ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#601 User is offline   neddy 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 09:52 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 10 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

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

Money that is what I want I want the money

As Eric Clapton and Bobby Whitlock wrote:

Tell the truth. Tell me who's been fooling you?
Tell the truth. Who's been fooling who?


Well you tried illegal tactics and was caught red-handed, how are you going do it this time, Baffle them with Bullshit?

It amazes me that 35 odd pages on this board later, you are still bleating on when you know you are a fraud and a liar, and you still have the gall to try it again and sucker people to believe in you while you waste time and resources on review after review.
0

#602 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 10 December 2007 - 10:32 PM

Neddy he has just told us that his brain is ROTTING OUT, so as this is a disease that only happens to Mr Tank Engine, should we not feel sorry for him. wonder how long it will take to rot out completely???
0

#603 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 11 December 2007 - 10:49 AM

Neddy to have committed ACC fraud in the way that I have been accused they would need to be an overpayment. In other words no longer incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation. ACC claimed to have information that I have been working but will not disclose what type of work that might be or when it was allegedly done. How can I convince a court that the ACC are wrong if I am not allowed to have a day in court to challenge the alleged "working" information?

Owning a company that is managed does not mean you are working.

Producing business plans, including doing all of the necessary research, for purposes of rehabilitation into a new occupation also is not working.


Hardwired I suffered a strain injury in the form of a hernia when stopping a machine from toppling over June 1989. I stopped my own business projects around that time. I persisted working as Project Manager for Trigon until October 1989 and had surgery February 1990. While I was waiting for surgery I had a yachting injury damaging my right wrist and both elbows December 1989.

Despite the ferocity of some of the postings on the thread about myself I have without exception always attempted to respond to the very best of my ability. Unfortunately rampaging villagers seem to be only seeking information that supports their own hypothesis which is somewhat disconcerting as it is exactly the same culture as the ACC.

While injustice continues I will not be leaving well enough alone. Hardwired you need to focus your mind on the purity of fact and law leaving hypothesis or speculation to one side if you wish to get to the bottom of any issue.


Sparrow I have not indicated my brain is rotting out. While medically investigating what the surgeon did wrong 1992 they caused a clot which caused a small portion of my brain to rot out. While I continue to suffer from mini strokes there is not likely to be very much more progression.
0

#604 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 11 December 2007 - 03:23 PM

It doesn't add up.

At a review hearing yesterday the Reviewer, Michael Dunn, informed me that he is going to look through all of the 20 file boxes of my case as the ACC had not prepared submissions. I asked him if the 20 boxes represented all of the information ACC had concerning all of the accepted claims and if he could arrange for me to have a copy of all documents related to my claims as I only have 4 file boxes and I needed the missing information from the other 16 file boxes for my 1997 Total Declinature appeal and criminal appeal.
0

#605 User is offline   neddy 

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

Posted 11 December 2007 - 04:16 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 11 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

It doesn't add up.

At a review hearing yesterday the Reviewer, Michael Dunn, informed me that he is going to look through all of the 20 file boxes of my case as the ACC had not prepared submissions. I asked him if the 20 boxes represented all of the information ACC had concerning all of the accepted claims and if he could arrange for me to have a copy of all documents related to my claims as I only have 4 file boxes and I needed the missing information from the other 16 file boxes for my 1997 Total Declinature appeal and criminal appeal.

Jeez, 16 boxes and only two hours maximum per day, either the postings will have to be cut down or you will exceed the stated time. your brain will rot.

Does the required reading mean we will be spared your "input" on the board?

Ho hum , another 37 pages of postings and virtual monopoly of the Review and judicial process.

Another thing to quote you "Neddy to have committed ACC fraud in the way that I have been accused..."

You were not accused but found guilty and sentenced, tell the whole story!
0

#606 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 11 December 2007 - 04:58 PM

Neddy ACC claimed there had been an overpayment based on the allegation of working without providing the information to refute that allegation.

There has been no assessment or disclosure of any information whatsoever about the alleged work. The ACC said to the court they had carried out the proper procedures to determine and make a decision that I was no longer entitled. On the basis of the ACC decision of no entitlement the only possible connclusion is overpayment which automatically becomes fraud. We are now about to find out if the ACC had ever had such information because the ACC are now required to make disclosure. If the ACC do not disclose any work task activities at any material times it will mean that the ACC employees annd private investigators had committed perjury to achieve the criminal conviction.

