ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#61 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 23 March 2007 - 10:56 AM

NoDrsl
using a search warrant to steal the information that refutes the ACC hypothesis that I was working is of course extremely serious. This is what a perversion of the course of justice is and I cannot imagine what could be worse. Imagine you have told the ACC what you are doing to look for residual capacity and they want to turn that into something else and steal the information that confirms what you said was true. Then they use third parties who provide their impressions of what you are going and claim it was something else. Imagine if the company you are and was managed by an ex ACC case manager who had set up another company in competition to the one she was meant to manage while still working for you.

The judge in this case has given the ACC a "directions order" to properly describe the information they are relying on, instead of speaking in generalities, yet the ACC continue to ignore the order. The responsible manager has not been promoted because the responsible manager has not put their name to my case.

Ultimately Michael Spraggon, regional manager, has however been responsible and has even hidden documents in his own position, a letter asking for a medical report 2.5 years after the decision to justify the ACC decision. He has also promised to arrange for the reparations calculations which if they were done would have unraveled everything as it is not possible to make a calculation without actual information. They have none. Michael Spraggon continued to support his staff's dishonesty, even perjury. Michael Spraggon has been promoted to Wellington to a more senior position.
1

#62 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 23 March 2007 - 11:23 AM

Dear Dr White

My communication to you continues to be intercepted. I am writing to yourself in your position as CEO as those you are responsible for have claimed to have possession of information that causes the Corporation to believe that I am no longer incapacitated to return to my pre injury occupation. I am unable to have an appeal until that information is surrendered. I wish to contest the allegations made against me. Thus far there has only mean very generalised claims that have their bases in the assumptions of unqualified third parties. Obviously government did not intend ACC to administer the act in this matter and I write to you as the person principally responsible for the administration of the Act.

I have already written to the Corporation's Privacy Officer seeking the information the Corporation claimed to possess. This information was withheld by the Corporation under the Privacy Act from 1997 until the present. The Corporation promised to release this information after the 1999 trial but did not. No information describing work task activities indicating a capacity to return to my pre injury occupation was presented.

Since the Corporation's failure to release the information after the 1999 trial I have continued to seek this information. I have complained that I have no information to appeal but the complaint has been physically sent back at me. I have gone to Review Hearings but the reviewer claimed no jurisdiction. The district court judge in this matter has issued a directions order. The Corporation legal counsel has claimed the information is in the 1999 transcript. The judge has asked that the Corporation describe what portions of the transcript is to be relied upon, the particular work task activities and that the material times. This directions order has been ignored.

Collectively the Corporation has behaved in a fortresslike manner regarding the information it alleges to possess that I want to appeal. I consider that this is a perversion of the course of justice of the most serious type of which, as a reasonable man, I have a legitimate expectation that the CEO should address and not the privacy Officer or any other person given the very serious circumstance as this case is one of the Corporation's most serious allegations against an invalid that it is required by legislation to rehabilitate.

This communication with you is not for the purposes of challenging the total declinature of my claim August 1997 but only relates to the information the Corporation decided to withhold November 1997. This information does not only relate to the appeal of the August decision that all subsequent decisions the Corporation has made or could make and therefore the Corporation cannot hide behind an appeal as the reason not to disclose the information.

This saga was put out on the Internet less than a week ago and has over 70 responses in 1100 viewings. The Corporation's decision to withhold information to prevent an appeal and all other related claims is obviously a breach of natural Justice of such magnitude that cannot possibly be tolerated given the extent of the abuse. Whether or not I am guilty of working or fraud is completely are relevant to the breach of natural Justice. As the Corporation's Privacy Officer cannot possibly be blind to this most fundamental right it is appropriate that you in your position as CEO address this matter personally.

I have posted this letter to you as an open letter on the Internet to encourage Corporation staff not to intercept your mail.


Yours sincerely

Alan Thomas
1

#63 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 26 March 2007 - 02:23 AM

Alan Thomas V. ACC 10:30 a.m. either in the traditional ACC appeal Court of Kingdon Street, corner of Albert and Kingdon Street on the side of the building. Level 8. Though the last one was at the Queen Street employment tribunal building. 2:20 a.m., sleeping pills 20 minutes ago don't ask me.Just ring the court and find out the location and posted on the site if you can. Thanks.

It is possible that this case may be memorable. Most probably it will last two or three days. Those who have produced the case have ended up with an impenetrable document.

