMANT.






DECISION.
Pursuant to Section 90 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992.








Issue:

This application for review concerns ACC's decision of 18 August 1997, ceasing the claimant's entitlements pursuant to Section 73, as ACC were of the opinion that the claimant was working whilst in receipt of weekly compensation.


Background:

The claimant, now 42, suffered a traumatic injury to his right arm on 27 December 1989. He first sought treatment in respect of the injury on 3 April 1990 and was certified unfit for work thereafter. The subsequent history of Mr Thomas' treatment and claim is well recorded on his files, and will only be referred to in detail if relevant to the issue under discussion.

Also recorded on file is Mr Thomas' involvement in a self-employed rehabilitation venture called Career Pilot, which apparently never got off the ground. It is also noted that Mr Thomas was investigated by ACC in respect of that venture, but at the time there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was working. That issue also went to review, which was successful.

On 1 April 1996, the claimant wrote to ACC highlighting the fact that since his accident, and whilst being in receipt of weekly compensation, there had been a considerable period where there was no obvious return to work in sight. He also mentioned he was going to seek out new opportunities, and that technology was now available for him to look at making income without the use of his hand, as mouse work and manually using keyboards exacerbated the injury. At the conclusion of his letter, the claimant stated he wanted to:

"Find a suitable working opportunities that will offer the flexibility to allow for a learning curve. The only type of work that could be realistically achieved would be a self employed position. The type of work would need to be of a consulting type with little or no overheads. As most of my working life has been of a self employed type with 15 - 20 workers, and many more sub-contractors this presents no real obstacle."

He also mentioned setting up an immigration consultancy, as well as import/export ventures, and also an employment placement business. It appears that ACC may have initiated some investigation into Mr Thomas' ongoing activities, and requested him to provide a statutory declaration concerning whether he was working. Mr Thomas provided a statutory declaration, dated 21 May 1996, in which he declared that:

"I have not been working or creating an income for work carried out at any time over the last years.

I have however been collecting information and preparing a business plan with the aim to start a business.

The ACC remains my sole means of support. "

Also on file, is a Vocational Rehabilitation plan signed by the claimant on 23 July 1996, outlining his attendance with a job placement agency. The claimant attended

Brian Cranstone-Hunt for the purposes of vocational rehabilitation, and the subsequent history of his interactions with Mr Brian Cranstone-Hunt are well recorded on the file as well. Mr Thomas also provided a rather extensive rehabilitation project relating to self-employed schemes, including a Chinese newspaper, manufacturing in the Third World, logging of hard wood in Western Samoa, as well as other assorted activities. However, on 29 April 1997, Mr Thomas advised he was working on a self employment consultancy with another person, but that venture fell through. The name of that venture was Techlink.

Some considerable time later on 18 August 1997, ACC, which had obviously been carrying out some investigation, wrote to the claimant ceasing his weekly compensation as he had been working.

The claimant applied for a review against that decision and the matter proceeded to a hearing.


Review Hearing:

For the purposes of the review hearing, ACC lodged written submissions outlining the history of the claim and subsequent investigations. Ultimately, the submissions stated that as a consequence of the Corporation's investigations:

“...13. ACC has the following information to support their contention that Mr Thomas has been working whilst in receipt of full weekly compensation. The following information is also advanced to support the contention that Mr Thomas has failed to adequately advise ACC of his work activities:

(a) Investigations carried out revealed that Mr Thomas was involved in the following companies: - Orac Holdings Ltd (incorp 16 March 1994) listed as a director, Orac Migration Services Ltd (incorp 22 April 1994) listed as the director/secretary, National Qualifying Co (incorp 11 March 1996), The National Translation Centre Ltd (incorp 10 May 1996), International Funds Transfer Ltd (incorp 10 July 1996) and ORAC Publishing Ltd (incorp 8 August 1996).

(B) In April 1997 the claimant was noted to be attending the Office of Orac Immigration Services Ltd on a regular basis. This company


employed 14 to 15 staff. He was regarded by the telephonist as the Offices General Manager.

© The Corporation has numerous letters and faxes dated March and June 1997, signed by Mr Thomas as Director, for the following companies, ORAC Holdings Ltd, ORAC International Ltd, ORAC Migration Services Ltd, the National Qualifying Academy Ltd. The faxes and letters are in response to ongoing communications between Mr Thomas and various other parties.

(d) ACC has obtained statements from a number of people who have had involvement with Mr Thomas. These people have indicated that they dealt with Mr Thomas as the Manager of ORAC Holdings. These people have not been named to protect their interests prior to prosecution. Their details are contained in the fraud file. In essence their statements confirm:

-Mr Thomas presented himself as Orac Holdings and was running an immigration business.

-Mr Thomas was involved in meetings as the Manager of ORAC Holdings and wrote out cheques on behalf of the Company.

-Mr Thomas signed the deed of lease agreement for the property rented for the business.

-Mr Thomas was responsible for paying the rent on the property and for maintenance activities such as cleaning.

-Mr Thomas had talked about earning and making a living from ORAC Holdings.

-Mr Thomas was involved in employing people including drawing up employment contracts.

-Mr Thomas was present at the office and spent a lot of time interviewing clients. His working day was 9.00 till 5.00 p.m. and often later.

-Mr Thomas was the manager of the Office and called himself the Managing Director

-Mr Thomas signed all contracts with clients. The business appeared to have a reasonable income.

-Mr Thomas was also involved in a number of other Companies that never got off the ground.

(e) Mr Thomas has been offered the opportunity to answer these allegations. He has refused to do so on the basis that ACC is on a fishing mission and will miss use any information provided.

In summary, ACC has considerable information indicating Mr Thomas was the key figure in the management of ORAC Holdings. This business was incorporated in 1996. Mr Thomas also appears to have been involved in setting up a number of other companies."

Mr Thomas, on the other hand, submitted that as ACC had not provided the fraud file (upon which they based their decision), that in the absence of such, his weekly compensation should be reinstated. He also provided written submissions which I have read, and they are attached to this decision. (1)

With respect to ORAC Holdings, Mr Thomas stated he only owns the lease agreement and was not deriving any income from it. He further stated that from the time of commencing being in receipt of compensation from ACC, there had been no active rehabilitation intervention by ACC whatsoever, and in the absence of such, stated he proceeded in carrying out and exploring his own ideas for self employment, including exploring 0800, 0900 numbers for an employment consultancy. He also stated that he co-owned a company and was to be paid some $50.00 per week, but that did not eventuate.

