ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 428
  • 429
  • 430
  • 431
  • 432
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#8581 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 14 January 2014 - 05:57 AM

View PostBLURB, on 13 January 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

Was David harassing you at that time Alan?

Yes i queried the heck OUT OF WHAT alan had published at that time.




Notably tho,
Kenneth MILLER had NOT disclosed his information about the Petrol Tanker as at April 2007 Franny boy

Douglas WEAL had NOT disclosed his information about the Takapuna Bomb Plot as at April 2007 Franny boy


What was happening as at APRIL 2007 was that YOU FRAN VAN HELMOND
WERE PUBLISHING names fones locations of forum members.In your NASTY LIBELOUS SLANDEROUS - harassing intimidation manner
THAT YOU CONTINUE TO DO AS OF THIS DAY IN 2014.


Have another go at shit stirring ya germ

DAVE.Posted Image

1

#8582 User is offline   RedFox 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 11-March 13
  • LocationNorth of Christchurch

Posted 14 January 2014 - 08:50 AM

View PostDavid Butler, on 10 January 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

.From: "Nigel G Cooke" <[email protected]Date: 16 February 2010 2:46:40 PM

To: "'Dave Butler'"

Subject: RE: Nigel Cooke's email

Reply-To: <[email protected]




Dear Sir,



What I had proposed was to keep your evidence very short – short to the extent that you heard of the allegations, variously of the tanker and the bombing of ACC, and it was the result of over active imaginations of both Weal and Miller, and as to the truth of the allegations so made – without a doubt - there can be no truth to those allegations.

You can go on to explain why, but apart from that, I was not proposing to take your evidence much further.

Accordingly, if you think your evidence would tend to incriminate Thomas as threatening to kill people in the ACC building by some means, bombing or otherwise, then I do NOT Posted Imagerequire you to give evidence. If you think your evidence will support the view that Miller and Weal are a couple of “scandal mongers” for want of a better word, and what they say about a potential bombing is utter rubbish then I DOhttp://accforum.org/...efault/ohmy.gifrequire you.





Please let me know as soon as you can if you can come to Auckland for the giving of evidence on Friday at North Shore District Court at a time I will advise you of.



Nigel Coke.

View PostAlan Thomas, on 10 January 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

David what are you trying to say?


He is saying your guilty.

View PostDavid Butler, on 09 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Fran
No chance in hell of that ever happening
Yuve dealt with thomas enough tp know hes the one man disaster of organizing his own cock ups.

You know as well as i do that NO ONE instructs Thomas
A number of other players were advised to Cookie man and Thomas which somehow -alan would know why-i never sighted them in dispatches of court records
One particular comes to mind and that is the Mysterious accforum member /allegedly IRA affiliated person who was named by WEAL as the main driver of the van along with the back up driver
So Fran dig all ya like
just raises more questions than answers especially about yourself here.http://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gifhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif
Dave

I do love the lame brain fool....

Thanks again butthead.

You have now confirmed that you knew a lot more about the Takapuna Bomb Plot than you have previously admitted to.

You knew about the Van Driver and the Backup Van Driver... Evidence that would no doubt have seen Mr Thomas sentenced to more than just home detention.

Evidence that now shows Mr Thomas's conviction was warranted.

Evidence which supports the initial complaint by Mr Miller does it not?

No wonder you refused to appear as a defense witness... You evidence such as above would have helped convict Mr Thomas.

In fact it is now obvious why you wanted your legal representative to overview your proposed affidavit. You didn't want any possibility of incriminating your self.

Perhaps the planning was a lot further advanced than you have let on to date. Perhaps you should also have been charged as a co-conspirator or an accomplice.

My question now.

If you knew the names of the van driver and back up van driver why have you for the past 6 years insisted that Ken Millers & Mr weal's concerns were a fantasy and a frame up job against Mr Thomas?

Mr Thomas claims that the police's investigation was half hearted and just followed ACC's complaint.

Perhaps he is right. The Police should have looked deeper into your involvement for a starter.

Perhaps they still will!
1

#8583 User is offline   RedFox 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 11-March 13
  • LocationNorth of Christchurch

Posted 14 January 2014 - 09:49 AM

View PostDavid Butler, on 14 January 2014 - 05:57 AM, said:

Yes i queried the heck OUT OF WHAT alan had published at that time.




Notably tho,
Kenneth MILLER had NOT disclosed his information about the Petrol Tanker as at April 2007 Franny boy

Indeed Hardwired published all that information.

And who was Hardwired?

http://acc-claimants.info/images/david_butler/david-butler_aka_hardwired-18sept2008.jpg

The same hardwired who deleted all his posts to hide his tracks.

View PostAlan Thomas, on 21 April 2007 - 12:22 PM, said:

Hardwired

I am shocked to find such a mean-spirited monster contributing to the site in the way that you have.
Shame on you for being an invalid kicker.

My invitation for you to telephone me remains open so you can have an opportunity to ask any question you like as I have absolutely nothing to hide from anybody. As you have not followed up on my invitation to read the material in this thread or telephone me I can only conclude that you are hardwired into the belief system of prejudice and arrogance that is to incapable of change. If you take out my invitation for you to telephone me and upon examining the facts discover you are wrong I trust that you will be big enough to correct the harm that you have done to me on the site.

If you don't ring me I can only assure me that you are in the employee of either the ACC or WINZ or want to be.


View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 April 2007 - 08:06 PM, said:

Hardwired
<snip>
The wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round, the wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round.
<snip>

The wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round, the wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round.

And comes back to David Butler
0

#8584 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:06 AM

View PostRedFox, on 14 January 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

He is saying your guilty.
No redfukhed=I was telling alan that Nigel Cooke was a useless incompetent person due to his lack of interest in the evidence made available to him which he never investigated on.
Cooke wrote the email fukhed -not me-he wrote it and had done NO investigation / formal proper interview -document perusal etc with me at all on the evidence available at that time-NOR he did he do any proper workings with me at any time at all ,prior to or during the trial.ALAN has realaised long ago that what i say is correct re Cooke-i just reconfirmed it-with that email for ALAN to read as hes never seen it before.
Why Alan did not appeal as there were are solid reasons of law to do so-involving me, i dont know the answer as to why i was not at the trail nor at any appeal procedures.
maybe you could redfuk that issue and let us all know WHY NOT.
I do love the lame brain fool....

