ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#521 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 08:48 PM

Alan - apra 17 Judge Beattie is telling you if you wish to review the 1995 decision you need to lodge a late review application on that decision, not the 2005 date you "nominated". Thats what he means by the wood for the trees. The 1995 decision is the primary decision issued by the Corporation!

You need a radical change of thinking in the way you interept the legislation imho.
0

#522 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 08:52 PM

The so-called primary decision of 1995 was sent to the wrong address. By the time I did receive the decision I appealed out of time but the ACC said that they do not have to accept an out of time application. remember they sent the decision to the wrong address. I asked for an appeal within one month of receiving the ACC decision November 1995 and the ACC refused to give me a review hearing application form On the basis that I was out of time. This information formed part of my submissions. Perhaps my submissions were not read?

In those days the ACC were routinely denying review hearing rights. The various errors of the ACC were acknowledged during the course of the documentation release under the current act affording me new rights of remedy when requesting the ACC to correct what are now known errors. The nature of this review hearing application is in regard to the failure to provide me with a remedy in accordance with current legislation concerning transitional provisions, of which I fulfilled all the criteria.
0

#523 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:07 PM

So you haven't reviewed the primary decision yet?

Lodge the review application on the primary decision, ACC will issue a decision on whether or not it accepts the late application. That decision will contain review rights. You will have to argue extenuating circumstances if ACC decline to accept the application. And Alan, resist trying to twist it! Judge Beattie has told you what you need to do.

If Judge Beattie removed himself from your current appeal I suspect it was because he had a gutsful after the other ones imho
0

#524 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:17 PM

I do not seem to be getting my point across. I put an application in for an appeal at the time. The ACC did not accept the application stating that they did not accept responsibility for the extenuating circumstances that they had created.

This is very routine with the ACC. The strategy is to create a very large number of confusing issues and then blame the claimant so everybody attacks the claimant.

Under the current legislation I have asked for a description of my judicial remedy To provide me with the lump sum owed to me since my application 1991. and ACC have refused to provide that description and an actual remedy. It is this failure, under the current act, that is the appeal. It is the issue of linking the 1982 act to the current act and the surrounding procedures under the current act for that purpose. I am sorry if this sounds confusing.

My point is that the ACC must steer the way to the remedy so as to provide me with a benefit from their liability. If that means an additional application for a renewed review hearing application that ACC will consider again or a new review hearing application to the refusal to provide me with an out of time review hearing then that is what the ACC must advice under current legislation. That is the review hearing application.
0

#525 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:31 PM

You still can't see the wood for the trees. It neither confusing nor is it blaming the claimant. Judge Beattie has said what you need to do. I have told you how to go about it. The rest is up to you.
0

#526 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:34 PM

I have already applied for an out of time review hearing at the time. How many times do I need to apply for a review hearing?

As this was already stated in my submission we can assume that Beattie J. understood this and was not advising me to apply again. Could you be suggesting that Beattie J. wants everyone to forget that I had already applied so as to somehow it the ACC off the hook.
0

#527 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:47 PM

It is very simple. Just lodge a review application. ACC will be required to issue a decision IN WRITING on whether or not it accpets the application. If it declines, you can lodge review application on that decision and argue the extenuating circumstances. Wood for the trees Alan, wood for the trees.

Or you can just keep applying your thinking and go nowhere.
0

#528 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:52 PM

How many times must I tell you that I have already applied for the matter be reviewed explaining the extenuating circumstances.

ACC have had an application November 1995 followed by further applications over the years including under the current act. I thought I had already made this very clear. The problem is with simply making an application is that the ACC claiming that they do not have to respond. I have been asked for the procedure to which they also do not respond.

The ACC acknowledge that they made a mistake but now they wish to benefit from that mistake.

The real problem is that the 1982 act as a different type of review Application procedure of which everyone has forgotten how to do. the reviewer Mr Greene has stated that a review hearing application cannot be made to address matters under the 1982 legislation and that he along with one other is the only one that is allowed to consider these matters but the ACC will not tell me how and of course Mr Green himself is under no obligation.

My right is to have access to the judicial procedure, which is a matter that was on appeal. This same type of circumstance existed with the king decision which ended up having to be resolved by judicial review just because the ACC wish to benefit from its own mistake, which it had apparently deliberately made. As I received 100% of the s 79 it is likely that the payout together with interest is significant. This is simply a matter for the ACC to result, not me.

I do not condone the ACC playing games with invalids as the creation of a labyrinth to avoid its liabilities is abhorrent to every fair-minded person.
0

#529 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:02 PM

If there has been a review decision on the primary decision, post it so I can see it. If ACC has issued a decision declining to accept the review application then post it so I can see it. If you cannot do either then follow Judge Beattie's advice, and using the way I have told you to go about it.