All welcome.
0

#64 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 26 March 2007 - 05:21 PM

Day one Nigel Cooke and Warren describe the relationship between S73 and S37 of the 1992 act which means the ACC must be able to show that I have a capacity to return to my pre injury occupation. As the ACC have no medical information to contradict the vast body of medical information that I cannot return to the pre injury occupation they now must rely upon unqualified third-party observers to convince the judge that I have the capacity to carry out the work task activities of my pre injury occupation. At the time of the injury the Corporation acknowledge that they do not know what that occupation was.

Tomorrow 2:30 p.m. on the eighth floor in the Auckland district court in the ACC appeals court room the saga continues. I will be asked about my pre injury occupation in detail in the ACC will no doubt try to put various questions to me to support their hypothesis that I have the physical capacity to return to my pre injury occupation while having regard for ongoing incapacity. This means for all intents and purposes I can work single-handedly.
0

#65 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 26 March 2007 - 07:18 PM

I do not think it is "a capacity" but more "the capacity"
Being ABLE to do something does not equate to being FIT to do something.

Fit AND able ??

Being Capable of performing the functions of ones former occupation does not equate to being fit to do so.

Capable of working how well ? for how long ? Reduced ability ?
Reduced work life potential ?

Forced early retirement?



Totally unable to perform ? Totally able to perform ?

Qualatative Quantatative.

Full quantum of working life ?

Reduced ability ....Capacity to perform is reduced .

Seems like the ACC is inferring the Drs lied because they may have been told lies. This is irrelevant.

Evidence is not emotion. Can the ACC tell the Drs what to believe? I think not.

When I stopped working I was still capable of doing my work but the pain and reduced ability meant I was not going to be able to work for very long and would be unable to do the work from 30 or so.

Experts judge ability not laymen.

Being able to do something does not equate to ones ability to do something.

How much capacity must one demonstrate has been lost ?

The Drs would only give me a clearance for light duties as they would be liable if I was cleared for full work by them.
0

#66 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 26 March 2007 - 07:32 PM

The ability to perform ones work tasks is reduced.

The ability to perform ones work tasks safely toward oneself is impaired.

We are not requred to perform work tasks if these are potentially bad for our health.

A reduced work potential and future deterioration due to increased stress and work related activitys is not required to be demonstrated.

Simply the injury reducing ones work capacity and potential is sufficient.

Not complying with the Drs advice is not grounds for fraud charges being laid.

Working in a reduced capacity and having a shortened worklife is not required.

Am this confusing or what !!
0

#67 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 26 March 2007 - 09:20 PM

After a level of incapacity is determined .

The level of the incapacity is then measured/ascertained.
0

#68 User is offline   Witchiepoo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 27-January 05

Posted 28 March 2007 - 12:02 PM

Fingers cross for you Alan ! GOOD LUCK with this crap ........
0

#69 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 28 March 2007 - 03:00 PM

Day 3
for the last two days I have been delivering evidence about how the ACC have processed my file and what the medical evidence is all about. Essentially every single document including documents made by the ACC acknowledge that I am incapacitated to return to my pre injury occupation, with the exception of a report, called a medical report, produced by Dr Monash claiming that I have a capacity to return to my pre injury occupation even though neither the ACC nor the doctor knew what that occupation was and the doctor neither had medical information nor the benefit of a clinical examination to assisting with his opinion. Put simply the ACC had simply told Dr Monash to look at the information they had provided which was the impressions arrived at by other ACC staff who had also not looked at any medical information.

We are now having a break for three months given that the size of the case is too big to fit in anywhere else.
0

#70 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 28 March 2007 - 06:02 PM

In other legal systems, such as Australia, Canada, England and the US, little weight is given to the opinions of doctors who have not examined the patient. in New Zealand, on the other hand, our law is silent on the matter. Why are we out of step with our peer nations? IMHO, it is because we do not have a genuine separation of powers in our constitution and the judiciary is, increasingly, another arm of the executive branch of government. Because people have little understanding of, or interest in, our system of government it is easy for the bureaucracy and the financial elite to shape the system to their benefit. A third factor is that the medical profession, with a few honorable exceptions, has degenerated from a healing profession into just another commercial enterprise where human beings are seen as mere commodities, to be used as a means of enriching the already-rich.
In philosophical terms, this process violates one of the principal ethical commandments: always treat others as an end in themselves, not simply as a means to an end. This statement is known as Kant's Second Categorical Imperative and is often regarded as a cornerstone of modern ethical thinking.
For the theologically minded, the principle is often expressed as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
IMHO, the modern bureaucracy and their medical lackeys ditched their ethics long ago while cases like yours, Alan, are a graphic illustration of the results.
It remains to be seen whether a New Zealand Court, operating under the self-prescribed limitations mentioned above, will see its way clear to remedying injustice.
1

#71 User is offline   Benson 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 09-May 06

Posted 28 March 2007 - 06:21 PM

Good luck Alan
which you should not need, if common sense and justice prevails.
0

#72 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 March 2007 - 09:37 AM

Alan

Three more months to wait!! It just doesn't seem fair does it?? Thinking of you often and hoping that all works out.