He again reiterated that he had been working on alternative employment options in the absence of any intervention from ACC. He confirmed that for the purposes of self-employment, he had been involved in a number of activities he has invested in, such the Chinese magazine that he had set up with a former girlfriend. He helped to fund it and point people in the right direction, as he had previously been involved that industry. He stated that he believed a statement like that could of course quite legitimately be deemed as working, but the definition of "work" for ACC purposes, hadn't been explained to him at all. He ultimately saw his involvement in such activities as being an investment in his own rehabilitation, and stated that the income derived from the investment did not denote work.

He acknowledged he had been involved with a number of companies, but had merely been looking at opportunities to enhance his rehabilitation, and one such company


was an immigration consultancy. He stated that as an owner and director, he had put money into such ventures that he had subsequently lost because of unsatisfactory business partners. With respect to the leasing of a building, he became a signatory on the lease as his girlfriend and business partner at that time had separated from him, and stated that the company was generating income, which was going through the company. He opened up a new company in his name in the absence of the girlfriend and confirmed the company ran at a loss. The company was also growing until an employee took a lot of the business elsewhere.

He stated he was also looking at employment consultancy, and had set up a company at home, which he states he is not benefiting from it, and confirmed that a lot of his work was now done on the Internet.

With respect of ORAC, which is an immigration consultancy, he stated he did employ people and signed employment contracts, but that the business ran at a big loss. He also said he lived at the office and did not interview any clients. He did acknowledge however that he was instrumental in the company's direction and was also a shareholder/director of the National Translation Centre, where he also did not work. He submitted that ultimately there was a “grey" area between working and rehabilitation, and believed he was not in the real sense working, but merely pursuing rehabilitation options. He did confirm that he signed cheques and contracts, but he had derived no earnings from the ventures that he had undertaken.

Following the hearing, ACC provided a copy of the fraud file upon which they relied in making their decision, a copy of which was sent to Mr Thomas for comment. The fraud file is attached to the main file.

The fraud file records interviews carried out by ICIL with several people including a Nora Chu Young, Patrick John Taylor, Kathryn Marie-Speeding Teh, and Benjamin Falelaufai Masoe.

Mrs Young was the landlord for the business premises and she had dealings with the claimant between January and August 1997. Mr Taylor also had dealings with Mr Thomas in connection with Mrs Young, and stated that he and the claimant had conversations, which clearly showed that the claimant was running a business.

Ms Teh was employed by the claimant between April and December 1996 as an immigration consultant, and Mr Benjamin Masoe, who was a partner with the
claimant, gave evidence of being employed by the claimant initially as an employee, then as a partner in Media House in Symonds Street, between April 1995 and July
1996.

A statement by Ms Nora Young dated 23 October 1997, in part records the claimant discussing that he was in the Immigration Consultancy business, and he signed an agreement to lease a property floor on the 7th Floor of Peace Tower at 2 St Martins Lane. Also attached to this statement was a copy of the lease agreement, and her statement is similarly appended to this decision. (2)

A statement from Catherine Speeding Teh also records that she was an ex-immigration officer, the date of the statement is 29th October 1997 and records being contacted by Mr Thomas in respect of an interview for the purposes of employment. The statement records in part:

“... Thomas told me that he had a bust up with his previous partner, who was a Chinese woman by the name of Cynthia Liu and had to pay her out, and that the company was just recovering from a loss of clients who went with Liu.

He said that they had been (Masoe) in the Immigration side, and that was growing, that it was easy money, and that himself had wanted to focus more on a company who was setting up to bring in high tech equipment from China.

The rest of the statement concerned her employment with the company and also noted that the claimant wrote out a couple of cheques in her presence, on behalf of either ORAC Immigration Services, or ORAC Holdings. It also recorded that the claimant spent a considerable amount of time interviewing clients, and also stated that the claimant managed all the staffing and was the controlling figure in the whole operation and called himself director of the company. She also stated that he was interviewing some four to six people per day, with a typical interview taking up to several hours. She also confirmed that the claimant was there every day at the employment.

The statement from Patrick Taylor records he was a real estate agent who similarly had dealings with Mr Thomas, and was similarly under the impression that the claimant was actively running the business on a day-to-day basis.


Finally, a statement from Mr Ben Masoe, who got to know Mr Thomas in September 1993, confirmed he was hired as a consultant by Mr Thomas in April 1995, and worked at level 7 Media House, 76 Symonds Street. He also confirmed that the consultancy business was called ORAC Immigration Services Limited, which involved processing work permits and so forth, relating to the Immigration Department. He also confirmed that they would sign up to three to five people on average per week, with an average gross income to the company of $2000.00 per client. His statement also records:

"... Thomas paid me by cherub and as far as I was aware the partnership between him and Cynthia was an equal partnership, although Thomas appeared to be running the businesses as well as attending to at least five clients a week by himself. "

He also stated that during the year he was working, being April 1995 through July 1996, the claimant and he founded a company called International Funds Transfer which was set up to remit funds to Western Samoa, but it apparently never got off the ground. Mr Masoe also stated he was made a director of ORAC International, but that somehow that company never got off the ground at all. The same was with a company called ORAC Employment. Ultimately, he stated:

"During the time that I worked for Thomas, Thomas ran the business, had management control over the other staff and business, would sign off all the contracts that other staff had put together, would conduct weekly sales meetings, and had his own client base where he would see at least five clients a week."

He also confirmed that:

"THOMAS also rang a magazine for Orac Publishing which is another company that he set up.

The magazine was directed for the Chinese market, was free, but the revenue came from advertising.

I cannot recall who printed the magazine but the layout was done by THOMAS at Orac Immigration Services, and it was one of the functions that THOMAS was responsible for.




The magazine came out monthly. "

In an extensive letter dated 9 February 1998, Mr Thomas replied to those allegations. His reply is similarly appended to this decision.(3)
With respect to the statements of Ms Young, Mr Taylor and Ms Teh, Mr Thomas absolutely rejected their statements and submitted that they were lying, and also highlighted the fact that some of the statements were not signed by the witnesses. He also disputed Ben Masoe's evidence.

In conclusion, Mr Thomas submitted:

"... The ACC have not justified their decision to disentitle. The so called "convincing" evidence is merely misdirected impressions and unsubstantiated conjecture. Throughout my file I note there are a greater number of errors than correct facts. I conclude that the ACC is it entirely incompetent. The conclusion that ACC arrived at is a direct result of amateur detective work carried out by misguided poorly managed unqualified personnel. There are conclusions that have been bolstered by a collection of individuals that have clear ulterior motives. Observations that lead to personal impression does not create facts no matter how many people form impressions. I am not at all surprised at this and I have not seen any reasonable reason to take countermeasures in order to pander to the ACC's need to control recipient's activities. ACC exists to serve my needs, not for me to serve theirs. There is no evidence to suggest that I have any income other than what is provided by the ACC. This is confirmed by my tax records.

