ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 465
  • 466
  • 467
  • 468
  • 469
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#9321 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:01 PM

Mini for that period he was a GST refund on tens of thousands of dollars

What is the basis for your imagining everything was not absolutely and completely kosher?

ACC utilised a court of law to require IRD make disclosure to the ACC which they did and reassured the ACC that everything was above board.

The ACC withheld the information they acquired from the IRD from the criminal Court which I believe is a crime in itself in as much as ACC staff knowingly failed to disclose relevant information in a Criminal trial.

Can I have a whiskey brand to my liking?
1

#9322 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 23 February 2014 - 08:48 PM

View PostMINI, on 23 February 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

He hurt his wrist under the 1992 Act and he had an operation that wasnt good enough so he says, therefore he would have had to sign this document.

I come under the 1982 act as well but it is the date you become incapacitated that matters. Do you know what date he stoppedn work for his hernia?

Mini



INFO from you and court files

11th April 1990 erc ceased re the Hernia
you went to work 8th jUNE and 13th July ya got de sackSeptember 1990 you were adjudged Bankrupt alan
September 1990 You placed a claim for erc with the acc for an accident that happened December 1989.
You have STATED to acc and the Criminal courts and me and others that you were sailing 3 miles out to sea in a storm of some 60 plus knots you fell overboard got dragged along -Miraculously got back on board where you grounded-versions of hard running aground in a raging storm gently beaching

Now then WHY
WOULD YOU TELL ANOTHER COURT [read post #9428 link to thomas v acc [see item 141] re ''HECTOR'' the yacht Posted Image]YOU HAD BEEN TOOTLING ROUND FOR A WEEK ON THE YACHT SAILING IT ALL BY YOURSELF -VERY easy you said ''SEDATE AND RELAXING'' WITH A F'KEN HERIAN OF ALL THINGS-AND YOU MOVED IT NEARER THE PAN FLOW WAS GOING TO COME IN -THOUGHT Y A SIAD IT WAS S THE FLOAT PLANE COULD USE THE JETTY AND THATS WHERE YOU HAD THE ACCIDENT


You are so full of bullshit ALAN'- YOU ARE REAL LUCKY THAT as you have alleged along with many others that i have been passing on info to acc
THAT I DIDNT DO THAT
Youd be fucked then mate
its quite tempting now
but ill leave ya to hang in ya own shite hole
one day someone with some intelligence will arrive in acc and see it is all there right on front of them
davey
2

#9323 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:21 PM

David all that you have imagined the ACC has already mentioned but agreed that your mode of thinking is simply ill-conceived.

Do you think for one moment that ACC with spend millions of dollars on private investigators and court cases without considering your mode of imagination. That is so arrogant

It surprises me that you should ignore the proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence in favour of your imagination. Particularly when you don't even have the ability to write properly then you expect others to believe you.
0

#9324 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 23 February 2014 - 10:03 PM

Thomas IN REPLY TO YOUR POST 9340 IN THE BLUE

I know you never went out the Marlborough Sounds which is known as the sounds surrounded by hills UNTIL you get to what is known to sailors as the -out to the Seas
You pottered around the inner harbour and down to the western end of the inlet ending where ya can walk over the hill to portage lodge and get pissed every nite
Page 8 inJudge Morris papers says precisely this

quote=The wind lifted the sail up and the wind pushed me over
I was hanging on to the rope with my right hand for my for dear life
i was on my own three miles out to sea in a storm 50/60 knots wind
you informed the acc of that lot -Advice of injury form i think it is called.ALAN.

note for ya alan-i have the official 1989 -PICTON THRU TO COOK STRAIT weather stations data here right now



so above via morris de judge are=YOUR WORDs YOUR ACC FORM DATA ALAN
a lot different than what youve told others told this froum dont go deleting that now ill ya as i already have the thread page by page uplifted by legals .then yu astoundingly tell the courts pages 52 /52 of transcript evidence on 18th June in another court [link to that courts news in prior post of mine]you were toottling round for a week sedately caly serenly no problems and you had an accident whilst moving the boat to where the flow pan was on its way in.
thought ya moved it fr the float plane alan?
thought ya were three miles out to sea in a storm
maybe you were in waitamata and were pissed and fell overboard
maybe you tell fuken lies that many you forgotten what youve said
and your in here as a expert on acc law and criminal courts laws
and your hard done by'=ya lucky no one else has pickde you up on this earlier or ya been in de clink for a bloody lot longer id be thinking
the rest of your tale is just as bad and full of just as many if not more holes
and you had the gall to take me on especially TO TRY AND USE ME to tell porkys and keep most the facts away from the courts and only let you decide what was going to the judge
you were told
the lot was disclosed and available then to the prosecutor and the defense ,or nothing and that mate scared the crap out of ya didnt it which is why
you were not willing to use what was good for you - in case the rest was asked about and more a problems arose from de judge for ya.