Thanks again butthead.
No Problem FUCCKHEAD

You have now confirmed that you knew a lot more about the Takapuna Bomb Plot than you have previously admitted to.
AND so what?
Every one knew mate-WEAL made sure of that

You knew about the Van Driver and the Backup Van Driver...
YEP
Fran WAS named by WEAL as the backup-However Wealyman DID ''NOT'' name anyone within his affidavits=WHY NOT
The Irishman [WHO IS A REAL PERSON] was also named by WEAL but again NO NAME in affidavits WEAL ''now'' preferring to say he knew of NO NAMES.
Which OF COURSE HE HD TO DO AS HIS TALE OF THE Irish connection was rather to close to home and be an embarrassment to the case as a whole if it was disclosed
couldnt have that now could we so just remove the van drivers as they would raise FAR to much ''SUSPICION'' about WEALS FANASTYS.
Evidence that would no doubt have seen Mr Thomas sentenced to more than just home detention.
Pure speculation there Fucxhhead
It also may have sent him home without a trialPosted Imagehttp://accforum.org/...efault/wink.gif
Evidence that now shows Mr Thomas's conviction was warranted.
Ala fukhed-ya slak investigative reporting skills show no such evidence at all

Evidence which supports the initial complaint by Mr Miller does it not?
Ah ha redfukhead
Never seen KENNY PROVIDE ANY VAN DRIVER NAMES IN HIS STATEMENT-altho he was freely with his oral inof about all that stuff-as was weal
WHICH ''thanks mate=THE INITIAL COMPLAINT ==WAS'' made by KENNETH MILLER
Let FRAN KNOW THAT FOR ME WONT YA

No wonder you refused to appear as a defense witness...
No Refusal mate
You evidence such as above would have helped convict Mr Thomas.
If that were so fukhead then the Police WOULD have used that alleged evidence wouldnt you think?

In fact it is now obvious why you wanted your legal representative to overview your proposed affidavit.
Never a secret-Ya think i was going to a court with an ''incompetent'' idiot like Cooke in control

You didn't want any possibility of incriminating your self.
i offered to go .Never a prblem tome and still isnt.http://accforum.org/...ault/tongue.gif

Perhaps the planning was a lot further advanced than you have let on to date.
You would have to ask Weal all about that one fukhed
Now if weal knew i wasnt his patsy back then im sure he would have attempted to include me in the plan as he set it out
But alas
he thought hed have me as an ally
sorry there fukhed-weal sorta stuffed up with me and far to late when i let on =TO HIM DIRECTLY-Which really pissed him off http://accforum.org/...t/laugh.gifThat i was on to him for him to go running to percy with more bullshit

Perhaps you should also have been charged as a co-conspirator or an accomplice.
Weal nor MILLER provided me as a party nor an ally of Thomas to the Police in here evidence so a way out of fukhead therory there mate
altho now im sure they wish they had tried to have me included

My question now.

If you knew the names of the van driver and back up van driver why have you for the past 6 years insisted that Ken Millers & Mr weal's concerns were a fantasy and a frame up job against Mr Thomas?
I like others INCLUDING DE Police have known that for 6 years fukhead-Maybe NOW as the reporter you claim to be you could follow that up with the police themselves
Alan was asked of the upon his arrest about the irish and the Bludger connections -so be real interesting for you to find out the goods on that i be thinking
I KNOW but thats for you to figuire out ya self

Mr Thomas claims that the police's investigation was half hearted and just followed ACC's complaint.
Alan IS QUITE CORRECT there

Perhaps he is right. The Police should have looked deeper into your involvement for a starter.
THEY DID MATE- Nothing to find.If i had been one to tell lies as did WEAL AND MILLER then im sure i would have made there tale of crap far more secure-But i didnt and wouldnt so why would percy have me up there to fuk there case-pretty simple really fukhed isnt it-They preferred tohave me as a defnse witness to have a go at in court-but -cookie man he never knew just what id say so he was concerned as well -better to leave me at home as you can well see-thats a what they did.To be honest here fukhed-i would not have helped alan or the police much re some things NOT to do with the Plot=but id a sure fuked over weal and miller re ALL THERE CRAP in the courts,AND THAT Fukhed is what the case was about The PLANS OF the Takapuna Bomb Plot-which simply as Cooke had suspicions of-was a load of BULLSHIThttp://accforum.org/...efault/ohmy.gif

Perhaps they still will!
No perhaps fukhed
They will behttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gifhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif


pp
Just for yu fukhed
if id a made a statement-There would have been NO TRIAL placed in court against alan for the TAKAPUNA BOMB POT PLANS
.Leaving everything else as it was JUST personal vendettas against ALAN AND the accforum as a whole.http://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif
What Alan does now i dont know but hes been told Criminal law use to fix it all as im not getting involved in his pans for civil cases to run on for twenty years of more crap by him.
0

#8585 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:27 AM

View PostDavid Butler, on 14 January 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

pp
Just for yu fukhed
if id a made a statement-There would have been NO TRIAL placed in court against alan for the TAKAPUNA BOMB POT PLANS
.Leaving everything else as it was JUST personal vendettas against ALAN AND the accforum as a whole.Posted Image
What Alan does now i dont know but hes been told Criminal law use to fix it all as im not getting involved in his pans for civil cases to run on for twenty years of more crap by him.


You have been and still are involved so will be appearing in Court David Butler.
0

#8586 User is offline   whetu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 06-May 13

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:35 AM

View PostBLURB, on 14 January 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

You have been and still are involved so will be appearing in Court David Butler.



Posted Image


http://www.picgifs.c.../rechters10.gif

The only guilty one is you Bludger Blurb

http://animationsa2z...ce/justice9.gif

http://animationsa2z...e/justice10.gif
0

#8587 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:39 AM

View PostRedFox, on 14 January 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

Indeed Hardwired published all that information.

And who was Hardwired?

http://acc-claimants.info/images/david_butler/david-butler_aka_hardwired-18sept2008.jpg

The same hardwired who deleted all his posts to hide his tracks.




The wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round, the wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round.

