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

#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

#41 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 March 2007 - 02:53 PM

Alan

"This took years of standardising and manoervering".
I understand the tactic sooooo well and see it in many spheres of the Acts. Not only ACC. It is amazing how they can analyze an issue 10-20 years before the actual benefit to them is going to take place and little by little as the Acts change our rights are eroded.

I was really hoping that I could use your chart to help explain at Review and Court if need bewhat I need the 'deciders' to know. If not indeed at 'Wrongful Action'. Like see the mistakes you made 1,2,3 4. Have still the other which is actually from their own workbook if I remember correctly, so could perhaps use both.

Whatever it is very well done and helpful, although a fair bit 'deeper' than the other one I have.

I don't necessarily agree with you when you say to 'prevent the occpational assessor passing on information' This may indeeed 'backlash' and cause one to lose their w/c or seen to be not assisting in some way. I think the real first time we get to have our say is on our IRP's, like for instance, making sure that writen in it is the fact that Independence Rehab has not taken place or Med Rehab is not complete etc. If the IMA says you can do X jobs, then I beleive that is the time to start the 'merry-go-round' of Review, Appeal etc.

You are right in that to leave it any longer would be to say bye bye to your w/c and end up with legal fees you cannot afford. No wonder so many people give up so early in the piece. It is daunting!!!

Thanks Warren for explaining Alans case a little more. It too is a little daunting!!! But not defeatable!! No No!! Never give up!!

Cheers Mini

Hey Tom Tom old boy, or girl or whatever, #36

Could I ask what you would want to repost my post to Alan twice for at the top of this page??

You make no post yourself. Come on come out of the closet!! Have your say, don't hide behind someone elses posting!!

Cheers Mini
3

#42 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 March 2007 - 03:38 PM

Mini
I'm glad to see people are starting to see the powers of gradualism and a capacity for the ACC to nurture and develop case law creating a fait accompli which is then mollified into the statutes.

As far as the chart goes give you a case manager a child's crown and ask them to colour and the boxes that the ACC have done, asked them how they have got from point A to point D without going through points B & C. and watch the confidence drain from their faces.

Their own workbooks generally take shortcuts leaving at middle bits that affect decisions later down the track to be very careful.

Make no mistake if you play hardball at the occupational and medical assessments stage you could very well find yourself having entitlements suspended. However my point is that it is better to do battle then while you still can rather than later with the Ramsey decision in the way! ACC are relying upon the short-term benefit thinking of most people. In my experience the suspensions are frequently threatened and sometimes acted upon where entitlements stop but only last a matter of days. A decision that person is no longer incapacitated for a particular occupation will take at least a year to resolve and with only about a 20% chance or less for success.

Most vocational independence assessments are fatally flawed in as much as the occupational assessor claim that a person can carry out the various tasks necessary for occupation with sufficient education, experience and skill to be an earner. Unfortunately the medical assessor is not given the individual task breakdown of an occupation and generally rely upon their own understanding as to what happens in any particular job. In reality the independent assessment is entirely dependent upon the ACC worksheets given to the independent assessors.

Are these assessments and dependent when they rely upon the ACC worksheets? BOLLOCKS


As my rehabilitation plan dealt with the information gathering and artificial intelligence individual work task skills, that make up occupations, and the transference of those individual work tasks to other occupations, the ACC knew full well that they would not be able to put one across me and therefore developed an entirely different exit strategy, fraud as the alternative to medical treatment to return to the pre injury occupation or the work capacity assessment procedure to achieve rehabilitation in a new occupation.
0

#43 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 March 2007 - 04:42 PM

Alan

It is not only the ACC that make changes to benefit in the future. I have known it has happened for a long while, only a wake up call, when one actually sees it happening.

Cheers Mini
2

#44 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:15 PM

Section 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act describes search warrants.

Section 199 of The Summary Proceedings Act describes how and when warrant seized items are to be returned. Any items used for a prosecution may be retained in the balance of items must be returned to the owner within three months.

The privately investigator, Robert Cheetham, signed an affidavit alleging a crime had been committed based on my being an owner/director of a number of companies. He did not describe any particular crime except that he had somehow linked being a director was working and no ACC entitlements.

The paper trail shows that ACC Auckland and asked ACC Wellington legal services if it was okay for Robert Cheetham to go ahead and obtain a search warrant.

The search warrant was requested nine months after the ACC claims that they had information that I was working. If they had any actual information that I was working they would have submitted that information to the court registrar when obtaining a search warrant to find more. As they did not have any information of any work they were truly on a fishing expedition.