As the ACC are now claiming that I was not only no longer incapacitated and was never incapacitated by injury, the situation is now exactly the same as flowers who has also had his claim cancelled because they are saying he was never incapacitated by his injury. very large portions of ACC claimants are in exactly the same position as myself.
0

#607 User is offline   neddy 

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

Posted 11 December 2007 - 09:44 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 11 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Neddy ACC claimed there had been an overpayment based on the allegation of working without providing the information to refute that allegation.

There has been no assessment or disclosure of any information whatsoever about the alleged work. The ACC said to the court they had carried out the proper procedures to determine and make a decision that I was no longer entitled. On the basis of the ACC decision of no entitlement the only possible connclusion is overpayment which automatically becomes fraud. We are now about to find out if the ACC had ever had such information because the ACC are now required to make disclosure. If the ACC do not disclose any work task activities at any material times it will mean that the ACC employees annd private investigators had committed perjury to achieve the criminal conviction.

As the ACC are now claiming that I was not only no longer incapacitated and was never incapacitated by injury, the situation is now exactly the same as flowers who has also had his claim cancelled because they are saying he was never incapacitated by his injury. very large portions of ACC claimants are in exactly the same position as myself.



Well eff me days.

I was lead to understand you were bloody unique and your case is unique and no-one ever had it as bad as poor Thomas.

When are you going to own up that the "there had been an overpayment based on the allegation of working without providing the information to refute that allegation." was in fact a proven claim that led to your conviction for fraud.

You never ever own up to what you did or what you were sentenced for, but try using manipulation of words and the truth, to paint a picture of innocence and that you are totally right.

Well 16 boxes of files should keep you active for a while, but what are you going to do if by some chance it shows how and why ACC treat you as anathema and a vexatious person?

If by chance it reveals that you have been misleading or subtly obstructive. what are you actions going to be then?
0

#608 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:36 AM

Tank Engine

Now that you have it in writing that there are 20 boxes, you should be able to ask for your entitlement to all of it under the Act in writing.

If they don't give it to you in a reasonable time, take them to Review, as you so love doing, on the grounds of not making any reasonalbe decision in a reasonable manner.

Now a puffed up tank engine like you should know what section of what act that comes under.

I see you had Mike Dunn at review. Is he the one you had the 'cosy romantic' tet e' tet with??

No I don't really need to know the answer, I have just given you the process we sane (sort of) people use to get something done, usually in our favour!!!

As someone said though it is going to take you a long time to read it all eh?? In the end you might get it all through the Court of Appeal quicker. Who knows, your decision.

Mini
0

#609 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:44 AM

Unfortunately Mini, anything reported by the Tank Engine is not necessarily true. He appears to have an amazing ability to post fantasy as fact, and when it is bought to his attention, will wax lyrically off onto a tangent and not address this issue. This is how he deceived ACC and WINZ for many years - hence he is deemed to be dangerous due to his deceptive abilities.
0

#610 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:30 AM

Neddy the ACC have not yet made a reviewable decision that there has been an overpayment so how can there be fraud? How can I owned up to something I have not been accused of? How can I manipulate the words when there is no accusation to respond to?

I was found guilty of asking for an entitlement during a period of time that the ACC decided I was not entitled. Now that I am guilty I am trying to find out why the ACC claim I am not entitled. ACC had never told and will not tell because that will enable me to defend myself.

Obviously out of the 16 boxes of files I have not yet received I would expect I shall find the "working" information that they claimed to have possession of, unless there are even more boxes. Maybe the search warrant seized items that show I was not working will be in those boxes. If

I have not been vexatious or misleading. I have just asked for the information and reason why the ACC thought I was working. I was there and I know I was not working.


Hardware the doctor submitted an ACC45 form together with information describing how a catheter went up into the carotid artery causing a bleed which clotted of which the clot broke free and caused a stroke 1993. This was resulting from a medical procedure trying to find out what the surgeon had done wrong 1992. The ACC did not acknowledge the ACC45 form nor did they ask any assessments or make a decision.