And comes back to David Butler

a pm to FRAN VAN HELMOND you have there fukhed
alan was a side issue with me on other separate matters in hand -hed been arrested at that time with miller and weals evidence to achieve the arrest,
the pm was directly to fran who was naming and publishing personal info about members-me being one of them


franny boy was rather pissed about eric so he tried exactly what hes doing now-and failed-as hes failing nowhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif
pp
for you fukhed
at that time i had never gone thru ALL the thousands of documents provided to me by weal
That occurred later during 2010 when who behold-what do we have here by weal
all on then fukhed-weal had shot himself in the foot
all still sitting ''UNOPENED AS RECEIVED ''in the main server so i had them all downloaded by the legals first so there be NO mistaking or being said as altered documents-and then I went thru them one by one
the tale of bullshit then promptly unfolded before my eyes and alan was informed.
The wealyman hed told me hed cleaned out his data base as he knew if it went wrong hed be looked into -after his first lie to the Police re his data base info was made to the police ,he had to hurry home and hide it al away BUT he NEVER thought FOR A MINUTE EVERYTHING hed sent out would be sitting with me and Telecomhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gifhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif
Filing - book keeping etc in computer land just aint me at all so i had the LOThttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

In respect to the PM content that was sent to Fran Van HELMOND at 2.21pm on the 18th September 2008
Re the same issues and also Thomas-and the PLOT =At PRECISELY 2.16pm ON THE 18TH Fran was on the telfeone with Douglas WEAL being advised AGAIN to bugger off out of the promoting the takapuna plot issues in public as it would bring the police investigation at his door and WEAL just never wanted that to happen at all-Just like the OTHER orders weal gave to fran to shut up and stay away
seems Frans an idiot and cant help himself from bring the Police FINALLY to his door for questioning about the TAKAPUN BOMB PLOT
REMEMBER THAT CALL franny on de 18th from WEALYMAN?-Youll be asked about it cort so get recalling things mate-keep them correct to as the documents here to show any LIES you may decide to tell.
All nicely recorded documented by weal and of course as he did-he sent me ''ALL''the daily news s it transpiredhttp://accforum.org/...fault/laugh.gif

Have a nice day fukhedhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

0

#8588 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:45 AM

View PostBLURB, on 14 January 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

You have been and still are involved so will be appearing in Court David Butler.

Involved in exactly what Fran?
being the gatekeeper to all of weals /MILLERS informationPosted Image

what ya gonna take on Alans appeal process now Fran
That be greathttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif as that case is not yours to run with
FUCK OFF YA PRAThttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif
0

#8589 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:50 AM

View PostDavid Butler, on 14 January 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

a pm to FRAN VAN HELMOND you have there fukhed
alan was a side issue with me on other separate matters in hand -hed been arrested at that time with miller and weals evidence to achieve the arrest,
the pm was directly to fran who was naming and publishing personal info about members-me being one of them


franny boy was rather pissed about eric so he tried exactly what hes doing now-and failed-as hes failing nowPosted Image
pp
for you fukhed
at that time i had never gone thru ALL the thousands of documents provided to me by weal
That occurred later during 2010 when who behold-what do we have here by weal
all on then fukhed-weal had shot himself in the foot
all still sitting ''UNOPENED AS RECEIVED ''in the main server so i had them all downloaded by the legals first so there be NO mistaking or being said as altered documents-and then I went thru them one by one
the tale of bullshit then promptly unfolded before my eyes and alan was informed.
The wealyman hed told me hed cleaned out his data base as he knew if it went wrong hed be looked into -after his first lie to the Police re his data base info was made to the police ,he had to hurry home and hide it al away BUT he NEVER thought FOR A MINUTE EVERYTHING hed sent out would be sitting with me and Telecomhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gifhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif
Filing - book keeping etc in computer land just aint me at all so i had the LOThttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

In respect to the PM content that was sent to Fran Van HELMOND at 2.21pm on the 18th September 2008
Re the same issues and also Thomas-and the PLOT =At PRECISELY 2.16pm ON THE 18TH Fran was on the telfeone with Douglas WEAL being advised AGAIN to bugger off out of the promoting the takapuna plot issues in public as it would bring the police investigation at his door and WEAL just never wanted that to happen at all-Just like the OTHER orders weal gave to fran to shut up and stay away
seems Frans an idiot and cant help himself from bring the Police FINALLY to his door for questioning about the TAKAPUN BOMB PLOT
REMEMBER THAT CALL franny on de 18th from WEALYMAN?-Youll be asked about it cort so get recalling things mate-keep them correct to as the documents here to show any LIES you may decide to tell.
All nicely recorded documented by weal and of course as he did-he sent me ''ALL''the daily news s it transpiredhttp://accforum.org/...fault/laugh.gif

Have a nice day fukhedhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif


Re: "alan was a side issue with me on other separate matters in hand -hed been arrested at that time with miller and weals evidence to achieve the arrest,
the pm was directly to fran who was naming and publishing personal info about members-me being one of them"

Yes Mr Butler, you had to get get of your name off this website because Alan Thomas was in contact with you and knew very well that the member using the name/moniker snoopy and hardwired was namely Mr David Butler!

And as Redfox has mentioned in his above post, you deleted all/most of your posts from this forum and Alan Thomas removed all the posts in this thread that may have caused you two problems!

I hope the Police now do revisit your case Mr Thomas as it seems you were communicating with forum members at that time which was against your bail conditions.

Thanks for confirming that Mr Butler.
0

#8590 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:08 AM

In order to direct our steps correctly we need to ensure that we are on a strong foundation. This means looking at the absolute basics of the whole saga. Please consider the following
.

The ACC have thought not to make good on their liabilities which have resulted in a continuous stream of avoidance tactics.
ACC have tried to promote the doctrine that if a person owns her own company they can create their own job and are therefore not incapacitated to earn no matter what their injuries are.
Douglas weal sought to take advantage of the ACC doctrine by registering a company so we could claim he was an earner despite the fact he would not engage in any actual work activities of any note.
Douglas weal offered himself as an ACC informant and ally like many others before him for financial gain.
ACC took advantage of Douglas weal arranging a search warrant immediately prior to my making submissions to the district court bringing down the ACC decision to cancel a seven figure claim.
All in all the Takapuna bomb plot is simply another diversionary tactic.
All manner of other people have jumped on the bandwagon together with the ACC to promote diversionary tactics.

BACK TO BASICS

The issue is whether or notACC can cancel a claim on the basis of assumptions made by their informants which in my case was the managers of companies I owned who alleged I was working as the manager rather than themselves. This is completely nonsense as it has been discovered that these managers were actively setting up their own company and gutting my company which they were paid to manage, one of them being an ex-ACC case manager.

The basics behind the saga is that the ACC wants to have unfettered discretion to determine whether or not a person can work using informant information to usurp the authority of the medical profession.