Otherwise, if you can't see the wood for the trees, just keep doing whatever makes you happy.
0

#530 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:11 PM

obviously there cannot be a review decision when the ACC had not submitted my application for a hearing to be heard. The ACC decision letter is along the lines of these matters are historic and we are not going to enter into any discussion while at the same time acknowledging that the actual decision letter went to the wrong address, as did most of my correspondence from the ACC. The practice of the ACC was to continue sending all of my correspondence to randomised address even confusing myself with Al9lives


no DRSL in order for anybody to run this case they would first need to be able to describe how a lump sum entitlement under the 1982 act is processed through the judicial system. Simply making an application for a review hearing under current legislation cannot be accepted as previously stated by Mr Greene Who is correct in law. As he is one of the only two warrant officers under the 1982 act I think we can safely say he knows what he is talking about.

This case is quite simply Beattie J. failed to read the subbmissions and exhibits, possibly because he had had "a guts full". That does not get my lump sum though.

I would like to get my hands on is the lump sum so I can pay for my own surgery and get back to work. There must be a way even though the ACC had refused every single application for a review hearing and the means of making a proper review hearing application under the original legislation, as is the actual requirement. What they are doing is keeping the judicial process a secret.

Waddiedo you know what the special review hearing process under the 1982 act is?
0

#531 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:14 PM

Whatever ACC's letter says, I doubt it had review rights therefore it is not a decision. If it did have review rights you could lodge a late review application on that decision.

No DRSL, I'm not that friggin mad.
0

#532 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:42 PM

Waddie my previous posts confirmed that I have not got a proper decision letter with review rights. It also seems that you are not familiar with the lump sum entitlement under the 1982 act. That does not discredit you of course as very few people are familiar with these entitlements.

The ACC made a clear written decision to assess and provide both S78 & S79 lump some entitlements. They paid out 100% on S79 and decided to wait until my injuries stabilised before paying S78. The problem is the legislation had a time limit until mid 1995 for the ACC to make the calculations. Legislation facilitates the process to provide an entitlement as soon as it is known that the injury is not going to improve. The ACC reason that they could wait until the injury got his worst as I was going to get even though the legislation allows increased payment as the incapacity increases.

The ACC reason that if it had not made a determination within the time limit it could not make a decision and therefore had no liability. They also recent that they could place the onus upon myself to carry out the calculations and submit those calculations to a reviewer been sent a decision letter to the wrong address with review rights to that effect. It is this decision letter that I received out of time and requested an out of time access to the 1992 judicial process. Not only would they not provide me that access they would not provide the information about it. This is what the current district court hearing was about.

If I have no access to this money under the ACC act then I had access under the umbrella of a judicial review. In past cases, such as King, the High Court refers the matter back to the procedures under the ACC act, where such resolution was envisaged by the legislators.


Waddie it appears that you are having difficulty responding to the issues at hand. It is for this reason that the new software for the site is going to be introduced so as to provide clear focus for the likes of yourself addressed the actual issues rather than repeatedly exploring other matters. This will also assist you upscale your level of expertise and perhaps with it your pay scale while at the same time assisting people such as myself benefit from the collective knowledge base from the site by the power of synergism discovering new things not previously understood.

These techniques take me back to my project management and brainstorming days followed by careful analysis of the data so as to reduce matters to logical conclusions.
0

#533 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 11:03 PM

As I understand it, the primary decision is that you permanent loss/impairment was nil. I assume that is the decision you wish to review. Unless you accept that your permanent loss/impairment is nil? I am guessing that even on the balance of probability a monkey would find your permanent impairment is likely to be greater than nil, so a reviewer should be able to. Of course there are probably other circumsatnces to consider ie stability, but I think it is safe to say 12 years on that whatever impairment there is, it is stable. I think that ACC should have been satisfied at the time that was the case and I guess hindsight is the evidence to show that.

Obviously the outcome is for ACC to arrange a suitably qualified assessor to assess your permanent loss/impairment using the method at the time, then apply the percentage to the $17000 as per the schedule.

Seems a fairly straightforward argument? I think arguing extenuating circumstances for the late review application may be more of a hurdle, but ACC or a reviewer may accept an insanity plea if all else fails.
0

#534 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 11:29 PM

Waddie the difficulty you are experiencing is that you are not marshalling all of the facts of this issue, then you are seeking nonexistent information to support your hypothesis. The new software will of course make this an impossibility and therefore put an end to these postings that he end up going nowhere.

For example you assume a decision of no impairment when in fact the information already provided was that the ACC had funded an assessment already which rendered 60% incapacity for the purposes of the lump sum entitlements. In addition the ACC were not satisfied with this figure knowing that the incapacity was going to increase to a higher number and therefore made a decision not to make a determination until legislation was changed.

