ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#581 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 08:33 AM

Well put Hardwired.

Mr Thomas is stooping really low in his desperate attempts to con the members of this forum.
0

#582 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 10 December 2007 - 09:04 AM

Greetings,
I was in attendance at the review referred to by Gaffa... And I have to agree...
Mr T... , displayed little or no "concern or reaction"...
1

#583 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 10 December 2007 - 09:25 AM

in fact mr T you thought you were the king of the castle .
Do you want me to continue .
Ho yes full of your own importance

Why don't you learn , Back off will you .
You are wrecking this site .
0

#584 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 02:38 PM

gaffa09, hardwired, tomcat & Spacecadet

those who are qualified to document the extent of the injury have done so. gaffa09 And tomcat my recollection is that I rushed to prepare for a review hearing cases wherre that person who was going to make his submissions was on the other side of the planet. As it happened he arrived in New Zealand on time and he took the lead. As it happened 2 people in attendance displayed visible response to the Security guard who also"locked the door". If I was the one doing the submissions I am confidentt that I would have been incapacitated by the presence of the security guard to a significant level. As I was not going to be the lead presenter I was far more composed in accordance with your observations but your observations work prior to being exposed to the PTSD aggravater and as such you are not in a position to see any symptoms whatsoever. The night before however the level of stress caused me to go partially blind for a couple of hours of which it is not yet properly diagnosed as to whether that is brain damage or PTSD.
0

#585 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:07 PM

Hardwired my case is very simple.

I was injured while an earner and have been incapacitated to earn ever since.

A review hearing decision confirmed that surgery was the mode of rehabilitation back to my preinjury occupation.

I remain incapacitated to earn in my preinjury occupation and any other occupation.

ACC had no information to suggest any work task activities of any type let alone my preinjury occupation.

Instead the ACC had created a labyrinth of other issues to be negotiated prior to dealing with these simple things.
0

#586 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:37 PM

hardwired that is not true. All medical specialists continued to state categorically that I am incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation. They also state I am incapacitated to work in any work task activity more than two hours per day fragmented throughout the day. ACC have been directed by the court to disclose the "working" information they alleged to be in their possession at the material times. They still have not made this disclosure.
0

#587 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:51 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 10 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

Hardwired my case is very simple.

I was injured while an earner and have been incapacitated to earn ever since.

A review hearing decision confirmed that surgery was the mode of rehabilitation back to my preinjury occupation.

I remain incapacitated to earn in my preinjury occupation and any other occupation.

ACC had no information to suggest any work task activities of any type let alone my preinjury occupation.

Instead the ACC had created a labyrinth of other issues to be negotiated prior to dealing with these simple things.


This is an outright lie. According to the written records, Mr Thomas's current injuries, both real and imagined, occured while he was on ERC. Being on ERC is not an earner - thus he is not entitled - end of story.

As far as pre injury occupation - Mr Thomas continues to lie about this and creates a labyrinth of other issues.

It is quite correct that Mr Thomas has been labled a dangerous, vexatious, litigant by ACC and WINZ.
0

#588 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:58 PM

Hardwired at this stage the ACC asked the reviewer not to look at the allegations of my working so the reviewer did not review the information on appeal. What is on appeal is the reviewers decision not to disturb the ACCs decision. At the stage whether or not I have been working has not been looked at by any judicial authority.

Spacecadet it has been decided that being injured while on ERC is the same as being injured while working. I was injured while working on the job and while waiting for surgery for that injury was injured again and ACC agreed that in that circumstance it has a liability for ongoing ERC. The occupation by which the ACC calculate ERC is project manager/mechanical design engineer. The issue before the courts at the moment is whether or not I have a capacity to return to that occupation based on the so-called "working" information the ACC claimed to possess. Whether or not I ever had any information and if so whether or not it was relevant.

Being labelled dangerous, vexatious, litigants by ACC and WINZ does not make it so but it would be perjury if a judge was to make such a ruling based on these assertions. At this stage it is just a defamation of character.
0

#589 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 10 December 2007 - 03:59 PM

yeap and the way you treated me from the first day I will not forget but i zipped it , Mr thomas
A few of us saw your face and it reaction at the Forum north That i also won't forget .I know as i was one of the ones from the start when Mr X came to my place where there was some members all helping going right through the night some not getting any sleep .


With all the bullshit that has come from your mouth and writting we need a pale to catch it all.

Mr Thomas please pull your head in go sit in a corner somewhere .
I for another have had enough.
Go on now have another go at us

Attached File(s)


0

#590 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

  Posted 10 December 2007 - 04:09 PM

Have we not heard this all before. Like it is regurgitation of previous "poor little me" antics of Thomas the Tunk Engine.