It is in the interests of both ACC and the investigating company to continue with an investigation for reasons other than truth. ACC could seek to avoid weekly payments together with expensive surgery and the investigating company have a "Cash Cow" that has delivered for them for 7 years and could go on to deliver so long as they don't get "evidence". It is apparent that this current investigation has continued for more than 18 months which is sufficient time for a competent investigator to establish simple facts. There is nothing to indicate that an investigation should have been initiated in the first instance as the initiating factors have not been identified






"The investigating company is clearly incompetent or unwilling to formulate a proper investigation plan or to correctly carry it out. References made regarding search warrants and bank accounts demonstrate clear ignorance of their craft. For a private person such as an investigator to suggest to the ACC that a search warrant could be obtained is fanciful to say the least in view of their presentation and the nature of the case. Such fishing expeditions simply do not happen as those issuing warrants are professionals.

An experienced investigations company will know what is lawful and feasible. An experienced ACC officer is recommending and authrozing continued expenditure for this investigation. The so called inexperienced ACC officer is a barrister. I have brought this anomaly to the attention of the ACC Complaints Investigator regarding the potential abuse where she promptly informed the so called inexperienced ACC officer. Should anything be amiss I can now be sure that the ACC neither have the expertise or the motivation to investigate itself. Evidently this problem has burst forth on more than one occasion at the highest level within the ACC. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the problem ACC have is throughout the organization including it's contractors.

Funding comparisons with other similar organizations confirm the lack of proper control. They cannot investigate themselves and neither can they properly investigate the ACC recipient.

If somebody was intent on committing the level of fraud that is suggested and had the expertise to deceive the ACC for almost a decade would not have any evidence accessible at all, let alone in the home as suggested I received from ACC less than $300 per week which is insufficient motive to engage in fraudulent activities as described by ACC. My pre ACC income exceeded $1000 per plus vehicle etc.

It is necessary to be busy if one is serious about rehabilitation. Opportunities are few and far between. Many opportunities need to be explored in order to determine viable opportunity. ACC have been fully aware of my activities though they may not confirm to standardized ACC routine. My personal observations of ACC routine is that they are hopelessly disorganized and ineffective. Self rehabilitation is the only practical option and should not be interfered with.







Rehabilitation activity may indicate a work capacity but does not indicate a breach of the ACC obligation to report work activity. Both rehabilitation and work activity have the same objectives in that the outcome is pecuniary gain but they are not the same thing. Preparatory and succeeding activities are represented Work for the sake of the ACC policy is the latter.

The fact of the matter is that from the time of my accident and throughout my recovery I have made continuous and consistent efforts to rehabilitate myself with every means at my disposal. I have even investigated opportunities of rehabilitation outside of my area of previous work experience."


Decision:

From the available information and evidence, it appears clear to me that Mr Thomas is relying on what he considers the vagueness of the definition of "work" under the Act, to promulgate the idea that the activities that he has clearly been involved in are part of some self rehabilitation programme, rather than "work" in the natural sense of the word.

Mr Thomas' quite rightly highlighted the fact that "work" is not defined under the Act. However, in the absence of such, one will look for its normal and natural meaning. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines work as:

"...something that is or was done; what a person does or did; an act, deed, proceeding, business, ..."

Moreover, I believe the only expression under the Act that comes near to defining what work is, is contained in Section 6, which describes a work injury. It provides:

"6. Definition of "work injury"---(1) For the purposes of this Act, "work injury", in relation to any person, means personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment of that person ... "

Employment is defined under Section 3 as:


"...means work engaged in or carried out for the purposes of pecuniary gain or profit; and, in the case of an employee, includes any period of paid leave other than paid leave on the termination of employment: "

Clearly, and from Mr Thomas' own evidence, he was working in the natural sense of the word. Furthermore, the available evidence indicates he was working for the purposes of pecuniary gain or profit. That he may not have had some pecuniary gain or profit as a consequence of that work because of unfortunate business setbacks, is peripheral to the fact that he worked. It is also evident that he worked quite extensively in the various businesses.

Furthermore, I believe Mr Thomas has clearly avoided informing ACC concerning his I other business activities, apart from those that were legitimately recognized by ACC.

I also believe that his statutory declaration is quite fatal to his claim, as it is quite clearly at variance with his statements at the hearing and the available information and evidence surrounding his work activities.

The history of the file records the claimant's involvement in setting up a number of companies (without ACC's knowledge) under the aegis of self-rehabilitation, all of which were clearly set up to generate income, which they clearly did.

Mr Thomas sees his own rehabilitation initiatives, such as setting up various companies, signing lease agreements and also employing various staff for the purposes of generating income, is again clearly at variance with the notion that he was not working.

On a balance on probabilities, the available evidence including that of the claimant, establishes that he was working for a considerable period of time without ACC's knowledge. I do not accept Mr Thomas' statements that the activities he was obviously involved in are really just a self-rehabilitation programme and not work at all. He appears to justify this by semantic legerdemain in respect of the definition of work.

In conclusion, and in the face of overwhelming evidence, I cannot be persuaded that Mr Thomas' claim has any merit whatsoever. I believe ACC's decision is sound and should not be disturbed.



The review is therefore unsuccessful, and ACC's decision is confirmed.



G. M. Smith
REVIEW OFFICER.

Date of Decision: 25 February 1998


APPENDIX.


(1) 5 January 1998 - Written submissions from Mr Thomas

(2)Nora Young's statement

(3) 9 February 1998 - Written submissions from Mr Thomas

0

#345 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 23 August 2007 - 08:04 PM

Only a fool gets sucked into playing the game of ACC.
Only a fool will argue that this is not so.
Only a fool cannot see that this is the issue.
To be a winner one must have the intellect and comprehension of the issues to argue on a higher plane.
0

#346 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 23 August 2007 - 08:08 PM

"argue on a higher plane"
I cannot afford to have arguments on Concorde
0

#347 User is offline   waddie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-August 06

Posted 24 August 2007 - 08:16 AM

Alan - while you took responsibility for your rehabilitation, it appears from reading the review decision that you left ACC out of the loop. Understandable given ACC's track record and inability to think outside the square. I took a similar approach, but with the full knowledge of my case manager, although it was not formally part of my rehabilitation. However, ACC did abate my weekly compensation accordingly.