Take a choice folks. You want your friends, neighbours and relatives to be ACC informants to determine the level of your incapacity or do you want medical measurements to be relied upon from medical reports?

0

#8591 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:16 AM

Last year I made a number of complaints regarding missing information, wrong information and unlawful treatment of myself and my file. The complaints officer failed to investigate the matter but instead simply reiterated what those that were being complained it out wanted the complaints officer to say.
Each of my complaints were separately made and resulted in separate review hearing applications.
The ACC orchestrated seven review hearing applications amalgamated into one review hearing number to be heard all within one hour.
I presented myself for the 7 separate review hearing applications with 7 different written submissions.
The reviewer attempted to mush the seven different issues together without any success as it was not physically possible for him to do so.
I started presenting my submissions until the reviewer told me to stop because the time ran out. This means only for submissions were made.
The following is the reviewers decision on the seven separate review hearing applications.
I would be interested to discuss the merits of the reviewers response and decision and whether or not such behaviour can be tolerated together with suggestions as to what I do about it.


Review No: 1860090 Claim No: 91124063

Application for Review

by

Alan Thomas
A Decision made under the
Accident Compensation Act 2001
(the Act)
Held in Auckland
Date of hearing 28 November 2013
Reviewer Mr J G Greene

Present Mr Thomas
Mr Tui, counsel for ACC

Issue Did ACC’s Complaints Investigator correctly address Mr
Thomas’ complaint under the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights?

Decision

I dismiss the application.
Costs No costs awarded.
Follow-up action None required.

2 Review No.: 1860090

DECISION
(Made under Part 5 of the Act)

Issue

On 2 August 2013, ACC’s Complaints Investigator wrote to Mr Thomas responding to
seven issues he raised by way of written complaints in letters dated 24 and 28 June
2013. ACC said that six of the issues raised concerned issues that arose before the
enactment of the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights (the Code). ACC said that the
remaining issue — the disclosure of information under the Official Information Act —
was an issue for Mr Thomas to pursue with the Office of the Ombudsman.

The issue is whether ACC’s Complaints Investigator properly addressed Mr Thomas’
complaint issues.


Outcome
I dismiss the application. I accept the submissions by ACC’s counsel, Mr Tui that six of
the matters raised by Mr Thomas do not fall within the ambit of the Code since they
relate to matters that occurred before the enactment of the Code. Concerning the
request for disclosure of information from ACC’s computer systems, the Complaints
Investigator correctly advised Mr Thomas that his complaint should be addressed to
the Office of the Ombudsman.


Reasons for my decision

Relevant background

Mr Thomas has cover for injuries, including a right wrist injury, the result of an
accident on 27 December 1989.

Previously, he has received entitlements from ACC, including weekly compensation.
Mr Thomas’ claim is managed by ACC through its Remote Claims Unit. Over the
years, Mr Thomas has had a fraught relationship with ACC. He has lodged hundreds
of applications for review and he has also been involved in litigation concerning
aspects of his ACC claim in the District Court and High Court.


3 Review No.: 1860090

Complaint issues

In January 2013, Mr Thomas lodged 12 complaints with the Office of the Complaints
Investigator (OCI). The OCI responded to those issues on 14 February 2013, noting
that many of the issues Mr Thomas raised concerned historical issues arising out of
his litigation, and consent issues. Separately, the OCI addressed Mr Thomas’ request
for copies of documents from ACC’s computer data base.


The June 2013 complaints

In letters dated 24 and 28 June 2013, Mr Thomas lodged seven complaints with the

OCI. Six of the issues were ones already dealt with by the OCI in the 14 February

2013 letter. The seventh complaint concerned the provision of information from ACC’s

computer system.

On 2 August 2013, the OCI issued a decision on the seven complaint issues raised by
Mr Thomas. The OCI said that six of the issues raised were historical matters that did
not fall within the Code. On the seventh issue — the disclosure of information — the OCI
advised Mr Thomas that he could pursue his concern with the Office of the
Ombudsman.

Mr Thomas lodged seven separate applications for review. I held a review hearing in
Auckland on 28 November 2013.


The review hearing

Procedural note

Mr Thomas argued that there were seven separate issues and therefore seven
separate decisions contained within ACC’s 2 August 2013 letter. I do not accept that
submission. Frequently, there are several issues raised by complaint and addressed
under the Code. Though there are several issues, there are not necessarily separate
reviewable decisions. And, for reasons I will explain later, to regard the OCI’s 2 August
2013 letter as containing seven separate decisions would not be logical.


Mr Thomas’ case

As is his practice, Mr Thomas produced substantial written submissions together with
a bundle of exhibits in support of his application. He produced four separate

4 Review No.: 1860090

submission documents, addressing four of the specified complaints. He declined to
provide me with remaining written submissions on the other three issues because, he
believed, I had not allowed him sufficient time to address those matters.

I have considered Mr Thomas’ written submissions in full. I do not intend to summarise
them in this decision.

Mr Thomas’ principal submission was that there were seven separate issues on which
he was entitled to a proper investigation and response from the OCI, something he
had not received to date.


ACC’s case

Mr Tui represented ACC. He spoke to written submissions. He submitted that six of
the issues raised by Mr Thomas were not a decision under the Code’. That was
because they concerned issues that arose before the introduction of the Code on 1
February 2003.

Concerning the seventh issue — the provision of information from ACC’s computer
systems — Mr Tui submitted that the OCI was correct in advising Mr Thomas that the
proper avenue for him to pursue that issue was with the Office of the Ombudsman.


Relevant law

The relevant law is set out in the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation

(Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights) Notice 2002.

Part 1 of the Code sets out the purpose, spirit and application of the Code. Part 2 sets
out the rights and obligations under the Code. Part 3 sets out the procedure for
lodging a complaint, dealing with a complaint, and making a decision.

The full text of these Parts can be accessed at www.legislation.qovt.nz.


Analysis

Mr Thomas has described his complaints as follows:

• Review hearing transcripts and recordings.

• Private mail interception and proper case management.

5 Review No.: 1860090

• Determine the degree of incapacity derived from the various injuries.

• Unauthorised file access and private mail interception and proper case
management.

• Complaints processing procedure.

• Allegations of working and and/or end of incapacity.

• INFORME and Chips programs.

In a letter dated 14 February 2013, the OCl explained to Mr Thomas that it could not
investigate issues that arose before the introduction of the Code on 1 February 2003.
tn later correspondence, the OCI explained to him that his request for information from
ACC’s computer programs was a matter that he should address with the Office of the
Ombudsman.