If he every listened to others, he would find that his two hourly lapses into blindness can easily be brought about by a migraine.

As one who suffers from them, I can tell you they are not fun. They not only interfere with your sight and speech but also with numbness in the face and arm and usually the worst pain you can suffer apart from having a baby with no epidural. But hey guys, none of us get these conditions. Only the tank engine suffers so much that his life is not worth living.

Actually I guess thats why he needs body guards when he is around other right thinking persons. He is not only a danger to himself, but because of that he is a danger to everyone else!!!!

He just thinks he is treated differently that others, when all that is happening is that others are reacting to that same treatment differently that the Tank engine and that is why he perceives that he is worse off that everyone else. The end result is different.

By now he would have been to the three reviews. Lets hope he didnt to any harm to the guards or the Reviewers. That would really mess up the forum wouldnt it. As he must be its only admistrator now!

Cheers
Mini
0

#591 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 04:17 PM

This thread is entitled "Total declinature of claim"

So how can ACC issue reveiwable decisions relation to a claim that has been declined years ago?

It doesn't add up.

More bullshit from Mr Thomas!
0

#592 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 04:29 PM

Spacecadet we are in complete agreement. The ACC cannot make decisions on a claim subsequent to their making a decision of "total declinature of claim". If we are right I should win.

The ACC cancel the claim when alleging to have information that I was working. They then made decisions to obtain search warrants to find the information after the review hearing. They also asked my right of appeal to be delayed indefinitely until they found the information about the alleged working.

Bureaucratic abuse. You bet.

Spacecadet I understand you are going through similar bureaucratic nonsensical problems yourself. Perhaps it might be better if we work together.


Mini most people on the site are here because we are injured and have been given a raw deal. I do not want to be treated like you and I am sure you do not want to be treated like me. I hope that we can work together so we are both treated properly.

As a matter of interest the reviewer decided he did not need bodyguards and so there was only the two of us in the room together alone having a romantic conversation about how and why I thought it was ill-conceived for him to think he could have a hearing to determine whether or not I had a right to a review hearing and how my review hearing application should have received a hearing date during the three months the ACC were allowed to issue a hearing date.
0

#593 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 10 December 2007 - 05:13 PM

View Postgaffa09, on Dec 10 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

yeap and the way you treated me from the first day I will not forget but i zipped it , Mr thomas
A few of us saw your face and it reaction at the Forum north That i also won't forget .I know as i was one of the ones from the start when Mr X came to my place where there was some members all helping going right through the night some not getting any sleep .
With all the bullshit that has come from your mouth and writting we need a pale to catch it all.

Mr Thomas please pull your head in go sit in a corner somewhere .
I for another have had enough.
Go on now have another go at us


Right Gaffa... That was one amazing night of "Brainstorming"...
The reality is that you/me and another should not have had to suffer,
the indignation of being "locked out" due to the FACT that the security guards
were there solely, because "Mr T..." was there...

Attached File(s)


1

#594 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 10 December 2007 - 05:45 PM

Thomas the tank engine,

You are making a right shunt of your self
0

#595 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 06:02 PM

Hardwired none of the ACC witnesses had described any work task activities and in particular nothing could generate earnings, but even more importantly nothing that resembles pre- injury work task activity. ACC has just promised the court that they have this information and so bringing witnesses to the court to describe the information they are claiming to possess.

Usually if they have information they should disclose it prior to the review hearing but in this case they had claimed protection under the Privacy Act as it is not in the national interest to disclose this information. They are still holding fast to this position until the bitter end. I am unable to reinterview witnesses because no witness information has yet been described to enable me to rebut any allegation.

How can I say I was not doing something when no one will say what it is that I was supposed to have been doing. Since the allegation of working I have learnt to use voice software which is what you are seeing now and I still only do it within the allowed two hours per day.

Hardwired you must realise that it is the ACC is abusing me for not just the last 10 years but since 1989.

Tomcat & gaffa09 from what I understand you guys were not allowed to watch the review hearing procedures as support person's because you are considered unsuitable by the reviewer. I for one did not agree with the reviewer and exerted significant pressure for you both to watch the proceedings. Do not shoot me I am just a piano player.
0

#596 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 10 December 2007 - 06:14 PM

YEAH RIGHT... MR T...

Since that event, both Gaffa and I have been to reviews,
with no security guards anywhere in sight.
In fact, I was alone with a female reviewer Nov. Last year...
Something I know would not happen in your case !!!
1

#597 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 06:42 PM

Tomcat I think by the review hearing the reviewer was reasonably convinced that we had all been misrepresented, including yourselves. Even today the reviewer did not see the need to have a security guard present and we had a nice romantic discussion concerning ACC abuse as opposed to a romantic discussion about self abuse.