I guess Judge Beattie has to decide whether you demonstrated a capacity to work. But then, if that determination was made by ACC, presumeable any subsequent incapacity would need to be compensated if ACC considered you where in employment at the time of any subsequent incapacity regardless of earnings if these were nil - meaning you would be entitled to at least the minimum rate.
0

#348 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:56 AM

Waddie the ACC certainly were not left out of the loop. From the beginning they ignored the correspondence regarding a potential alternative occupation with residual capacity should the surgery not succeed. I received a medical certificate from those business premises I was to attend with the payment of $50 per meeting and immediately initiated a fraud investigation. They cancel the surgery and ERC. Both was reinstated by review hearing decision. They then decided that because the surgeon would not provide a guarantee that I would return to my previous occupation they would not provide rehabilitation or the more expensive surgery.

ACC instructed the surgeon in secret to perform the cheaper operation. While recovering was noticed that all was not as it should be which required hospital investigation with the result that they caused a stroke during the investigation.

As I was recovering continued to investigate various alternative occupations with the ACCs knowledge (notes on my file).

Six years after the injury the branch medical adviser decides that ACC can forget about the surgery and try and rehabilitate me into a new occupation. I provided a 20 page report describing everything that I had been doing with the result that the ACC wanted me to produce business plans.

The manager of one of the companies I owned was attempting to steal away the business and together with another employee, who was previously an ACC case manager, set up businesses to take customers, make a false allegation that I was working and with that another fraud investigation began in earnest.

The problem ACC have is that the fraud unit takes over the running of the case with the case manager being a junior ACC employee set to one side. The fraud unit did not read the file an attempt to create new information for purposes of prosecution.

The fraud unit obtained evidence that I was speaking to various people both in New Zealand and overseas, had registered companies, had bank accounts of the companies in my name, leased premises, had telephone accounts and so on. All this information had already been provided to the Corporation. I was interviewed July 1997 (PI) when I was asked to confess with the use of a yes or no answers. I refused that procedure.

The ACC fraud unit had no information describing work task activity in either my old occupation or a new occupation.

August 1997 my claim was cancelled with the ACC fraud unit claiming to have information that I was working. I asked for the evidence that I was working but as the case manager was unable to provide it my entitlements continued.

I was interviewed again by the ACC fraud unit October 1997 (PI) at which time I was interrogated but the only information recorded was the information already on my file. Martin Williscroft was not happy and instructed his staff to cancel my claim and reinstated the August 1997 decision. I appealed.

The ACC refuse to disclose the so-called S73 working information claiming protection under the privacy act. The reviewer adjourned to give the ACC time to provide me with the information so I could appeal. Although there was an adjournment to provide me with the information so I could appeal the hearing did not reconvene. The reviewer made a decision not to disturb the ACC decision reasoning that the ACC promised to have information.

I appealed to the district court that the ACC asked the registrar not to provide me with the hearing date so they could continue with their investigations by obtaining a search warrant to find the information based it must exist.

The bottom line is once the ACC Fraud Unit takes a case of the Case Manager all information becomes redundant so the fraud unit can create new information more to their liking and if they do not have any information they will keep looking until they can find it. If they cannot find it they will make up.

The bottom bottom line is that the ACC Fraud Unit fact that hypothesis is being given greater weight by both the reviewer than the facts recorded on the file. Once there is a judicial decision a criminal court judge has no choice but to submit to the authority of that decision. If it is decided by a reviewer that you have no entitlement then you can be prosecuted for applying for entitlement while not having colour of right to that entitlement.

Waddie at no time had either the ACC, reviewer or any judge considered the issue as to whether or not I had a capacity to work or the level of incapacity. Even if I had been working within the two hours per day allowed on my medical certificate it would have made no difference to the processes used in my case, which is typical of these ACC Fraud Unit controlled exit strategies which reliant upon assumption from appearances rather than actual fact and the legislated criteria.
0

#349 User is offline   waddie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-August 06

Posted 24 August 2007 - 11:35 AM

Well then I hope you were able to get that point across to Judge Beattie assuming that was the matter before him.
0

#350 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 24 August 2007 - 01:10 PM

So the guts of the matter despite all the pages this topic has covered is "Was Alan Thomas knowingly 'WORKING" and was he recieving monies from businesses he had both a financial issue or directorship role.

I am asuming one does not become a director without taking director's fees.

By reading the above postings, one is left to wonder if Thomas has been hosted on his own petard, hoisted by being clever with words and deeds.

If he was trying to raise a test case on the definition of work, IMHO he went about it in the wrong way.

If he made a genuine mistake in beleiving what he was doing was OK, well it may cost him that his research somehow was flawed, an expensive lesson.

Whatever the outcome there is one lesson from this, you can't interpret the Acts without expert guidance and you certainly walk into a minefield when you question definitions eg Work.

I'm not sticking the boot in, rather I'm confused as to what the initial motive of Thomas was in thinking he could initiate "rehabilitation" (his words) without consultation with ACC or his case management team.
0

#351 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 August 2007 - 01:33 PM

Hardwired

......MMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmm oh me oh my oh me.
looks like you were not clever enough Alan,


What do you mean "not clever enough"???


Neddy

Clearly the ACC have allege that I was carrying out work. They have also assumed I was earning from the assumed work and now assume that I was no longer incapacitated. The ACC had never disclosed work task activity to enable it allegation to be appealed. That is why we have judicial remedies available to us when false allegations are made.

Neddy it seems to me that you are falling victim to nothing more than gossip and have fallen for it hook line and sinker.


I do not need to be interpreting the act.

I did not "initiate "rehabilitation" (his words) without consultation with ACC or his case management team.
The ACC refused to provide rehabilitation under S60 by not providing soft-tissue reconstructive surgery that would return me to my pre injury occupation or provide any occupational rehabilitation of funding for assistance. Nevertheless the ACC were informed by two review hearings in 1992 and in writing during that time the ACC wanted me to "get a job" as an alternative to being rehabilitated. They were reminded that I owned a number of companies and a reduction of their liabilities was most easily achieved by my expanding a portion of one of my companies to accommodate my limited capacity.


The issues are simple:

Educated, experienced and skilled to be an earner and earning when injured.

ACC accept cover for entitlements until no longer incapacitated from injury.

Whether or not I have a capacity to safely return to my pre injury occupation or a new occupation.