In the letter (the decision) dated 2 August 2013, the OCI repeated that earlier advice.

Mr Thomas’ complaints do not fall within the Code for the reasons the OCt set out in
the various letters to which I have referred. I will repeat those reasons, with other
reasons, here. They are:

1. Most of the issues relate to complaints Mr Thomas has before the enactment
of the Code on 1 February 2003.

2. The issue of disclosure of information is one properly to be addressed by the
Office of the Ombudsman.

3. The purpose of the Code in Part 1.2 includes this:
The
In summary, the purpose of this Code is to meet the reasonable
expectations of claimants about how ACC should deal with claimants.
This Code is not about cover, or the type and level of entitlements that
ACC is obligated to provide, as these continue to be prescribed by the
Act.

So, issues such as incapacity (which relates directly to the provision of
entitlements) are specifically excluded from the Code.

6 Review No.: 1860090

4. The provision of review hearing transcripts and records does not fall within the
Code. That is something to be addressed by FairWay Resolution and/or the
reviewers who have dealt with Mr Thomas’ applications for review.

5. The Code envisages a partnership between ACC and a claimant based on
mutual trust, respect, understanding and participation. Mr Thomas’ serial
correspondence with ACC well and truly detracts from the sort of partnership
the Code envisages.

6. ACC, I find, complied with its statutory responsibility to assess Mr Thomas’
complaints. It did so fully and fairly. The OCI’s conclusion that none of the
matters he raised fell within the ambit of the Code was correct.


Conclusion
I dismiss the application. I find that the many issues raised by Mr Thomas are not
ones that fall within the ambit of the Code. ACC’s letter dated 2 August 2013 advising
Mr Thomas that all of the issues he raised had been previously addressed and
therefore the OCI would not undertake a further investigation was correct.


Costs
Mr Thomas sought travel costs. I decline to award costs. I do not find that this
application was reasonably brought as the OCI had provided a full (and correct)
explanation as to why the matters Mr Thomas raised did not fall within the ambit of the
Code.


Mr J G Greene

Reviewer

Date: 23 December 2013
0

#8592 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:39 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 January 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

In order to direct our steps correctly we need to ensure that we are on a strong foundation. This means looking at the absolute basics of the whole saga. Please consider the following
.

The ACC have thought not to make good on their liabilities which have resulted in a continuous stream of avoidance tactics.
ACC have tried to promote the doctrine that if a person owns her own company they can create their own job and are therefore not incapacitated to earn no matter what their injuries are.
Douglas weal sought to take advantage of the ACC doctrine by registering a company so we could claim he was an earner despite the fact he would not engage in any actual work activities of any note.
Douglas weal offered himself as an ACC informant and ally like many others before him for financial gain.
ACC took advantage of Douglas weal arranging a search warrant immediately prior to my making submissions to the district court bringing down the ACC decision to cancel a seven figure claim.
All in all the Takapuna bomb plot is simply another diversionary tactic.
All manner of other people have jumped on the bandwagon together with the ACC to promote diversionary tactics.

BACK TO BASICS

The issue is whether or notACC can cancel a claim on the basis of assumptions made by their informants which in my case was the managers of companies I owned who alleged I was working as the manager rather than themselves. This is completely nonsense as it has been discovered that these managers were actively setting up their own company and gutting my company which they were paid to manage, one of them being an ex-ACC case manager.

The basics behind the saga is that the ACC wants to have unfettered discretion to determine whether or not a person can work using informant information to usurp the authority of the medical profession.

Take a choice folks. You want your friends, neighbours and relatives to be ACC informants to determine the level of your incapacity or do you want medical measurements to be relied upon from medical reports?



View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 January 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

Last year I made a number of complaints regarding missing information, wrong information and unlawful treatment of myself and my file. The complaints officer failed to investigate the matter but instead simply reiterated what those that were being complained it out wanted the complaints officer to say.
Each of my complaints were separately made and resulted in separate review hearing applications.
The ACC orchestrated seven review hearing applications amalgamated into one review hearing number to be heard all within one hour.
I presented myself for the 7 separate review hearing applications with 7 different written submissions.
The reviewer attempted to mush the seven different issues together without any success as it was not physically possible for him to do so.
I started presenting my submissions until the reviewer told me to stop because the time ran out. This means only for submissions were made.
The following is the reviewers decision on the seven separate review hearing applications.
I would be interested to discuss the merits of the reviewers response and decision and whether or not such behaviour can be tolerated together with suggestions as to what I do about it.


Review No: 1860090 Claim No: 91124063

Application for Review

by

Alan Thomas
A Decision made under the
Accident Compensation Act 2001
(the Act)
Held in Auckland
Date of hearing 28 November 2013
Reviewer Mr J G Greene

Present Mr Thomas
Mr Tui, counsel for ACC

Issue Did ACC’s Complaints Investigator correctly address Mr
Thomas’ complaint under the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights?

Decision

I dismiss the application.
Costs No costs awarded.
Follow-up action None required.

2 Review No.: 1860090

DECISION
(Made under Part 5 of the Act)

Issue

On 2 August 2013, ACC’s Complaints Investigator wrote to Mr Thomas responding to
seven issues he raised by way of written complaints in letters dated 24 and 28 June
2013. ACC said that six of the issues raised concerned issues that arose before the
enactment of the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights (the Code). ACC said that the
remaining issue — the disclosure of information under the Official Information Act —
was an issue for Mr Thomas to pursue with the Office of the Ombudsman.

The issue is whether ACC’s Complaints Investigator properly addressed Mr Thomas’
complaint issues.


Outcome
I dismiss the application. I accept the submissions by ACC’s counsel, Mr Tui that six of
the matters raised by Mr Thomas do not fall within the ambit of the Code since they
relate to matters that occurred before the enactment of the Code. Concerning the
request for disclosure of information from ACC’s computer systems, the Complaints
Investigator correctly advised Mr Thomas that his complaint should be addressed to
the Office of the Ombudsman.


Reasons for my decision

Relevant background

Mr Thomas has cover for injuries, including a right wrist injury, the result of an
accident on 27 December 1989.

Previously, he has received entitlements from ACC, including weekly compensation.
Mr Thomas’ claim is managed by ACC through its Remote Claims Unit. Over the
years, Mr Thomas has had a fraught relationship with ACC. He has lodged hundreds
of applications for review and he has also been involved in litigation concerning
aspects of his ACC claim in the District Court and High Court.