The ACC retained everything until after the trial date. The trial was delayed in one week to allow the ACC to surrender not only the file but also the balance of the warrant seized items.

Five large boxes were seized
one box went to court
two boxes were returned
two boxes remained with the ACC

Police received, The Chain of Custody Document, provides a itemised list of what was taken. The two boxes contained information that describe what I was actually doing which is in fact exactly what I told the ACC I was doing which correlates with the written communications and rehabilitation plan.

It appears that the case manager did not fully appreciate the extensive research I had been doing and to my rehabilitation plans and business plans. I guess the ACC expect claimants to write any old thing down on a business plan. Perhaps they think business plans are make-believe documents just like there vocational rehabilitation plans with no research, no supporting facts with guestamations and optimism being the order of the day, sort of make-believe fairyland stuff. I would imagine once they started going through the items that they seized that they got the shock of their lives to find someone was really trying very hard with the residual capacity to actually rehabilitate.

Martin Williscroft, of the ACC, signed the police chain of custody document so he has made a personal undertaking to keep my property safe and return it to the police who should have returned it to me. Martin Williscroft took personal responsibility for my property that gave it to the private investigator.

The police
the police complaints
the ombudsman
the privacy Commissioner
the ACC complaints office
the ACC CEO
and last but not least DRSL who claimed no jurisdiction over the deemed decision concerning the delay of process to address my complaints.

Each blames the other, so who is responsible. Ultimately it must be the police but their excuse excuse is that they have left everything up to the ACC. Martin Williscroft has signed his name to take responsibility on behalf of the police. Which state servant committed a crime against a citizen? Who perverted the course of justice?
0

#45 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:28 PM

In 1997 the ACC made a decision of total declinature because they thought I was working while submitting medical certificates that state I can only work two hours per day. This means ACC claim they have no liability for my claim, not even for my medical needs. My $10,000 credit card ultimately maxed out on opiates, paying for a medical report from Professor Boas, Professor Gill Newburn and Dr Emrys etc.

The Auckland Pain Clinic in wanted to modify the treatment to include $700 per month gabapentin in relation to my injury that occurred while I was an earner. The ACC did not want to pay as they had already made a decision of total declinature and to admit liability for the pain medication would be to admit that my claim was not totally declined. In an effort to avoid this embarrassing situation Kim Hunter the manager of the Auckland Branch of ACC conspired with a WINZ staff member to deprive me of medical treatment and to pervert the course of justice into the bargain. She ceased working for the ACC within a few weeks of what can only be described as one of the more serious mistakes of her career.


Subject Alan Thomas

Kim Hunter from Auckland ACC phoned about Thomas. The phone number is 915-8402. She wanted to "touch base" about the letter Mr Thomas' doctor sent to us on 12/07/2002 copy of that letter was also sent to ACC.

The letter asks that MSD and/or ACC fund private health care for Mr Thomas as he is not acquiring adequate care under the Public Health. ACC believe that the care required is not as result of accident and therefore they will not funded any private health care for Mr Thomas. As Mr Thomas' ACC appeals date grown closer it puts them in an awkward position in that if they were to fund private healthcare it might be seen as an admission that Mr Thomas does have an injury $%*&$%&. ^ asked if it would be OK for John Wallis to phone her in this afternoon to talk further %^$@# (about?) the letter and our dealings with Mr Thomas. She said that would be fine and she may be interested in a joint approach to dealing with Mr Thomas.

Craig Maunder
(Technical Claims Officer WINZ)
26/07/2002



Kim Hunter was transferred into the hospital system as a liaison officer between the hospital and the ACC. I found this out when one of the best hand surgeons in New Zealand, Mr John Tonkin, prescribed a hand brace and Kim Hunter arrange for security to have me invited to a side room then removed from the hospital without my knowing the reason why. I still do not have the prescribed hand brace and affected by medical professionals so I have made my own.

I am now receiving the prescribed medication funded by the ACC but had not received a change of decision letter. Somehow my entitlements have been re-emerging as if by magic. I also have seven hours per week home help awarded to me mid last year, but the home help hasn't started yet.

Attached File(s)


0

#46 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 21 March 2007 - 08:54 AM

Alan

When ACC declined completely, your entitlements, did they ask for reparation of the lump sum IA or whatever it was called back then??

Mini
2

#47 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 09:34 AM

Mini

I received the maximum allowable payout of the S79 1982 act lump some entitlement. As the surgery had failed I did not get the S78 lump sum because the ACC were waiting for the failed surgery to improve even though the surgeons said that no surgery to the affected area had taken place and my incapacity would remain permanent until surgery.