Good luck Mini
1

#73 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 29 March 2007 - 02:01 PM

IS JUSTICE POSSIBLE?

The ACC made a decision to cancel my claim without benefit of the information in my file, medical information or any kind of discussion regarding what they thought I was or was not doing. They simply made an accusation, cancel the claim and then sought to find information to justify the decision.

They did not release the information that they relied upon for the Review Hearing and did not show up which meant the Review Hearing adjourned and did not reconvene.

I appealed in the ACC asked the district court to delay my case indefinitely so I had no right of hearing.

The ACC relied upon the reviewers decision that decided "not to disturb" the ACC decision so a criminal court judge had no choice but to convict me for fraud on the basis that ACC had carried out the proper procedures to determine that I did not have entitlements while asking for them.

Legal aid decided to provide five hours pretrial funding to the criminal trial which meant I had no defence.

10 years later the ACC still have not release the information for the appeal.

The delay decides that I may not have legal aid because there is no hope of winning in the circumstances.

Nigel Cooke a barrister in Auckland expressed his righteous indignation in his own language. I think he might have been an oil rig worker in a previous life. He spent many Sunday afternoons trying to come to grips with what the ACC had done for free. Obviously if I win he will be handsomely rewarded. The problem is the ACC had not described in proper terms what part of the act they had relied upon to determine that had information under S73 of the 1992 Act.

Nigel Forster flew over from Australia funded by his mum and partially reimbursed by somebody else offshore who is connected by someone else to the site. Nigel applied a massive effort to assemble the case in a manner in which Nigel Cooke could present.

To add to the mix my invalids benefit had coincidentally been suspended some weeks ago which meant that I could not afford my rent, food and perhaps even more importantly the paper necessary to present my case not to mention the cost of transport to actually get there. Various persons from this site ranging from Warren himself through to Benson and others who read the site but not routine contributors to this site for these basic necessities ranging from food, transport, computer guidance in the middle of the night and other such assistance such as MG and others providing technical legal contributions to this site including direct advice. Benson and a person be ombudsman has been led by the ACC to believe is my grandson were also in attendance at the hearing also providing a much-needed encouragement and support. Many others continue to provide both legal and moral support. Without this site none of these things would have happened.

The system rendered me without everything ranging from legal aid through to paper. This means a brutal murderer/rapists/scumbag receives more assistance in an ACC claimant. What is wrong with the system? How has the system conspired against the most defenceless in society so badly, did it evolve this way or is there a conspiracy? I have waited 10 years for my opportunity to refute the allegation that I was working and why the ACC think that I am no longer incapacity by that alleged work even if true, in the sense that carrying out directors duties maybe five hours per year means that ACC can rely on that has been my pre injury occupation so as they can claim I can now work as a director of full-time to reduce their liability. The ACC claim that they will give me a disability equipment should I need it after I get a job! Is there something wrong with that logic?

If I was left to my lonesome devices I would have no doubt inadvertently bamboozled and board the judge to death with my life story and the ACC would have fudged S37 and S51 without my capacity to debunk the way in which they have conducted business. The presentation was legally robust and factually concise. Nigel Cooke took the lead in the presentation and examination of the facts while Warren described to the judge the various technical functional matters of law. The presentation appeared well constructed and very professional.

As three days were insufficient the appeal has adjourned. While I was happy to have whatever time the judge had available at the earliest opportunity the ACC were given what can only be described as a very generous dispensation by the judge to marshal their thoughts and readdress their strategy over the following three months when the case will be reconvened.

Essentially the ACC have claimed that they had information in accordance with S73 that I could return to my pre injury occupation mechanical design engineer/project manager at a time when I was also a shareholder director of my own company by saying that various persons sought that I was working on various " director type stuff" that equated to my pre injury occupation in accordance with a S37A determination. They agree they don't have any information to suggest I have a capacity to earn in a new occupation under S51.

A day before the hearing we received a brief of evidence from my previous employer suggesting that a significant portion of my job could be carried out with one hand and a sling and that they had another witness and manage my company for a short time who asserts I was working in that company.