Mini I have asked for my entire file prior to the 1997 review hearing and was told I could not have it because of the Privacy Act. In 1999 the district court judge instructed the ACC to make full disclosure and a late trial for one week. The ACC promise they had made full disclosure after giving half a box of my paperwork but then returned some of the search warrant seized items halfway through the trial and more files on the last day of the trial. ACC still had not disclosed any work task activities at any material time and had not disclosed why they thought there might have been an overpayment to form the basis of a fraud prosecution. I am hopeful that one day a judicial authority will make the ACC deliver the information.

The district court judge hearing the appeal to the 1997 decision has instructed the ACC to make disclosure and gave them until September last year. I have since made an application for a review hearing again for the delay in process to deliver my file for purposes of my entitlement to entitlements and my entitlement to be heard. The reviewer's decision was that a reviewer does not have jurisdiction as a copy of our file is not an entitlement.

Michael Dunn, reviewer, said that he was going to look at the entire file and other to make arrangements for me to be able to look at it as well. I said that I would be delighted to have that opportunity but I would rather have a copy of the file as well.

The ACC are obviously confident that the courts do not enforce their own direction orders and therefore if there is anything really important in the file they simply will ignore the court.


Spacecadet I am not aware of anything I have said being untrue. Naturally I do not want to be labelled a liar and would very much appreciate it if you could provide the specific instances of lying. I have never deceived ACC or WINZ even once. In addition I do not see how requests for ACC to disclose similar allegations of dishonesty, also with due particularity, can be deemed to be dangerous needing security guards, trespassed notices and so forth.


The common thread I notice is that unsubstantiated allegations tend to gain weight amongst such as the ACC and other interest groups. This phenomenon also exists in politics, sport and religion but does not exist amongst communities of engineers and mathematicians.
Smells fishy to me!
0

#611 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:55 AM

The ACC and myself are in agreement about the preinjury occupation of project manager/mechanical design engineer so there is no point in wasting time and energy convincing you as that is not a relevant issue. Equally there is no argument about the abdominal strain, broken wrist and brain injury as the medical information is not contested by the ACC.

To assist you with information about the brain injury, when the blood clot blocked the artery leading to a portion of the brain all brain tissue downstream from that clot was starved of blood and oxygen causing it to die.. Once brain tissue is dead it simply rots away and is replaced by white tissue which is often called an infarct. This infarct together with the clinical history confirms the event thatcauses me a quantifiable incapacity as measured by neurological assessment. Gill Newburn thinks that the combination of the brain injury and opiates require a more complex assessment procedure. My doctor does not think I should drive while medicated to the prescription and particularly while I am having a transient episode, particularly particularly while I cannot see any thing in the focal region.

It is interesting that persons on this site challenge me about these Medical matters when the ACC do not.

The area of contention between ACC and myself is that the ACC think I am no longer incapacitated because the manager of my business said I was working. His observations were me learning to use the computer and voice software while at the same time preparing business plans that the casse manager has issued an ultimatum that unless I produce the business plans my ERC would be suspended.

Although the ACC have relied upon the private investigator who relied upon members of the public to believe I was working they did not suggest I have a capacity to work in a new occupation and agree that the issue is the capacity to return to my preinjury occupation. The medical specialists say I cannot but undisclosed information claiming I was working is relied upon to say that I can.


The real issue questions are:

Is learning to use the computer and voice software working?

Is producing business plans as required by IRP working?

Does ACC had any information to suggest that the medical professionals are wrong when saying I cannot return to my preinjury occupation?

I am of the opinion that the answer is no to these 3questions.
0

#612 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:59 AM

Hardwired.

Notice how he avoids of answering any of your questions?
We don't believe for one minute that ACC accept the "occupation" as dreamed up by Mr Thomas.
A very slippery customer this one. It took ACC and WINZ many years to catch on to what he was up to. However, the Judge was not so easily fooled.
0

#613 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:30 AM

The wrist injury seems to cloud over all other injuries as being the showstopper. ACC do not like to make any reference to any other injury even though they have accepted claims for cover. Even when be cancelled my wrist injury they did not cancel all of the other injuries. This has always been a mystery to me.