Does information collected by the private investigators amount to a hill of beans? If they collect information surely that information should go before the qualified and legislated assessors in order to challenge the specialists reports that I am not safe to work for the purposes of earning.

Did any of the PIs information to suggest that any activity exceed two hours per day regardless as to what the activity was, working for earnings or researching, having meetings and developing business plans for alternative rehabilitation as instructed by the case manager.

The question is whether or not I have gained an earnings capacity regardless as to whether people think I was working or not.


The lesson than all of this relates to the way in which the ACC Fraud Unit focuses in its attention on developing a hypothesis that a person is committing fraud and whether or not they can build up enough inferential evidence to succeed in a conviction then rely upon the conviction to Exeter the person from their entitlements rather than an actual rehabilitation and an end of incapacity.
0

#352 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 24 August 2007 - 04:28 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Aug 24 2007, 01:33 PM, said:

Hardwired


ACC accept cover for entitlements until no longer incapacitated from injury.

Whether or not I have a capacity to safely return to my pre injury occupation or a new occupation.


What you left out was that you got involved in a process that was not in consultation with the powers that be, namely involement in ORAC etc. and you demonstrated to ACC and others, an ability to work, maybe not at the level you did before, but still working under the Oxford Dictionary definition

I'm not trying it on, it's just that you have made it so bloody complicated, that even Solomon couldn't fathom it.

You persist in long missives where a few short succint sentences would do the trick.

And I'm not into gossip, it's your thread and you post frenetically almost in a compulsive/obsessive way, and your post of 07.25pm is what I base my assumptions and conclusions on.
0

#353 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 August 2007 - 05:05 PM

Hardwired I think you are missing the point of this whole thread, what Huggy, the ACC Fraud Unit Report and the news media are saying about the way in which the ACC are cancelling claims by way of inference rather than fact. At no stage have I asserted that I do not have the ability or even a lack of intellect. I am merely an invalid which does not mean I am stupid person.

What do you mean "ONLY ABILITY MISSING WAS THE ABILITY TO TURN IT INTO A MONEY MAKER."

Neddy you will read in my previous submissions to this thread that the ACC had refused to provide both medical and vocational rehabilitation to return me to the preinjury occupation or any new occupation and that I had presented the ACC was not only my own ideas but that I had progressed those ideas. This required research, meetings and planning of which has the appearance of "work". Indeed these activities resembled part of my preinjury occupation work task activities.

My involvement in the ORAC group of companies was as the owner. They were managed initially by a partner then by employed persons who sought to steal the business because business was like a ripe unsupervised plum ready for the stealing.

The information that the ACC alleged to have in their possession is evidence of actual work so as to cause them to believe I had the ability to work. ACC have not yet disclosed this information. The Oxford dictionary definition in relation to the ACC means that individual work task activities that make up an occupation must be disclosed.

I have not made that complicated. The ACC have made it complicated by lots of smoke and mirrors like they always do in these fraud allegations. Please do not blame me for what the ACC are doing to us.

I have tried brief and to the point answers like no I was not working but that simply does not work. To give you an example out of the seven-week trial ACC had 6.5 weeks and I had 3 1/2 days.

My posting of 7:25 p.m. yesterday, #431, clearly stated that I did not work, ACC did not describe any work which prevented the possibility of appeal. I provided a copy of the reviewers decision that was arrived at by way of assumption rather than judgement of fact.

The ACC and private investigators are carrying out their craft in the same manner that a circus magician might. Not everything is as it appears. You yourself confess that you have made the assumptions. You then use the word conclusion no doubt from your assumptions. THIS IS THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM.
0

#354 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 24 August 2007 - 07:35 PM

Quote

I dont give a shit re your version of the word ''WORK''As you were out there doing what you were doing then this is work and work with the intention of bringing in income of some sort.You were not doing things for nothing or no future gain,whether or not you made a profit is irrevavant

Quote

Now why would acc pay someone who is capable of running a buisness and have data from your buisness assosciattes to the fact that you presented yourself as the owner.the organiser.the runner.the director.the employer etc ect.

Quote

WHERE IS YOUR TAX RETURN DATA???????????????????????????????????.would solve the issue.
You appeared to be doing wat you shoiuldnt have been capable of and that was running buisness's.

Yes indeed the IRD information would resolve this "issue" so why the ACC are not referring to this needs explaining I think.



Quote

As you provide no eveidence to the contary the the reveiwer was quite right to go on probabilitys


Quote

the ACC alleged to have in their possession is evidence of actual work


Quote

an ability to do so in evidence you have posted

0

#355 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 August 2007 - 08:05 PM

Hardwired you appear to be joining in with the ACC fraud unit mode of thinking by having a phantasm (hypothesis based on a vapour) in building an empire on top. A chartered accountant appeared all of the company tax returns including my personal tax returns. The ACC's own forensic accountant even confirmed no earnings and the ACC Fraud Unit decided he had to be wrong because he disagreed with them, after all I owned a safe that could hold at leased $50,000.

You cannot produce income data when there is no income!

The post at 7:25 p.m. yesterday showing the reviewers decision does not confirm anything because no information was provided to the reviewer to form any opinion and more importantly no information had been given to me to enable any possibility of a fair and reasonable judicial hearing. What part of breaching the "principles of fairness and natural justice" do you not understand.

I was certainly carrying out various activities such as interviewing potential partners in the board room, travelling the world having meetings regarding the use of my patents and so forth while utilising my residual capacity, learning to use voice software and producing business plans. What people think I was doing as opposed to what I was actually going entirely different things. What the case manager instructed me to do, produce business plans, and what the ACC fraud unit thought I was actually doing is the issue and subject of appeal. If they were to state I was having a meeting with a customer on a certain date I would be able to produce that person as a witness who would describe exactly what was being discussed. If that discussion was identical to what the case manager told me I had to do then the ACC have no case etc etc.

Having business meetings for the purposes of utilising residual capacity for the purposes of profit is perfectly normal and acceptable within the framework of the ACC act. It was certainly down with the intention of eventually generating earnings. What is important is the context of the activity.

Being capable of flying to America, having meetings with the technical director of the Mayo Clinic or flying to China and having meetings with cardiovascular surgeons demonstrates a capacity to perform some of the exact same work tasks as I did preinjury. I am not, I repeat, I am not 100 % incapacitated. My earnings capacity depends upon a collection of task capacities.