3 Review No.: 1860090

Complaint issues

In January 2013, Mr Thomas lodged 12 complaints with the Office of the Complaints
Investigator (OCI). The OCI responded to those issues on 14 February 2013, noting
that many of the issues Mr Thomas raised concerned historical issues arising out of
his litigation, and consent issues. Separately, the OCI addressed Mr Thomas’ request
for copies of documents from ACC’s computer data base.


The June 2013 complaints

In letters dated 24 and 28 June 2013, Mr Thomas lodged seven complaints with the

OCI. Six of the issues were ones already dealt with by the OCI in the 14 February

2013 letter. The seventh complaint concerned the provision of information from ACC’s

computer system.

On 2 August 2013, the OCI issued a decision on the seven complaint issues raised by
Mr Thomas. The OCI said that six of the issues raised were historical matters that did
not fall within the Code. On the seventh issue — the disclosure of information — the OCI
advised Mr Thomas that he could pursue his concern with the Office of the
Ombudsman.

Mr Thomas lodged seven separate applications for review. I held a review hearing in
Auckland on 28 November 2013.


The review hearing

Procedural note

Mr Thomas argued that there were seven separate issues and therefore seven
separate decisions contained within ACC’s 2 August 2013 letter. I do not accept that
submission. Frequently, there are several issues raised by complaint and addressed
under the Code. Though there are several issues, there are not necessarily separate
reviewable decisions. And, for reasons I will explain later, to regard the OCI’s 2 August
2013 letter as containing seven separate decisions would not be logical.


Mr Thomas’ case

As is his practice, Mr Thomas produced substantial written submissions together with
a bundle of exhibits in support of his application. He produced four separate

4 Review No.: 1860090

submission documents, addressing four of the specified complaints. He declined to
provide me with remaining written submissions on the other three issues because, he
believed, I had not allowed him sufficient time to address those matters.

I have considered Mr Thomas’ written submissions in full. I do not intend to summarise
them in this decision.

Mr Thomas’ principal submission was that there were seven separate issues on which
he was entitled to a proper investigation and response from the OCI, something he
had not received to date.


ACC’s case

Mr Tui represented ACC. He spoke to written submissions. He submitted that six of
the issues raised by Mr Thomas were not a decision under the Code’. That was
because they concerned issues that arose before the introduction of the Code on 1
February 2003.

Concerning the seventh issue — the provision of information from ACC’s computer
systems — Mr Tui submitted that the OCI was correct in advising Mr Thomas that the
proper avenue for him to pursue that issue was with the Office of the Ombudsman.


Relevant law

The relevant law is set out in the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation

(Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights) Notice 2002.

Part 1 of the Code sets out the purpose, spirit and application of the Code. Part 2 sets
out the rights and obligations under the Code. Part 3 sets out the procedure for
lodging a complaint, dealing with a complaint, and making a decision.

The full text of these Parts can be accessed at www.legislation.qovt.nz.


Analysis

Mr Thomas has described his complaints as follows:

• Review hearing transcripts and recordings.

• Private mail interception and proper case management.

5 Review No.: 1860090

• Determine the degree of incapacity derived from the various injuries.

• Unauthorised file access and private mail interception and proper case
management.

• Complaints processing procedure.

• Allegations of working and and/or end of incapacity.

• INFORME and Chips programs.

In a letter dated 14 February 2013, the OCl explained to Mr Thomas that it could not
investigate issues that arose before the introduction of the Code on 1 February 2003.
tn later correspondence, the OCI explained to him that his request for information from
ACC’s computer programs was a matter that he should address with the Office of the
Ombudsman.

In the letter (the decision) dated 2 August 2013, the OCI repeated that earlier advice.

Mr Thomas’ complaints do not fall within the Code for the reasons the OCt set out in
the various letters to which I have referred. I will repeat those reasons, with other
reasons, here. They are:

1. Most of the issues relate to complaints Mr Thomas has before the enactment
of the Code on 1 February 2003.

2. The issue of disclosure of information is one properly to be addressed by the
Office of the Ombudsman.

3. The purpose of the Code in Part 1.2 includes this:
The
In summary, the purpose of this Code is to meet the reasonable
expectations of claimants about how ACC should deal with claimants.
This Code is not about cover, or the type and level of entitlements that
ACC is obligated to provide, as these continue to be prescribed by the
Act.

So, issues such as incapacity (which relates directly to the provision of
entitlements) are specifically excluded from the Code.

6 Review No.: 1860090

4. The provision of review hearing transcripts and records does not fall within the
Code. That is something to be addressed by FairWay Resolution and/or the
reviewers who have dealt with Mr Thomas’ applications for review.

5. The Code envisages a partnership between ACC and a claimant based on
mutual trust, respect, understanding and participation. Mr Thomas’ serial
correspondence with ACC well and truly detracts from the sort of partnership
the Code envisages.

6. ACC, I find, complied with its statutory responsibility to assess Mr Thomas’
complaints. It did so fully and fairly. The OCI’s conclusion that none of the
matters he raised fell within the ambit of the Code was correct.


Conclusion
I dismiss the application. I find that the many issues raised by Mr Thomas are not
ones that fall within the ambit of the Code. ACC’s letter dated 2 August 2013 advising
Mr Thomas that all of the issues he raised had been previously addressed and
therefore the OCI would not undertake a further investigation was correct.


Costs
Mr Thomas sought travel costs. I decline to award costs. I do not find that this
application was reasonably brought as the OCI had provided a full (and correct)
explanation as to why the matters Mr Thomas raised did not fall within the ambit of the
Code.


Mr J G Greene

Reviewer

Date: 23 December 2013


Mr Thomas, Do you deny breaching your Bail Conditions and communicating with David Butler?