I have attached proved beyond reasonable doubt documents, the brain injury confirmation and the surgeon preparing to operate 2001, after the 1999 conviction, in accordance with the 1992 review hearing decision but I could not work until I had surgery.

ACC alleged I was working while incapacitated but agreed that even if there is such information there was no earnings. I maintain I was neither working nor earning but merely exploring various other alternative opportunities while waiting for my surgery and to have something to fall back upon if the surgery failed.

Frankly I can see how anyone can be confused unless they were making an effort to be confused, or more to the point, were dishonestly trying to support other dishonest people.

Attached File(s)

  • Attached File  Brain.png (125.28K)
    Number of downloads: 11
  • Attached File  Wrist.png (121.18K)
    Number of downloads: 16

0

#614 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 12:18 PM

The ACC cancelled entitlements and the claim. Not just ERC. The prosecution was as if I had never been entitled to anything, including surgery. For a long time they would not even provide funding for pain medication or anything but ACC have changed their decision to include some entitlements without notifying me of that decision.

While ACC acknowledge claims for other injuries they seem to ignore the idea of carrying out any assessments for anything.

Attached File(s)


0

#615 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 01:31 PM

The documents listed by Mr Thomas are as follows

1: Letter from ACC 18 Aug 1997.
Disentitlement of claim 45/91/124063.
ACC believe Mr Thomas is working while in receipt of weekly compensation.

2: CT Brain scan, 1 May 2002.
Mature gliois but no abnormalities identified.

3: ACC assessment and treatment, 14 May 2002
Claim T 099600
R wrist tissue reconstruction.

These documents appear normal enough, however there is appears to be no link between these documents, and they are for differing claims.

These documents in no way support any of the claims being made on this forum by Mr Thomas, other that he has a wrist injury.
0

#616 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 01:55 PM

Spacecadet the ACC accepted a claim for the wrist injury and manage the claim on the basis of that injury including paying out ERC. It is that claim that was cancelled so nothing else is really relevant to the cancellation. What we now need is the so-called "working" information from the ACC so it can be discussed as to whether or not I was actually working. If the ACC are not able to provide that information wrist injury claim should be reinstated. It really is not any more complicated than that.

Legislation does not permit ACC to totally cancel a claim.

"Working" is not the criteria for determining a claim but at best can only reduce the ACC liability after an abatement of earnings calculation. No calculations have been made.

Medical evidence superior to the medical information already given is the only grounds for withdrawing entitlements. No clinical assessment or reports have been made.

There is no supporting information supporting the 18 August 1997 decision, including the entire seven-week trial of which 1300 pages of transcript have been produced from 43 witnesses and 208 exhibits. The appeal judge requires the ACC to disclose work task activities with due particularity at the material times so as I can have an opportunity to refute the allegations made in the 1997 decision. ACC had kept asking for adjournments for the last 10 years. Is it because I was not working?


Hardwired As for the brain damage this is described by the word infarct. The neuropsychological assessment describes the disability from that infarct. It is confirmed that my mental capacities degenerate (tire) early and I have particular difficulties with language and right dominant hand coordination, which is consistent with the portion of the brain that the CT scan shows the infarct.

I have more than 800 pages of various medical reports and assessments which have resulted in other ACC45 claims. The infarct was caused by my consent on to medical students learning how to run a catheter right through my arteries. They simply went the wrong way and ran catheter up into the carotid artery by mistake. They damaged the carotid artery when they went to withdraw it causing a bleed, clot and stroke. ACC had not issued a decision in response to the ACC45 form. The review hearing application has converted to a deemed decision which has followed by another review hearing application concerning the delay of process from the deemed decision. Yesterday I was the review hearing the failure to set dates at all for one third of all review hearing applications I have submitted.