My right to explore my residual capacities for purposes of rehabilitation necessitates investigating alternative opportunity. This is the key issue. Is the ACC fraud unit to be in charge of my rehabilitation or is it my case manager. If it is my case manager we must rely upon what is on my file. The case manager gave me an ultimatum to produce business plans or face suspension of entitlement. If my case manager and the fraud unit colluded with each other then we have a conspiracy of entrapment that is dependent upon the removal of information from my file, a most heinous crime.

During my rehabilitation phase I made a conscious effort not to engage in any activity that could potentially be directly related to any opportunity of earnings so as to remove all possibility of any doubt. All my time in activities were recorded so as to remove any possibility of false allegation as I would be able to refute any particulars of an allegation. The ACC have avoided any kind of rebuttal by not declaring their allegation with any particularity.

I was not capable of running a business as I had never run a business to start with. Secondly I put myself through a six-week course so I could learn how to run a business but would not be able to do so until I receive the necessary surgery so as to make me physically able to carry out the task activities of a business manager. The businesses I owned were managed which excludes any possibility of my direct involvement with the management.

I did not present myself as the manager, not once. It did not stop people making their own personal irrational assumption. It is possibly not an unreasonable assumption to think that everyone aspires to be the general manager. Prior to my injury I prefer to be on the creative side of the business rather than the administrative. Frankly I am bored by administrative activity, salespeople, invoicing, hiring and firing and so forth.

As people were fully aware that I owned businesses they quite probably thought I " did stuff". This is probably a reflection of their own egotistical viewpoint and personal aspirations. There was a security protocol put in place in accordance with the advice of the ACC funded business tutor which meant that I signed all contracts and checks. This meant I may have signed my name as many as 30 times per month. I also bankrolled the companies and as a director was responsible for ensuring that the companies remain solvent. This activity is well within the two hours per day limited work task activity described on my medical certificates. As there was no earnings involved the case manager instructed me that I should not bother her with reporting such frivolous information.

The ACC have complete access to inland revenue to obtain any information they want. The evidence shows they acquire this information but it was not the information they were looking for as it showed exactly what I had told ACC. So the ACC obtained search warrants to not only my home and business premises but also to all manner of bank accounts that extended beyond friends and associates even to people I did not even know. The information confirmed what I had always said. Not satisfied with confirmation of what I had said the ACC then tried to tell the court that the main ANZ overseas account receiving all international trading accounts with ACC was my account. Obviously during the course of the trial when the error was pointed out they were extremely humiliated.

Hardwired continue on as if the ACC fraud unit and reviewer had based their assumption on something and I am lying. I do not know if I will ever be able to persuade you to rely upon documented evidence in preference to the ACC hypothesis that you are now apparently sharing with them. How do I prove to you that I was not doing something if I was not doing anything? All of the evidence confirms there is no evidence of my working!

Why would I let the managers of my companies steal my companies I have me locked away in jail. Remember one of the managers was an ex ACC case manager who set up a tandem business and began stealing a customer base but was caught red-handed.

The principal 24-hour a day seven-day a week witness could not get permanent residents because of the ACC fraud unit investigation. ACC and immigration work on the same floor of the same building. The ACC fraud unit used her immigration file as evidence of my working stating that she had commissioned my services to process her application. It required a limited purpose visa to bring her to New Zealand to give evidence. Robert Cheetham informed immigration that she was not required to give evidence with the result that she was immediately deported and banned for five years. Robert Cheetham also introduced himself as a police detective to a large number of potential witnesses threatening them that he will prosecute them if they testified against his position. The hardline aggressive tactics are indicated in the ACC fraud unit report. Other members of the site had experienced similar distasteful behaviour patterns of Robert Cheetham in the way he has accessed and used immigration information followed by threatening behaviour.

Far better than affidavits is documentary evidence. The ACC fraud unit obtained a search warrant and took all of the exhibits away, used about 10% of them for themselves, returned may be 50% one week after trial start date and continue to retain the balance including a complete set of financial records produced by the chartered accountant. Diaries were seen to be taken and put into the ACC fraud units car but not noted on the police chain of custody document etc etc.

With regards to not providing rehabilitation it was thought that I was not entitled to a cause of the permanent incapacity under S60 of the 1982 act. If someone under S60 does work the first 25% of the earnings cannot be touched by the ACC abatement of earnings calculations. Notwithstanding this fact I did not work and did not earn. Neither did I demonstrate a capacity to work or earn. There is no information of any work task activities other than signing lease agreements, checks and the like.

If the ACC do have S73 information describing any work task activities and have not surrendered that information despite a directions order from the district court judge then they perverting the course of justice. If they claim to have information that actually do not have such information then they have committed perjury. The factors they have not surrendered any information describing work task activity.

In addition the ACC have confirmed that they are not relying upon the capacity to work or earn in any new occupation. This means they have not made a decision in accordance with S51 but must rely upon S37 which has the meaning that I am able to return to my preinjury occupation. Because they have discovered there is no possibility of my returning to my preinjury occupation at injury is they had had to change the name of the occupation from project manager/mechanical design engineer to chief executive/managing director.

Even though I owned and worked on my own company I was also employed by Trigon Industries Limited. Bill Foreman is Trigons chief executive/managing director.

With regards to your last comment "As you provide no eveidence to the contary the the reveiwer was quite right to go on probabilitys along with the evidence he had in front of him to decide on whether yo were capable of working which y yourself have posted data sayoing you could do so and did do so" the reviewer adjourned so as the ACC could release the long-awaited S73 "working" information. He never reconvened surgery was in reality no review hearing. In order to have a hearing you must hear something. The ACCs allegation must be laid down and then I refute the allegation with superior facts. Easy when it is done the legal way.

".. :
wacko: "
I do not know what you mean by this?
0

#356 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 25 August 2007 - 12:44 AM

Alan, you got screwed. In most first world accident compensation legislation, work is clearly defined but not in Godzone, hence ACC's ability to interpret work to suit its flagitious ends.

ACC used the same tactics on a couple of my acquaintances, unsucessfully. I might add. The "evidence" against you was very suspect and it appears the reviewer cherry-picked "facts" to reach his decision.

Man, were you screwed. Take note everyone and know the nature of the beast.
0

#357 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:10 AM

Alan, and others writing and presenting their own submissions, don't embellish, stick to the point, present facts as evidence, don't rant and don't get into he said she said arguments.
0

#358 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 25 August 2007 - 11:12 AM

The ACC accused me of working but withheld the claimed information under the privacy act as it would not be in the national interest to release the information to me. This effectively prevented me from seeking judicial redress by way of Review Hearing.