Hardwired purpose of this site is to help each other with against the evil oppressor makes up false information. My case is not particularly different from anyone else's in the way in which false information has been produced. I have simply call them out on it demanding full disclosure rather than attempt to fight with the mist.

Hardwired I was fully engaged in exploring rehabilitation opportunity including documenting what I was doing in the form of business plans as instructed by my case manager. I travelled to America and China in regards to these alternative work ideas while waiting for surgery. None of this type of information is secret. I never carried out more than two hours per day fragmented throughout the day while researching rehabilitation ideas and I never generated any earnings. This is not complicated stuff.

ACC funded private investigators should have read my file before trying to reinvent the exact same activities into something else. I would imagine that the ACC is now well and truly aware that the Emperor is not clothed with work task activity and the private investigators have made one of the biggest mistakes of the ACC history.

Hardwired it simply is not possible to prove that you were not doing something if they will not say what I had allegedly been doing. How can I have an alibi when they have not even made the accusation. It is like saying someone is a murderer without saying who is dead. The judge required the ACC to describe the work at the material times and until the ACC does that my appeal will remain on hold.

My advice concerning appealing these mystical vaporous allegations is exactly the same as Spacecadet. He is doing exactly the right thing with his case. The only difference is the stage of the sequence of the process adopted by the ACC. My case has taken 10 years because I am doing exactly the same as what Spacecadet is doing. Hardwired you will find that some of these bigger cases are just that, they are bigger and involve a lot more money.
0

#598 User is offline   neddy 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 06:49 PM

[quote name='Alan Thomas' date='Dec 10 2007, 04:37 PM' post='55929']
They also state I am incapacitated to work in any work task activity more than two hours per day fragmented throughout the day.


Just a question?

How do you manage to stick with the above guidelines, when the planning and the execution of your disinformation programme must be well in excess of that.

Doesn't that make you a bullshitter?

You would spend all day on the PC if the truth was known, hatching up little plots to get the Thomas name out there.

It's about time you learned that people along with ACC and WINZ do not trust you as you have shown that it's all about money, money you want and don't deserve and you don't care what methods you use to get it, or who gets shafted on the way.


I bet the going to review, the review process and all plus preparation would exceed two hours straight.

You do a disservice to those who genuinely suffer "Legitimate PTSD" as for those those manifestations of blindness it's either crap or related to something else.

Don't use PTSD for your behaviour as it brings all those with it into disrepute, and I'm not standing for that.

I have PTSD but I don't go around trying to find every which way to shaft people, or to try and get what's not mine, which is tantamount to theft on a grand scale.
0

#599 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 07:37 PM

Neddy the planning and execution of my so-called disinformation programme is done with the assistance of the disability equipment provided by social welfare. Voice software works like a gatteling gun, only instead of bullets they are words.

Before my injury I did not know how to type and my work mainly consisted of handwriting (very limited to finger typing) and design engineering on a computer followed by workshops supervision and computer-controlled machine building commissioning. Absolutely no resemblance to what you are seeing now.

While I did spend most of the day on the computer it was not for purposes of self-promotion, I employed a salesman to do that. As for being in business I had to admit that being in business is about money money money but I disagree about your assertions of shafting as major companies who are the customers were happy with what I did and were repeat customers.

As for review hearings my doctor has written to the ACC to the effect that I am not allowed to do more than two different issues on the same day and I am not allowed to do more than two hours total. Even though the court in 1999 required the ACC to do a medical report concerning my spending five hours only sitting in a court room per day the ACC did not do the medical assessment. Since that time the district court has recognized that I cannot do more than two hours per day and has accommodated that medical limitation. Perhaps it was because I was taken by ambulance from the court.

With regards to PTSD I have both types as confirmed by the North shore hospital. Rather than one of ACC therapists saying so to different senior psychiatrists have confirmed the condition and have prescribed significant medication as well. With regards to the blindness while various instigating causal factors are relevant from what I understand the main issue is that part of my brain has rotted out which means that whenever my blood becomes sticky I have a TIA of which the blindness is a manifestation. The thinking is that the PTSD initiates a TIA.

I do not apologise for my injuries. I also am offended that you allege that I "shaft people". The ACC have already accused me of what is "tantamount to theft on a grand scale". They allege that I have caused them to overpay me yet continued to refuse to provide the information and acknowledged they have made no calculation. Judge Beattie requires the ACC to make calculations before determinations in order that they might make decisions.
0

#600 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 08:03 PM

Lucy Liu says it even better in her group The Flying Lizards.

Money that is what I want I want the money
0

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

7 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google