What really matters is the 1992 review hearing decision requiring the ACC to fund the reconstructive surgery as the official rehabilitation to my preinjury occupation and the confirmation that I have not received that surgery. It is not more complicated than that and as such everything else is merely speculation or conjecture which is diversionary to that fundamental fact that I have been injured and have not yet received the medical treatment.
0

#617 User is offline   waddie 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 02:37 PM

At the end of the day Alan's current appeal is going to decide the issue of his entitlement to weekly compensation under the claim, not us. I have no comment on the other 150 odd reviews.
0

#618 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 02:55 PM

Waddie if the ACC cancel the claim on the basis of possessing information that I was "working" but do not provide me with that information, how is it possible for me to construct an appeal to refute the allegation of this mysterious "working"? ACC achieved a criminal conviction for overpayment on the basis that I was not entitled to ERC, on the basis of their decision to cancel the claim but did not disclose the so-called "working" information preventing me from challenging that allegation of "working". They say I was working I say I was not. How can we go further than that without going into the particulars?

This sounds like a circular argument and lawyers are baffled as to how to address a civil appeal in face of the criminal conviction.
0

#619 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 02:59 PM

Quote

'Alan Thomas' date='Dec 12 2007, 02:55 PM' post='56107']
Spacecadet the ACC accepted a claim for the wrist injury and manage the claim on the basis of that injury including paying out ERC. It is that claim that was cancelled so nothing else is really relevant to the cancellation. What we now need is the so-called "working" information from the ACC so it can be discussed as to whether or not I was actually working. If the ACC are not able to provide that information wrist injury claim should be reinstated. It really is not any more complicated than that.

Legislation does not permit ACC to totally cancel a claim.

"Working" is not the criteria for determining a claim but at best can only reduce the ACC liability after an abatement of earnings calculation. No calculations have been made.

Medical evidence superior to the medical information already given is the only grounds for withdrawing entitlements. No clinical assessment or reports have been made.



The letter from ACC of 19 Aug 1997 dis-entitling Mr Thomas for claim 45/91/124063 appears to be in order. There is no evidence that this claim is for a wrist injury, although this dis-entitlement would apply for any claim. As for the legislation, all appears in order. No doubt this decision was reviewed, all the evidence and facts of the matter would be contained in the claimants submissions.

Legislation, as quoted in the letter, permits ACC to dis-entitle a claimant.

ACC believe Mr Thomas was working. There has subsequently been a lot of evidence to support this, both in Court and on this forum.

The CT scan is a CT scan - and nothing more. It does not support any assumption being made by Mr Thomas (except that perhaps the white spot explains is absence of ability for logical reasoning, or Mr Thomas's pathalogical lieing). As for the so called "superior" medical evidence - there is none.

As for the rest - a pile of bullshit, and highlight Mr Thomas's inability or refusal, to comprehend or address issues in a logical manner.
0

#620 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 03:20 PM

Spacecadet I asked for a review hearing but the ACC would not release the information. As there was no information on the day of the review hearing the reviewer adjourned. Unfortunately the reviewer never reconvened but two months later he made a decision not to disturb the ACCs decision because there was a fraud investigation and based on there being a fraud investigation he thought that on balance of probability the ACC would have a reason.

One month after the review is decision the ACC were able to obtain a search warrant on the basis of the review hearing decision. ACC were able to search for information on the basis of the probability that information would exist if the reviewer had decided not to disturb the ACC decision.

Working is not a legislated basis to cancel a claim. Under the 1992 legislation the only two reasons for stopping ERC was a capacity to return to the preinjury occupation under S37 or a capacity to earn in a new occupation under S51. The ACC did not have any information derived from either of these sections when claiming to have S73 information.

There is no information to support my working but only speculation that I might have been working given that I owned a number of functioning companies. The trial featured a lot of information about the success of the companies without any reference to my involvement other than that of an investor and director. The director activities consisted of signing lease agreements and other suchlike fudiciary duty. Even if those duties were considered to be work they would not have amounted to more than a few hours per year and as they were not income generating activities that could have been no abatement of earnings. There were no directors fees.

As for the CT scan it is more clearly understood when looking at the MRI scan where there is an absence of the blood vessels leading to the white matter (infarct). This is further supported by considerable reporting from other expertise.

Spacecadet I am mystified as to why you are against the opinion of all of the general practitioners and specialists providing me with treatment based what is essentially and only on the private investigators report which I obtained information from persons who had set up their own competing business while managing mine. It is obvious to me that you are engaged in a windup for goodness knows what reason. Perhaps you think you might get some credits with the ACC by your constant attacks?
0

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

10 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users