ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#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

#56 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 10:09 PM

Mini
you must never hide information that anybody has a right to have. ACC have a right to know the work tasks in sharp name of your pre injury job so they know what the rehabilitation target is. They also need to know if you are making any progress in that endeavour, and they even need to know if you are spending too much time watching television when you could be using your residual capacity to rehabilitate. We have a duty to try.

I have given them so much information they have trespassed me to stop me giving them information. When that didn't work they kept transferring my file from one branch to another. Too much information set to many specifications. My pre injury occupation of mechanical design engineer/project manager requires the use of two functioning hands so there answer is to change the name of my pre injury occupation to chief executive/managing director without telling me and then accuse me of being able to return to that occupation in the naive belief that a company director is the same thing as chief executive/managing director.

But they failed to realise it is not the name of the job that must be the same or similar but the tasks within the occupation. To be achieved executive you have to have been doing chief executive type stuff, like Dr Jane White. I'll bet they don't even understand what she does!

The problem is stupid people who don't know what they are doing have a tendency to fake until they make it and if they work for the ACC and make mistakes they can rely on other people to fix up their mistakes for them. Now ACC legal services are trying to patch a mistake after mistake after mistake. This is where the dishonesty comes in because there is a paper trial of lie after lie after lie. This is not Alice in Wonderland this is raw corruption of the worst kind.

I'm sorry that I cannot buy into a culture of make-believe. The companies I owned are what they are entered the task activities I was involved in also are what they are.

The question is whether or not I could perform the task activities of my pre injury occupation or whether or not I could perform the task activities of a new occupation and have a capacity of earning. The problem is the ACC have ignored the information they have been given and have tried to cobble together fragments of information into something entirely different. I will not play the game of deception. You cannot hope to provide an alternative deception to their deception as it is only the truth that be the left standing when everything is rigorously tested.

The final question is whether or not I have any Capacity at all to earn while having regard for my injuries.
0

#57 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 22 March 2007 - 07:52 AM

Alan
As you were a shareholder and director of several companies I would assume you had an accountant?
Did you or your accountant produce an annual set of accounts for each company over the years that ACC allege you were working?
This is very important: Company accounts, must state the nature of the activity of the company and record all transactions of the company. They also record remuneration paid to each and every director and shareholder. Under the companies Act, all renumeration to a shareholder holding 10% or more of the shares must be voted and approved by a majority of shareholder at the AGM. Remuneration for Directors is fixed at the AGM. All of these are recorded in the Company Minutes, usually held by the company accountant.

Where are these documents?

In essence, a company is a separate legal identity to the shareholder or director. This principle is enshrined in the Company's Act.

On this issue I have been reviewing my own investigation report from Mr Cheetham. In it he states things like "the claimant received the sum of $96,000" "the claimant paid for xxx" "the claimant did X, Y & Z" etc. When in fact it was the company, in which I was a partial shareholder, did all of these things. This distinction is critical, particularly in relation to financial transactions. Mr Cheetham is very uneducated in these matters and relies on innuendo like this to build up his scenario of the crime.

In law, what the company does is separate and distinct from what YOU may or may not have done. In law, there now exist provisions for directors to be held legally liable for what the company has done ( a recent innovation), however, there currently exist no provision in law, for shareholders to be held liable for the actions of the company.

So Alan, the accounts and minute books of your companies are sacred documents and must be produced in your defence. If you have not produced them already, you have allowed Cheetham to get away with his innuendo. If you have produced them, get them audited - then they become unquestionable in law, in your defence.

In my case, I have produced these document for ACC. ACC claim, with some justification, I am hiding behind these company accounts. However, the existence of these documents distances me from the financial transaction of my companies.

As I understand it, is absolutely legitimate for a " Beneficiary" to be a shareholder, or a director, of a company - although WINZ would not agree with this. The issue is, how active was the shareholder or director was in their involvement of the running of company?

I am submitting this to help in your defence, to plug what I perceive (with my very limited knowledge of your case) a gaping hole in your defence, which has been exploited by Cheetham.
1

#58 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 March 2007 - 09:29 AM

Very well put Spacecadet.

Although maybe as far as the 'Beneficiary' is concerned, it may be speaking of a beneficiay of a trust, maybe.

Like to establish an 'arms length transaction'.

Oh yep I have the SSA here so will just look at definitions. Hold up!!

Havent got Companies Act though!

You will have to wait til other time. Social Security Act is under 'something' Not sure what!!!

I hope no one has a little spy camera on this bedroom at the moment it is covered in papers. It hurts to take them in and out of cubboards so I simply leave them lying around the bed, the chairs, the floor, you name it. BUT I THINK I know where everything is!!!

You don't see any of that info on my H/H assessments!!! Wonder why??

Bye guys, Carpenters here, must go and sort him out. Is that working??

Mini
1

#59 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 March 2007 - 10:33 AM

Spacecadet
Robert Cheetham knew exactly the type of thing that is needed for a defence and withheld that information from the court. Items such as company records, chartered accountants reports and tax returns and other such information was all there and now it is not. That information remains with the Corporation even though it is meant to be returned to the police in accordance with the chain of custody document (police receipt for my property) so I can be returned to me within three months so as I can prepare for a defence.

As previously inferred Robert Cheetham, under the guise of using a search warrant, style all of the company accounting records produced by chartered accountants. He also style a whole host of other items. He was seen putting seven diaries in the back of his car but did not surrender than to the police for the chain of custody document. There were people everywhere all day long.

The chartered accountant confirms that the directors duties were not done. It was certainly no money paid to directors either. Only two companies were financially active with only one company being the earner of outside dollars. The other company was simply a Holdings company.

At the end of the day it does not matter whether there exists a company or anything else as the only information that matters is the personal activity whereby that activity can be potentially or actually converted to dollars. The income from the company is an entirely different matter. In my case the companies were managed without my direct involvement. This means all the activities that I am not involved in under the company are completely irrelevant no matter what the income. It would seem that no matter how many times this is confirmed by way of case law the ACC just continue to ignore the real world and choose to intimidate people in the hope that they will be frightened into doing things in a clandestinely fashion so that the intent discover a clandestine activity and extrapolate that activity out into something much greater. If something has been carried out in secret a court is far more likely to believe the worst.
0

#60 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 23 March 2007 - 09:58 AM

Alan

Please don't give people the wrong thought that it is OK to hide behind the Ltd company. If you did it or not, is immarterial.

The fact is that there is such a thing as 'an arms length transacation'.

The exact criteria for working this out is in the tax act and it is very vigurously used there. It is also in the companies Act and Directors can be held accountable for any mishandling of the Companies records, monies etc, when determined by the "arms length transaction".

No doubt the investigators of the ACC use it as well and any unexplained transactions, could easily be put under that guise if it fits!!

You are not alone having to prove your innocence. We all have to prove that we are right. The onus of proof is on us to prove that ACC made an incorrect decision.

Of course, yours is far more serious than mine, so far, but mine are just as important to me, and probably just as hard to prove that ACC have made the mistake. Mainly because I knew nothing of ACC law when I started getting loaded with a lot of bulls dust!!!

OK, having had my say I am outta here and off for a weekend away. I am so sick of ACC stuff, I need to run away and hide.

Explain more next week.

Cheers
Mini
1

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

4 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users