Perhaps persons on the site could post various possible ACC scenarios as to how the ACC came about cancelling my claim given the facts as they have been disclosed thus far and at what stage we claimants expect to have the information that the Corporation rely upon when cancelling a claim for purposes of challenging the so-called information so as to provide an opportunity to refute such information.

For example third-party assumptions against documented evidence as to what I was actually doing. If I don't know the task activities and the material time of such activities how is it possible for me to present exhibits in rebuttal? It seems that the ACC are trying to introduce surprise information 10 years after the decision halfway through the appeal after having a break of three months to invent or gather additional information.

My facts have been well set out to the ACC throughout my claim and remain unchanged until the present and as such there is nothing in my position that will be changing. I am however very curious as to how the ACC might address what seems to me a very large hole that they had been digging in. Are they going to dig deeper and make matters worse for themselves or will they try to dig their way out? The circumstance of course must at some stage address the issue of tort given the departure they have made in the unique way they have administered the Act rendering any possibility of judicial remedy being made impossible by the failure to disclose their relegation. In these circumstances simply paying my entitlements is insufficient as it does not provide the ACC any motivating force to comply with the Act, to provide real rehabilitation rather than a phantasm so as to tick a box so as to place the onus upon myself without legal resource to do so. Clearly over the years ACC wanted me to get into a district court without clear direction as to what is being argued, allow me as a disabled person to ramble or prattle on various issues that cannot possibly get to the heart of the matter whereby they would rely upon a criminal conviction rather than the alleged information. This approach seems to have gained increasing popularity with the ACC, given its rate of success, and as such this hearing appears to be quite significant given the clarity of the issues.

The ACC should have gathered together all of the alleged work task of information and provided that information to an occupational assessor to determine whether or not those activities relate in any way to my pre injury occupation followed by a medical assessor to determine whether or not those activities were safe. If and only if the ACC at that point would say that I was working and that work was related to my pre injury occupation could they allege fraud. A fraud case would be processed through the court within just a couple of hours, in that story.

Instead there was seven weeks criminal trial without my having proper legal representation and even been taken away by ambulance as my capacity as only two hours per day yet I was going to court five hours per day five days per week for seven weeks. The judge believing that the ACC had already carried out their disentitlement processes properly determined that the medical issues were relevant and as there was no entitlement fraud is the only outcome. This set a very dangerous precedent 10 years ago and I have now found myself to have been the ACC poster boy as private investigators have routinely made references to myself when treating people with fraud so as to persuade him to surrender their entitlements in favour of no prosecution. Regardless as to whether or not these people had committed fraud the practice is clearly wrong for many reasons not the least being the breaches against myself regarding misfeasance and privacy issues.


The court has informed me that this case has been the most delayed case from time of appeal application through to hearing. The hearing is still nobbled by the ACC's continued refusal to release the information alleged to have to justify thinking that I could return to my pre injury occupation in opposition to all the medical evidence and their own acknowledgement throughout my file that I cannot.


I would be very interested to know what possible strategies the ACC could come up with to support the assertion that they have "S73 information" in accordance with S37A.
0

#74 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 March 2007 - 03:34 PM

Alan

What Act are you talking about?? 1992 ??

Which hand is your ex employer suggesting that you have in the sling??
The injuried writing one??

Did they actually give you a brief showing this with his signature??

More detail please?? It seems extrodinary that an ex-employer is commenting on paper such a statement, when obviously you have a very badly injured hand which is need of an operation.

All I can say is: How would he/she know what you can or can't do with your injuried hand??

Extrodinary!!

Also did they say they had the other witness in Court, or before going there? Is this just a bully boy tactic to make you shiver in fear, for the next three months.

Even if you are 100% guilty of fraud, these are extremely cruel tactics.

They seriously don't like you do they?? Sounds like the ex-boss hasn't got much time for you either!!

By now you would understand that I am no softie when it comes to rip-offs, no matter who it is. But saying they have evidence without giving it too you is terrible.

Not all ACC workers are like that.

I come from a different part of the country than you, and ours here are "lamb-chops" compared to that evil lot up there!!

I will have a look at the Act when you tell me which one, but you have the best representation by the sounds of it.

You are really lucky to be so well looked after and all the people helping with food etc. Hopefully I will never be in that position. Keep fingers crossed eh??

Regards Minnie.
1

#75 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 29 March 2007 - 04:30 PM

Mini
as this is halfway through a hearing I am not sure what I can and cannot say. I'm confident however that I can say what I have always said.