Like King the ACC made a decision to avoid making a decision in the hope to abandon their liability by creating an error in transferring the onus upon the claimant to resolve the issue while at the same time claiming that if they do not make a reviewable decision it cannot be appealed with a reinforcement sending that pretending decision to the wrong address and then when it is eventually discovered outside of time a claim that it cannot be appealed for that reason as well. What we are seeing here is a Corporation developing multiple firewalls or a labyrinth to the liability being called upon.

In 2003 the ACC asked if they could make an appointment for me to be seen by Professor Gorman and his team to determine the extent of my incapacity. The moment I enthusiastically agreed to this appointment the ACC then withdrew the offer of assessment.

The decision to withdraw or delaying the process of this assessment was also put through the review hearing process with the ACC successfully arguing that it was not a reviewable decision. ACC continue to invent a continuing succession of blind alleys for the labyrinth they create. There is so much of this sort of nonsense they are then able to run the argument that only an insane person would continue to ask for an entitlement. In such circumstances only an insane advocate would render assistance.

It is for this reason that we need to bring a collective intelligence of the community to be against this multibillion-dollar Corporation. Obviously we cannot be doing it in this hodgepodge style we are doing tonight. The new software should be able to assist you, and myself, work through logical argument based on fixed facts and enhanced capacity to comprehend the legislation.


As for the individual staff members employed by the ACC that had creatively avoided liability it is my ambition to see to it that they are incarcerated for their trouble as such avoidance strategy of the liability is not something that has been occurring by accident but obviously I design. Nobody but nobody can claim to be so stupid or to have the capacity of making many consecutive and concurrent mistakes ranging from sending most mail to the wrong address through to sophisticated irrationality.
0

#535 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 16 October 2007 - 05:57 AM

How is it, that after reading the judgement, both Waddie and I can all see the reason for the decision of Judge Beattie, and applaud the fact that he even gave advice as to how the matter could proceed through the legal system, but still Mr Thomas argues?

The entire world is out of step - except Mr Thomas?
0

#536 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 16 October 2007 - 06:50 AM

Whats that Number 2, if you wanted to be as unsuccessful as possible in gaining entitlements , you'd probably engage Alan as your advocate. Alternatively, you could ignore an experienced Judge's advice. Its all very unusual, but at the end of the day, its Alan's claim, so he can do what he friggin likes with it.

Beattie J DC 215/07 - "can't see the wood [forest] for the trees". Meaning: The implication is that the subject is taking a reductionist view of something that needs to be viewed holistically.

Anyway, I've got to feed Mr Bigglesworth before he gets upset. Number 2, bring me the Addax, the sucking pump device and a wet flannel.

Attached File(s)


0

#537 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 16 October 2007 - 09:00 AM

The failure here is that I had exhausted all procedures. I have made my review hearing applications and I have requested directions regarding the procedure to make applications yet there is no movement on gaining access to an entitlement of which must be based on at least 60% in accordance with the specialist reports. It is not possible for me to receive no entitlement when I have continually asked for the entitlement. It is not possible that I had not been given access to a means of judicial relief when I have asked for such relief. S135(3)© The ACC have possession of several applications November 1995 and more recently to appeal the decision. Beattie J. seems to infer the application is to the wrong judicial forum. The ball seems to be in their court. What next?

The ACC has simply acted in a fortresslike mentality denying all access to entitlement.

I have asked those on the site to provide guidance and I received the same fortresslike mentality. I am sure there is a social comment in here somewhere.
0

#538 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 16 October 2007 - 12:01 PM

Instead of this thread being subtitled as "allegation of working while incapacitated",

I think it more accurately should be described as "allegation of posting while inebriated."

How come Mr Thomas is so thick he cannot see the problem?
0

#539 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 16 October 2007 - 01:22 PM

:lol:
0

#540 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 17 October 2007 - 11:46 AM

The S78 decision was made without a determination in the same manner as in King and in Burnett. The technique that the ACC are using is to make a decision known it to be wrong so as to place the onus upon myself to make the determination. This would involve costly medical assessments in order to challenge the decision of nil entitlement because they said he was not a determination from an assessment even though they had received assessments around the 60% mark.

This case walks a fine line between what is a decision and what is an administrative process. The ACC would argue that a determination is an administrative process leading to a decision and only a decision can be appealed.

In addition, and since the district court decision, the ACC and now acknowledging that I had sought to review the 1995 S78 decision. The argument is that I have used the word "appeal" rather than "review". I have not looked back through my correspondence but I am quite sure that I would have used both words and I certainly have used the review hearing application form for the so-called appeal of the 1995 decision.

To have the ACC place to be in a labyrinth of word games when it is perfectly obvious to me that they know that I want my money and have asked for the appropriate judicial procedure to force access my money. Based on the "reasonable man principal" it is perfectly obvious what I am seeking. Is this type of construction of obstacles criminal nuisance at the least and fraud with a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice at the worst?
0

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

9 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google