View PostDavid Butler, on 14 January 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

a pm to FRAN VAN HELMOND you have there fukhed
alan was a side issue with me on other separate matters in hand -hed been arrested at that time with miller and weals evidence to achieve the arrest,
the pm was directly to fran who was naming and publishing personal info about members-me being one of them


franny boy was rather pissed about eric so he tried exactly what hes doing now-and failed-as hes failing nowPosted Image
pp
for you fukhed
at that time i had never gone thru ALL the thousands of documents provided to me by weal
That occurred later during 2010 when who behold-what do we have here by weal
all on then fukhed-weal had shot himself in the foot
all still sitting ''UNOPENED AS RECEIVED ''in the main server so i had them all downloaded by the legals first so there be NO mistaking or being said as altered documents-and then I went thru them one by one
the tale of bullshit then promptly unfolded before my eyes and alan was informed.
The wealyman hed told me hed cleaned out his data base as he knew if it went wrong hed be looked into -after his first lie to the Police re his data base info was made to the police ,he had to hurry home and hide it al away BUT he NEVER thought FOR A MINUTE EVERYTHING hed sent out would be sitting with me and Telecomhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gifhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif
Filing - book keeping etc in computer land just aint me at all so i had the LOThttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

In respect to the PM content that was sent to Fran Van HELMOND at 2.21pm on the 18th September 2008
Re the same issues and also Thomas-and the PLOT =At PRECISELY 2.16pm ON THE 18TH Fran was on the telfeone with Douglas WEAL being advised AGAIN to bugger off out of the promoting the takapuna plot issues in public as it would bring the police investigation at his door and WEAL just never wanted that to happen at all-Just like the OTHER orders weal gave to fran to shut up and stay away
seems Frans an idiot and cant help himself from bring the Police FINALLY to his door for questioning about the TAKAPUN BOMB PLOT
REMEMBER THAT CALL franny on de 18th from WEALYMAN?-Youll be asked about it cort so get recalling things mate-keep them correct to as the documents here to show any LIES you may decide to tell.
All nicely recorded documented by weal and of course as he did-he sent me ''ALL''the daily news s it transpiredhttp://accforum.org/...fault/laugh.gif

Have a nice day fukhedhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif


Re: "alan was a side issue with me on other separate matters in hand -hed been arrested at that time with miller and weals evidence to achieve the arrest,
the pm was directly to fran who was naming and publishing personal info about members-me being one of them"

Yes Mr Butler, you had to get get of your name off this website because Alan Thomas was in contact with you and knew very well that the member using the name/moniker snoopy and hardwired was namely Mr David Butler!

And as Redfox has mentioned in his above post, you deleted all/most of your posts from this forum and Alan Thomas removed all the posts in this thread that may have caused you two problems!

I hope the Police now do revisit your case Mr Thomas as it seems you were communicating with forum members at that time which was against your bail conditions.

Thanks for confirming that Mr Butler.
1

#8593 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 14 January 2014 - 12:11 PM

Are we right or are we wrong Mr Thomas?
0

#8594 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 January 2014 - 12:32 PM

View PostBLURB, on 14 January 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Are we right or are we wrong Mr Thomas?


Are you trying to help the ACC prevent me from challenging ACC decision by redirecting my attention to your constant babble?
0

#8595 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 14 January 2014 - 01:10 PM

View PostBLURB, on 14 January 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Are we right or are we wrong Mr Thomas?


WRONG as per usual from the accforums biggest LIAR BLURB -aka Fran Van Helmond [ next to the second biggest bullshit artist MILLER]Posted Image

Davehttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif
0

#8596 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 14 January 2014 - 01:49 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 14 January 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

WRONG as per usual from the accforums biggest LIAR BLURB -aka Fran Van Helmond [ next to the second biggest bullshit artist MILLER]Posted Image

Davehttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif


We know that we are correct so we'll let the Police, then the Judge decide David Butler!

Cheers.
0

#8597 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 January 2014 - 02:45 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 14 January 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

WRONG as per usual from the accforums biggest LIAR BLURB -aka Fran Van Helmond [ next to the second biggest bullshit artist MILLER]Posted Image

Davehttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif


But the biggest is still Weal
1

#8598 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 January 2014 - 02:46 PM

View PostBLURB, on 14 January 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

We know that we are correct so we'll let the Police, then the Judge decide David Butler!

Cheers.


Yes lets get everything back in court where it belongs.
1

#8599 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 14 January 2014 - 03:38 PM

View PostBLURB, on 14 January 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

We know that we are correct so we'll let the Police, then the Judge decide David Butler!

Cheers.


YOU ARE FULL OF Shit franny boy
As ya DONT HAVE nor are you likely ti ever have ANY DOCUMENTATION /RECORDINGS ETC SUCH AS I AM IN POSSESSION
My documents WIN THE DAY

REMEMBER THAT as ya walk out the court down the stairs on ya way t de clinkyPosted Imagehttp://accforum.org/...ault/tongue.gif

Dave
PP
Hows ya case against laudalaughdaminute as the dutch fucktard going frannyhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif
Thats one ya WILL lose BIG TIME
5

#8600 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 14 January 2014 - 04:46 PM

I made an application for cover in 1993. ACC said that injury was consequential to my 1989 injury so refused an additional cover number reassuringly that all was well.
No reference has been made to my brain injury ever since accept recently when the ACC said I had no cover for the brain injury but submitted a medical report to an independence allowance assessor anyway in order to redistribute my disability amongst non-claim injuries.

Another claim for cover was submitted for processing at the suggestion of the reviewer. The ACC declined cover but then on the day of the review hearing of that decision rescinded their decision. The ACC did not make another decision as promised to the reviewer for two years.

ACC refused cover on the basis that they claimed not to have a ACC 167 consent form.

As can be seen by the attached review hearing decision the reviewer found in the ACC favour to the effect that the ACC could refuse cover if it did not have an ACC 167 consent form.

1. Putting aside the controversy concerning ACC 167 consent forms I had already provided the ACC with this additional consent.
2. The ACC 167 consent form only come subsequent to a claim being accepted and as such is irrelevant to the granting of cover.

The review hearing application was in regards to the enforcement of a deemed decision. The reviewers decision is in relation to the ACC submission, not my review hearing application. The reviewer refused to allow me to use a recording device and then proceeded to misquote me in his decision to the exact opposite of what I said. I don't think the reviewer is stupid.

What are the thoughts and suggested remedies of those who read this forum?



Review No: 2058086 Claim No: 10015072974

Application for Review

by

Alan Thomas
A Decision made under the
Accident Compensation Act 2001
(the Act)
Held in Auckland
Date of hearing 28 November 2013
Reviewer Mr J G Greene

Present Mr Thomas
Mr Tui, counsel for ACC

Issue Did ACC correctly decline Mr Thomas’ claim for a brain injury
suffered in August 1993?


Decision
I dismiss the application.
Costs No costs awarded.
Follow-up action None required.