I was notified of the date for the hearing allowing 4 working days between Christmas and New Year's day. I arrived at the review hearing to have my hearing that the ACC were not there. The reviewer commenced the hearing explaining that the ACC had not come nor have they made submissions. I simply replied that he has to make a decision in my favour of the ACC had not disclosed the substance of the allegations. After the reviewer speculated what the ACC viewpoint might have been he then asked me what I think it is about and why I think the ACC have accused me of working. I reminded him that he was the reviewer that previously addressed the same allegation in 1992 and it appeared that the ACC was attempting to challenge the authority of his decision perhaps reasoning that owning companies and being a director has now become a contradiction to the ACC entitlement.

The reviewer then dropped the bombshell saying that he has received a fax from the ACC and perhaps I would like to read it and explain it. He also said that he had received a copy of the fraud file.

I said that the ACC would have to submit their own submissions and describe them and as for the fraud file he would have to make available to me if he wanted to enter it into evidence. I read through the fax and blow by blow confirmed the reality of the appearance but the source information the ACC claim to possess so as I can properly read about it with more compelling exhibits given that I had only that moment had any inkling as to what the ACC were alleging.

The reviewer decided to adjourn as the ACC had asked him not to show me the fraud file. He did not reconvene but made a decision to uphold the ACCs decision 7 weeks later. Therefore none of the issues could be challenged as there was no particular item to challenge.


The following is the ACC fax which could be described as their submission


Fax 31/12/97 11:32 ACC HENDERSON BRANCH OFFICE REVIEW NO.339

ACC
FAX MESSAGE

TO: Review
FOR THE ATTENTION OF: Greg Smith
FILE REFERENCE OF SENDER: 45/91/124063 - Review # 4519813076
PLEASE REFER TO MESSAGE:
FAX NO:

FROM: Nicole Rosie-fraud Liaison, Review and Debt Manager ACC Henderson

DATE: 31-12-1997 NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING HEADER) 7

All of the material in this message is confidential to the addressee and protected by legal privilege.

If the reader is not the intended recipient, please note that you may not use any material in this message nor pass it on to others. Please notify us promptly of your having received this message and we will arrange collection at our expense. Please do not copy the document.

PLEASE ADVISE SENDER ON TELEPHONE 0-9-837.1561 OR RETURN FAX 0-9-837-1540.

We reduce the social, economic and physical impact of personal injury on individuals and the community.



MESSAGE: Re: Review Hearing for Mr. Alan Thomas - 5/1/1997


Mr. Thomas has a review hearing set down for the 5th January 1997. The Review is in relation to ACC's decision to cease Mr. Thomas's weekly compensation. As ACC believe Mr. Thomas was working whilst in receipt of full weekly compensation. I will not be able to attend the Review as I am on leave. There are no other people in the Office that have had involvement with Mr. Thomas's file, so ACC Henderson will not be attending the Review Hearing.

Your office has been previously notified that ACC Henderson has a fraud file on this claim. This information has been withheld from the claimant and not sent to your Office as ACC considered its release would prejudice investigations into Mr. Thomas's case. However, the fraud file also contains the information that ACC considered justifies the cessation of Mr. Thomas's weekly compensation under section 73.

I understand that Marty Wolenscroft has previously informed Review that the file would be released once a formal prosecution had been filed. This has not yet occurred as the investigators are still interviewing a number of Mr. Thomas's previous employees. Marty and the rest of the Examining team are away until next week. As a result I am in a difficult position because 1 am of the view that ACC needs to justify their decision, but at the same time protect the interests of other parties involved in this investigation.

I have decided to supply review with the original fraud file. This has been sent over in the mail today along with the first volume of Mr. Thomas's file. However, I would ask that Review use their discretion in releasing information to the claimant of the file.



In respect of the ACC's position I would like to make the following submissions:

1. Mr. Thomas has been ceased because ACC he believes he has been working whilst in receipt of full weekly compensation, without informing ACC.


History of claim

2. Mr. Thomas has received weekly compensation since early 1990 for a right arm injury initially described as traumatic, chronic epicondylitis. Mr Brownlee subsequently operated on his elbow.

3. In 1991 Mr. Thomas was investigated by ACC as ACC had received information indicating he was working for Career Pilot. It was subsequently established that white Mr. Thomas appeared to have some involvement with Career Pilot, however the Corporation determined that there was no concrete evidence that Mr. Thomas was involved in outside employment. (See file 1)

4. Mr. Nicholson carried out a lump sum assessment on Mr. Thomas's injury in 1991. This determined a total disability of 14.5%. In his report Mr. Nicholson noted that "I am not convinced Mr. Thomas has made a real effort in his rehabilitation. In my opinion Mr. Thomas is fit for light work and the type of work he was engaged in previously would be appropriate. As a result of this report ongoing ERC payments to Mr. Thomas were declined.

5. Mr. Thomas subsequently reviewed this decision. He provided the Corporation with a further medical report from Mr. Rees. This report indicated that Mr. Thomas had very limited use of his right hand and needed a further operation.

6. In the interim, ACC issued a new decision administratively declining Mr. Thomas on the basis that he had been working from August 1990 to July 1991 and had lost his employment for non-injury related reasons. Mr. Thomas's surgery request was also declined.

7. Two subsequent Review hearings were held. The first before Mr. Carter, Review Officer, dealt with the surgery request. The Review Officer overturned the Corporations decision and indicated that the Corporation should approve the further surgery. At the second Review, Review Officer, Mr. Smith, overturned the Corporations decision in relation to Mr. Thomas's ongoing ERC. He indicated that he considered Mr. Thomas still suffered a loss of earning capacity and should receive ERC.

8. Surgery was preformed on Mr. Thomas's right arm and wrist in August 1992. Mr. Thomas has subsequently been on full weekly compensation.

9. A further report was received from Mr. Tonkin in 1995. As a result of this report and a review of the file done by the then BMA, Dr Beckon, the recommendation was made to commence Mr. Thomas on vocation rehabilitation.

10. Jan Lorier, Case Manager began Mr. Thomas's vocational rehabilitation with an interview in November 1995. Subsequently Mr. Thomas was seen by an OT, Janelle Aitken, entered into an IRP and attended vocational counseling with Brian Cranstone-Hunt.