The case is about S73/S37a of the 1992 act.
An ACC claimant was put back into work as part of rehabilitation. He was meant to be working at a computer console doing design work but instead was given to me as my engineering assistant. As a result of his injuries he slipped while moving a machine in the machine nearly toppled onto him. I saved his life which resulted in a hernia in accordance with the diagnosis of my treatment provider. I stopped doing my private contracts but continued on with my employer doing light duties. The company I worked for was not happy with my getting hernia so wanted to find another explanation and required me to go to their own surgeon who diagnosed appendicitis. He was wrong I had a hernia and was operated on which confirms that fact. After I left that company and was waiting for my hernia operation I suffered an injury to my right dominant wrist hand and both elbows. The left was not very serious and was thought to heal spontaneously, it did not in the claim has gone and recently given that I have had no home help or any other help causing my left arm to deteriorate.

The ACC has produced a document as if it was produced by my former employer but it remains unsigned much like all of the other so-called witness statements.

My previous employer was one of the captains of industry and otherwise a highly respected fellow whom I am quite confident will not be saying anything that will embarrass him in most certainly would not take legal advice over such a serious allegation to the effect that I could carry out my job without the use of my right dominant hand or that I did not suffer a hernia injury on his watch while he provided me with an ACC subsidise employee to do work well beyond his capacity causing an extremely dangerous situation. In any event the previous employer hardly ever saw what I was doing or how I was going about my job and it is fair to say that there is no possibility that he would be employed a one-handed person to do a two-handed job. Anyway this is only hypothetical at this stage because there is not a signed document or anything to confirm how the ACC might describe the information they claim to have any possession 1997. Perhaps they are seeking information to support a vacuum of information.

The ACC did however say that they had other witnesses to provide new information even though they had claimed that all of the information they have relied upon as already been disclosed.

Given that I know for a certainty what I did and did not do at any given time and can produce exhibits at any material time confirming what I did or did not do I have no fear would read about whatever the ACC might try to cobble together to describe the vacuum of information they relied upon 1997.

If I was guilty of fraud it would only be for signing lease agreements, bank guarantees and telephone accounts together with other such liability such activity together with employing a manager will force would never go guarantee for a company of which they have no shareholding. Given that the maximum possible fraud amounts to only a few hours per year I do agree that even if guilty of fraud the ACC have been incredibly cruel and manipulative without providing any actual rehabilitation until very recently when they have agreed to provide me with 7 hours home help mid last year but at any rate of funding so low that there is no possibility of anyone actually doing the work to the extent that I still have no home help.

The ACC had claimed they had evidence that did not provided not because of the privacy act but simply because they did not have evidence. Even when they exercised search warrants they still did not have any evidence. The reason for there being no evidence is because there isn't any. Not only that they carry a search warrants of bank accounts associated with myself and a myriad of other people's private and business accounts and somehow had some connection with me. If I was a private individual that the ACC were seeking to prosecute and they looked into my bank accounts I would be furious. Instead what happened is everyone who knew me became intimidated.

This bullying pattern of behaviour is a corporate cultural problem that has not been resolved by those who are meant to resolve such administrative failure, the senior management. The fact that the ACC staff have been allowed to run riot rampaging through my life and other bystanders lives is a circumstance that cannot be tolerated in a Western world country let alone any other banana republic petty bureaucracy. The ACC staff that are not like that still have a responsibility to make sure that the colleagues do not behave like that regardless as to whether or not those persons are senior. When people see dishonesty of this magnitude they have a duty to injured people to report the dishonesty of the seniors. Even those who stated that they are acting under orders have no excuse and they are not forgiven because I'm still suffering the effects from the failure to remedy the abuse against me. Forgiveness only occurs after the apology and remedies have been made evident. Obviously I would not want of has happened to me to happen to anyone else which is the sole reason why I have disclosed my personal private business. Not that they had much choice because they had my name, photo and all manner of lies published throughout the country 1990 2000 and have continued to use me as their poster boy.

Mini you say that you come from a different part of the country. This makes no difference because what happened to me was under the control of head office which involved everybody. This also involves the ombudsman, privacy Commissioner and legal aid services who all abandoned me and let me with no possible remedy. John Miller, a fine barrister and in my opinion a good man, used up all the available legal aid simply trying to get the information off the ACC so it could make something of a case. He surrendered to my case in favour of the many others that he had already committed himself, a fact which saddens me but not because of him but for the likes of legal aid who are financially restricted his business thus preventing him from making the representation he thinks is necessary. The only way that I have made any inroads is with the assistance of this site and the likes of Warren and Nigel Cooke who have worked tirelessly without pay. There is no possibility that the ACC could have factored in this site and people like Warren when determining whether or not they could get away with this heinous crime of misrepresenting my incapacity to the courts against the duty to administer the Act for the benefit of myself as an invalid.