Further back you can see that the regional manager Michael Spraggon had promised to have his staff calculate reparation. To date they had not so I have gone to a Review Hearing at which time the reviewer bizarrely said that that was an administrative matter and he did not have jurisdiction. The sentencing judge in 2000 imagined that there would be reparation and sentenced accordingly even though reparation had not then been calculated. Private investigator however imagined a total repayment but that was completely impossible because the Review Hearing decision 1992 is binding upon the Corporation and the Corporation had no new information. Funny that, if they had calculated reparation things certainly would have been different because they would have been calculating no actual work task activity and no earnings because they would then have to do proper arithmetic which could be challenged and Appealed.

The ACC do not want to provide any information of any description so as to prevent any form of challenge. Perhaps they were experimenting with me on a new exit strategy without information.
0

#48 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 10:26 AM

Self Employed: IR3 / IR5

One of the issues that Alan's case raises is the complete inability for ACC to understand and deal with the issues of the self employed person, refered to under the Act as "shareholder employees". ACC appear to have no guidelines, definitions or processes in relation to "work task activity" and "renumeration"

This is futher compounded by the ACC financial "experts" being completely unqualified and unable to comprehend company accounts prepared to the standards required by the NZ Institute of Chartered Accountants.

In the case of my company accounts, ACC expressed concern at the accounting practises used. As the accounts had been prepared by a Chartered Accountant, I suggest that ACC raise this issue either with my accountant, or the Institute of Chartered Accountants. ACC refused to do this, and two years later still refuse to accept the accounts.

ACC refuse to be accountable to anyone, including the Courts. This is completely unacceptable.
1

#49 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 21 March 2007 - 11:18 AM

apologies re 36 posting-tommy
0

#50 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 12:03 PM

ACC also avoids being responsible/accountable to anyone and leaves the Courts and the people to bear the responsibility for resolving the ACC behaviours and tactics/crimes.

This is also completely unacceptable.
0

#51 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 01:24 PM

I think "Ellwood" helps here - ACC's obligation to be sure of its facts before disentitling claimants. Warren might like to contact me off the board about this.
1

#52 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 21 March 2007 - 02:15 PM

Hi MG

Where did you post the Elwood case? My printer is and was still giving grief, but at least it has ink now so should be able to print hardcopy. I prefer reading with my legs up on the lounge rather than sitting at this bl...dy puter!!

Thanks for help

Cheers Mini B)
1

#53 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 21 March 2007 - 02:28 PM

Alan

Just thought if they hadnt taken IA back off you then that is a sure sign you have permanent injury.

Work related one at that!! Besides I was of the understanding that you could still have your IA while you are working, so they shouldn't be asking for it back unless they found that you didnt have and accident/injury, then they still have part of Act that covers the payment in that they don't ask for it back unless it is fraudulent?? Are they saying you NEVER had an accident and that it wasnt permanent??

I am just coming from a slightly different angle. Cause they can't have it each and every different way?? Can they??

Well, one would think that your lawyer looked after every angle at trial, but then some are better than others eh?? Especially when it comes to ACC law.

If they are starting to give you little dribs and drabs of medical entitlement here and there, that has got to be a good sign. A giant step for mankind!!
1

#54 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 02:40 PM

They have acknowledged that I am incapacitated from my injuries and have paid me on the basis of 60% incapacity. They have not asked for permanent incapacity lump sum to be returned because the medical evidence is overwhelming to the extent that I had even deteriorated





They also claim I have been working while incapacitated

and so conclude

I am no longer incapacitated to work in my pre injury occupation despite the fact that my pre injury occupation was heavily dependent upon computer mouse keyboard pen hand tools etc etc which leaves nothing left but my ability to talk.



As they had never disclosed what type of work they think I was doing it has been no possibility of matching up their allegations with what I can and cannot do which has made it completely impossible to appeal.
0

#55 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 21 March 2007 - 03:05 PM

Alan

Sorry but it sounds like you couldn't defend yourself because the number of companies meant you might be GIVING them information they didnt have, just giving more ammuntition to fire, if you tried too!!

Like you open your mouth, you gone. If you leave it closed you cant win.

That what they would call a WIN WIN situation for them.

It sure is a toughy!! They sound like they running a close line to it going the other way, through lack of evidence, although I was overseas at the time, so I don't know what went down.

As I said before, one thing is sure, they didnt appear to do a very good job at investigation otherwise they would be able to put all the figures for which ever company all in a row, so that you would then be able to do with them as you please in regards to defending yourself. But then they didnt want to give you ammo eh??

Am glad to hear they didnt take lump sum back off you and they accepted you had work related accident. You half way there.
1

Share this topic:


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

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users