11. In May 1996, Mr. Thomas provided ACC with a statutory declaration indicating that he had not had an income from work carried out in the last years, but that "I have however been collecting information and preparing a business plan with the aim to start a business." (attached)

12. On the 6th May 1997, Jan Lorier confirmed in a file note that Mr. Thomas had advised that he had registered a company and was looking at developing a business in international sales. Mr. Thomas also advised that he wanted to work as an immigration consultant. He indicated he was receiving no income from his Company at present. (letter attached)


Corporations Investigations

13. ACC has the following information to support their contention that Mr. Thomas has been working whilst in receipt of full weekly compensation. The following information is also advanced to support the contention that Mr. Thomas has failed to adequately advise ACC of his work activities:-

(a) Investigations carried out revealed that Mr. Thomas was involved in the following companies: - ORAC Holdings Ltd (incorp 16 March 1994) listed as a director, Orac Migration Services Ltd (incorp 22 April 1994) listed as the director/secretary, National Qualifying Co (incorp 11 March 1996), The National Translation Center Ltd (incorp 10 May 1996), International Funds Transfer Ltd (incorp 10 July 1996) and ORAC Publishing Ltd (incorp 8 August 1996).

(B) In April 1997 the claimant was noted to be attending the Office of Orac Immigration Services Ltd on a regular basis. This company employed 14 to 15 staff. He was regarded by the telephonist as the Offices General Manager.

©The Corporation has numerous letters and faxes dated March and June 1991, signed by Mr. Thomas as Director. for the following companies, ORAC Holdings Ltd, ORAC International Ltd, ORAC Migration Services L TD, The National Qualifying Academy Ltd. These faxes and letters are in response to ongoing communications between Mr. Thomas and various other parties.

(d) ACC has obtained statements from a number of people who have had involvement with Mr. Thomas. These people have indicated that they dealt with Mr. Thomas as the manager of ORAC Holdings. These people have not been named to protect their interests prior to prosecution. Their details are contained in the fraud file. In essence there statements confirm:

-Mr. Thomas presented himself as Orac Holdings and was running an immigration business.

-Mr. Thomas was involved in meetings as the Manager of ORAC Holdings and wrote out cheques on behalf of the Company.

-Mr. Thomas signed the deed of lease agreement for the property rented for the business.

-Mr. Thomas was responsible for paying the rent on the property and for maintenance activities such as cleaning.

-Mr. Thomas had talked about earning and making a living from ORAC Holdings.

-Mr. Thomas was involved in employing people including drawing up employment contracts.

-Mr. Thomas was present at the office and spent a lot of time interviewing clients. His working day was 9:00 till 5:00pm and often latter.

-Mr. Thomas was the manager of the Office and called himself the Managing Director.

-Mr. Thomas signed all contracts with clients.

-The business appeared to have a reasonable income.

-Mr. Thomas was also involved in a number of other Companies that never got off the ground.

(e) Mr. Thomas has been offered the opportunity to answer these allegations. He has refused to do so on the basis that ACC is on a fishing mission and will miss use any information provided.


In summary, ACC has considerable information indicating Mr. Thomas was the key figure in the management of ORAC Holdings. This business was incorporated in 1996. Mr. Thomas also appears to have been involved in setting up a number of other companies.

ACC was not informed by Mr. Thomas of his activities in this business. Nor was ACC given the Company accounts. Mr. Thomas received full weekly compensation while clearly able to work, in contrast to his signed certification over this period indicating he was totally unfit for work.

ACC contends that Mr. Thomas has breached his responsibilities as a claimant in working whilst in receipt of full weekly compensation. These responsibilities are set out in sections 18 and 64 of the Act and have been reiterated in the rehabilitation plan. As a result Mr. Thomas's entitlements have been ceased.


Nicole Rosie
Review, Fraud Liaison and Debt Manager-Henderson
My Direct Dial Number is 839 0153



As can be seen by these submissions the Corporation have created a massive volume of allegations of which any one of them is sufficient to cancel the claim. They have also prevented any possibility of addressing any of the allegations because they have not qualified the allegation with any facts. This allows people with hysterical personalities who enjoy the cut and thrust establishing a nurturing and allegiances rather than making the remedy open to those who enjoy the purity of fact and the integrity of law.

It is my hope that those who are qualified to give an opinion would provide a list of the things that are wrong. For example only four days notice to the review hearing. A list of unsupported assumptions. The 28 days from review hearing to decision being breached etc etc.

The facsimile was produced by the ACC fraud unit who did not liaise with the case manager. Had they done so they would have discovered the information on my file that contradicts the ACC fraud unit position, even the previous review hearings.

The technique the ACC fraud unit use is to create a viable hypothesis that emotionally based personalities will buy into then take away all possibility of defence by keeping all exhibits from the gaze of any judicial authority. The judicial authorities invariably make decisions based on appearances in an adversarial manner rather than in accordance with the requirement to carry out an enquiry.
0

#359 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 25 August 2007 - 11:17 AM

View Postwatcha, on Aug 25 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

Alan, and others writing and presenting their own submissions, don't embellish, stick to the point, present facts as evidence, don't rant and don't get into he said she said arguments.



Watcha,

That is the first cogent summing up of Alan's case I have heard in a long time.

It is so very difficult when you get bogged down by your own details to come up for air sometimes and the frustration...wooooohoooo that takes some coping with.

I take my hat off to Alan for managing to hang in there so long under such adverse circumstances.

I am always uncomfrtable under such attacks as have been happening and releived to hear a voice of reason echoing here.

"They" are very creative......but their creations eventually fall over.....when fairness finally gets called into the play....its only a matter of time surely.....thats the rub.

Gloria.
0

#360 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 25 August 2007 - 11:18 AM

Watcha

You are probably right in the way things should be presented but this is Alans own thread and those of us that come and read his rantings have the right to rant back.

If we don't like it we can always stay out of his thread.

And this coming from me, who is not always on Alans side.

Hardwired

I agree with you 100%.

Alan

You yourself posted tax documentation that showed no tax returns had been submitted. Was it for one of your companies or yourself. I can't really rememeber and am not quite interested enough to go back and have a look. But if I remember correctly it was for a number of years.

So don't try and bullshit.

Your accountant may have made up some accounts, but were they filed and accepted as true and correct. If they were you can show the paperwork, that would help your situation and credibility no end.

Then again you have a Court case coming up which is no doubt going to cover all these issues and a few more maybe.

With what the reviewer had in front of him/her they made the only decision possible.

If you win at court it will be on a Technicality, but then I have always said the Investigation was done very shoddily and am a great believer in being up front and out there.

You maybe just lucky enough to be able to fly on Huggy's tailfeathers and reap some reward from the shoddy investigation.

Mini
1

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

6 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users