Mini the only way that others will not be in my position is if we stop the sort of thing happening. For my understanding more long term claimants are losing their entitlements by threats of fraud rather than being rehabilitated over the last two or more years. The fraud unit claim something in the order of 600 investigations per year of which half surrender the entitlements which means that if true New Zealand has more than five times the amount of invalid and workers compensation fraud than any other compatible country. I don't believe we have more fraud I believe we have incompetence bolstered by dishonestly. I look forward to changes a treats myself and others with the dignity we deserve.
0

#76 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 30 March 2007 - 03:07 PM

Judge Barber has provided the ACC with 3 months to prepare and disclose the alleged S73 information that was relied upon to allege that I was working. I hope that as result of this hearing a clear and concise judgment will be issued so as to leave the ACC and no doubt regarding its duties of disclosure.

In other words if the ACC is going to make an allegation that someone is working, they must describe with sufficient particularity what that work was and the material time that occurred, so as is and being accused has the opportunity to prepare and present a proper rebuttal. Currently the ACC has the belief that it can simply claimant has information without disclosing that information and require the claimant to disprove the ACC's decision.

The score so far is all medical information and all ACC witnesses including its own case managers had confirmed that I have no capacity to return to my pre injury occupation. The ACC are now about to disclose to the court the basis of its decision. This will then open up the way for me to present my rebuttal. Fortunately I am the type of person who has a very well-documented life with information about every person I met or meeting I participated in and the purpose of the encounter. The ACC will need to prove that there was a capacity to return to the pre injury occupation by some medical information that has its basis in the information the private investigators collected to confirm a capacity to return to the pre injury occupation.

I hope that the judgment will provide the ACC with clear guidelines so as what has happened to me will not happen to others.
0

#77 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 30 March 2007 - 04:59 PM

Judge Barber. ??
OOH OUCH!
Go very carefully, he is an ACC toady of the highest extent.
Justice is not his first name!!
My commiserations Alan!
1

#78 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 30 March 2007 - 05:50 PM

Sparrow
Do you have any particular instances in mind that suggests Judge Barber's name has been brought into disrepute. My observations were that he was very very attentive to the issues at hand, very busy writing notes, asking relevant questions and accommodating to my injuries. He appeared quite expert on fine legal points of the ACC Act. He has also been very generous to the ACC to provide them three months to acquire the information they need to state their case in consecutive days.

On the face of it I'm quite happy to be before someone who has a clear legal mind even if some people think he is very strict. Sometimes a strict adherence to the law is a very good thing.

You claim that justice is not his first name. I would be interested to know of any cases where he has departed from the law.
0

#79 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 30 March 2007 - 05:58 PM

Why do you think he was generous to ACC??
0

#80 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 30 March 2007 - 06:33 PM

Sparrow
The ACC had not disclosed the work task activity at the material times the alleged I was working when cancelling the claim 1997.
They did not disclose the information prior to the Review Hearing.
They asked the district court registrar to delay may entitlement to appeal indefinitely so that they would not need to disclose the information they relied upon.
Judge Barber alarmed that the case had gone on so long made a court direction June 2006 requiring the ACC to release the so-called work information and that the material times by the end of September 2006 and when they didn't he gave them an additional two weeks.
In the two weeks have passed with the ACC only pointing in the general direction of where they alleged the information was the court case was set down for a hearing.
At the beginning of the hearing I still did not know what work task activities I was appealing and as such could only present the points of law, my pre injury work activity and my medical information.

As the ACC would like to spend several days presenting the alleged work information there was not enough time within the dates set down at the beginning of this week and the ACC did not want to accept fragmented court days offered by judge Barber that accounted for my incapacity claiming that they would be disadvantaged in some way which enable them three months extra time prior to presenting their side after hearing all of my presentation.

It is in this way that the judge has been generous with the ACC.

The flipside is that if the ACC do not actually had any information that adequately and lawfully describes a capacity to return to my pre injury occupation I would anticipate that judge Barber has created a circumstance whereby he may be very stern in his judgment of the ACC as we have already gone well beyond the various principles that have breached Justice in this matter.
1

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

3 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users