2 Review No.: 2058086


DECISION
(Made under Part 5 of the Act)


Issue
On 13 August 2013, ACC wrote to Mr Thomas and told him it had not approved cover
for an intra-cranial injury, consequential to treatment. ACC said it was unable to
approve the claim because it did not have enough information to determine cover.
Was that decision correct?


Outcome
I dismiss the application. ACC has reasonably asked Mr Thomas to provide it with a
specific and current consent for the collection of information. He has declined to do so.
Without that consent, ACC has been unable to obtain sufficient information to decide
whether Mr Thomas is eligible for cover.


Reasons for my decision

Relevant background

In February 2011, Mr Thomas lodged a claim with ACC for a brain injury suffered in
August 1993. Mr Thomas underwent an angiogram which caused a left parietal infarct.


Consent issues

ACC wrote to Mr Thomas on 25 February 2011. It asked him to sign and return a
consent form so that ACC could investigate his claim. That form is called an ACC167
form.

Mr Thomas advised ACC that his consent on earlier ACC claims could be taken as a
‘global consent’. Despite further correspondence from ACC, Mr Thomas did not sign
and return the ACC167 consent form.

3 Review No.: 2058086

ACC declines cover

On 25 March 2011, ACC wrote to Mr Thomas. It declined his claim because, it said,
the information he had supplied did not establish cover.

Mr Thomas applied to review ACC’s decision. He then provided further information, a
radiological report from Greenlane Hospital dated 11 August 1993. As a result, ACC
revised its 25 March 2011 decision in order to investigate the claim further.


The first review hearing

Reviewer, Mr Walker, held a review hearing on 15 July 2011. He declined jurisdiction
since ACC had revoked its earlier decision declining cover. Mr Walker also addressed
the issue of whether Mr Thomas was eligible for a deemed decision on cover. He
found that ACC had met the relevant time frame for making a decision since Mr
Thomas’ claim was a complicated claim’ as referred to in section 57 of the Act.

Still, Mr Thomas did not sign and return the ACC167 consent form. ACC wrote to him
again on 30 July 2013 enclosing a new consent form. ACC asked him to sign and
return it by 13 August 2013; otherwise it would issue a decision on the available
information.

Because Mr Thomas did not return the signed consent form, ACC issued the decision
that is the subject of this review on 13 August 2013.

Mr Thomas completed an application for review which ACC received on 23 October
2013. I held a review hearing in Auckland on 28 November 2013.


The review hearing

Mr Thomas’ case

Mr Thomas provided 23 pages of written submissions together with exhibits. He
addressed the issue of whether he was eligible for cover and submitted that he in fact
had a deemed decision on cover.

Mr Thomas said that his consent to ACC was contained in his application for cover.
He said he had given ACC a written assurance that his consent remained valid. He
submitted that ACC’s letter revoking its 25 March 2011 decision should be set aside.

4 Review No.: 2058086





He therefore sought confirmation of cover under section 58 of the Act since ACC had
not complied with the statutory time frames for making a cover decision.


ACC’s case

Mr Tui spoke to written submissions. His main points were:

• ACC was required to properly investigate Mr Thomas’ claim. That meant
that it had to obtain hospital notes concerning the treatment he
underwent in 1993.

• Mr Thomas had refused to provide a signed consent form. He relied on
his confusing and ambiguous correspondence with ACC over the years.

• The ‘ball was in Mr Thomas’ court’ to provide the consent. While ACC
had formerly declined cover, it would investigate the claim further once
Mr Thomas had provided proper consent for it to do so.


Relevant law

The relevant law is set out in the following section[s] of the Accident Compensation

Act 2001:

• Section 55 — Responsibilities of claimant to assist in establishment of
cover and entitlements.

The full text of this section can be accessed at www.legislation.ciovt.nz.


Analysis

Mr Thomas’ principal submission was that he was eligible for a deemed decision on
cover. However, he is not eligible for a deemed decision.


Why there is no deemed decision


Reviewer, Mr Walker, addressed the issue of a deemed decision in his 12 August
2011 review decision. He said this:

5 Review No.: 2058086





Mr Thomas’ claim, lodged in February 2011, relates to an event that occurred in
1993. Because there is a delay of more than one year in lodging the claim, I find it
is a complicated claim under section 57 of the Act [section 57(1)(d)]. It follows that
there is no deemed decision in Mr Thomas’ favour as ACC met the relevant time
frame before issuing a decision.




After ACC initially declined Mr Thomas’ claim on 25 March 2011, it revoked the
decision and continued its investigation. However, that did not restart the clock’ in
terms of the statutory time frames for making a cover decision. Therefore, I do not
accept Mr Thomas’ submission that he is now eligible for a deemed decision on cover.


The consent issue

Mr Thomas’ case is that he has provided consent for ACC to investigate his claim
contained in the claim form, in his consent given on other ACC claims, and in his letter
dated 25 February 2011. The issue is whether those consents were sufficient for ACC
to continue to investigate his claim for a brain injury in 1993.

I find that ACC was prudent, and acting within the bounds of the statute, by requiring
Mr Thomas to complete a specific consent contained in the ACC 167 consent form.

Mr Thomas is a person who has a history of years of conflict and litigation with ACC.
He has lodged hundreds of applications for review and he has lodged District Court
and High Court appeals concerning ACC entitlement issues. His claim is managed by
ACC’s Remote Claims Unit. Therefore, ACC, objectively, had good reason to be
careful and thorough in the way it investigated Mr Thomas’ claim. Its request for a
specific, updated consent was objectively reasonable.

If Mr Thomas wishes ACC to investigate his claim for a brain injury beyond what it has
been able to do, he simply need sign the ACC 167 consent form. But, until he does so,
I find that ACC properly declined his claim because the information it obtained was
necessarily limited. By not providing ACC with an updated consent, Mr Thomas
effectively shut down ACC’s ability to investigate the claim further.


Conclusion

I dismiss the application. I find that ACC correctly declined Mr Thomas’ claim for cover
for a brain injury.

6 Review No.: 2058086

Costs
Mr Thomas sought travel costs. I do not find that the application was reasonably
brought. Had Mr Thomas provided ACC with an updated consent, there would have
been no need for a review hearing.


Mr J G Greene
Reviewer

Date: 23 December 2013


Appeal Rights
All parties have the right of appeal to the District Court. For further particulars, please
see the accompanying letter.
6

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 428
  • 429
  • 430
  • 431
  • 432
  • 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