YOU ASSHOLE acting like that
and mini thinks ive changed horses
erica was a easy lay to nail
weal his own self fool and worst mate to himself
miller just plain stupid and was used by weal= i know that mini.
thommo a cunning as a rat one -and time was needed there.
nah
i knew what was going on just wanted to see /confirm what else was in ya head thomas
ya showed that now out here alan
wonder how fran reads all this -
hes made some cock ups of libels slanders to sort out real fast


dave
0

#9325 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 23 February 2014 - 10:07 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 23 February 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

David all that you have imagined the ACC has already mentioned but agreed that your mode of thinking is simply ill-conceived.
Where,d dat all be then alan
in your imagination?

Do you think for one moment that ACC with spend millions of dollars on private investigators and court cases without considering your mode of imagination. That is so arrogant
SEEMS THEY HAVNT LUCKY FOR YOU

It surprises me that you should ignore the proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence where is it all re the courts on the removal of doubt alan.
I HAVE Not seen any yet from Them mate
your version -they just not good enough for rme
YOU NEVER gave a thing to back up de boat accident Alan apart from it appears a number of different versions of how where it happened
now even the i pod team could figure out that bollocks in that tale ,

in favour of your imagination.

Particularly when you don't even have the ability to write properly then you expect others to believe you.
WELL ALAN ME OLD MATE
Things just dont work that well in de head department no more sInce de accidents-TIMES ITS COOL BUT TIMES ITS NOT
but at LEAST I Have cover of a legitimate claim and cover for a head injury/s/s
UNLIKE YOU



cHUF ME OF ALL YA LIKE Alan
You know full well i have issue with writing so go fu ya self
i write as i do some time good times be not good
dont start on me again as ya been doing off line for five years trying to wear me down day after day to tell lies for you
i rely on what i see read and whats here on a piece of documented paper
You now trying to say the courts ,everyone of them tell lies and only you tell the truth
You be the next god almighty then???



0

#9326 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 February 2014 - 07:34 AM

View Postgreg, on 23 February 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

1990 WHEN you were so injured According to you and the info you supplied to acc and on ya medial certification to receive the ERC money you could not be an engineer
whats up dere doc??
If you were going to be an engineer in 1990 -After your wrist injury prevented you from allegedly being one -why not say so Alan??
intent to mislead for fraud or just Thomas thinking everyone else is dumb and wont see what hes was actually doing
That failed alan like the rest of ya trickery
did you reinjure the very older wrist injury on the boat hector,or did you claim you reinjured the boat wrist injury when you finally claimed for an accident after you were removed from erc as to the hernia,
2nd option would be a re-injury of a reinjury of an very old injury WHICH took many months to see a doctor for and then a bloody long time to actually claim to acc -[after Hector grounded alan in the high three miles out to sea in a raging 60 knott storm when in fact you were still sailing within the actual confines of the Marlborough Sounds which mate =AINT 3 MILES OUT TO SEA.
try this year according to IRD,



It would appear yet again my posts are being edited without my permission.
I suggest everyone from now on copy their post as original.
This one so obvious as I don't post in such poor spelling as I use spell check.
This is not the first time as others also have had posts hacked.

David Butler


Advanced Member
PipPipPip

Add as Friend
PM this member

Group:

Members


Posts:

1,862


Joined:

25-January 10



Posted Yesterday, 07:36 PM

Very much of a contrary look into the bollocks that THOMAS says
take ya time and peruse
you will see how thomas omits certain things in here and then you will know why


http://www.nzlii.org...CC/2010/61.html
very similar but wrong poster.
0

#9327 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 24 February 2014 - 08:16 AM

http://www.nzlii.org...CC/2010/61.html

you have read this greg?
quite different to the thomas doctrine he tries to present out here
dave
0

#9328 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 February 2014 - 09:50 AM

ACC legislation requires a claimant to be an earner when suffering an accident resulting in an injury and incapacity to be an earner in that occupation.
I met all of that criteria to the ACC satisfaction.

In 1997 ACC and it something over and above the legislation when cancelling my entire claim based on undefined work at undefined times for it undefined durations with acknowledged no earnings. There is no category in legislation to allow the ACC to cancel the claim at all in any event. This means the ACC decision letter was defective which is pretty well the end of the ACC story.

I portray what has happened is the judge has taken it upon himself to become embroiled in a lot of irrelevancies and emotional rhetoric having nothing to do with legislated criteria which is the driving factor to the ACC liability to fund reconstructive surgery in order that I may return to my preinjury occupation.

As the ACC 18 August 1997 decision was defective it should have been revoked.

If the ACC felt that it had a different reason to the 18 August 1997 decision to cancel the claim such as they thought I was no longer incapacitated under s37A then they would have to form a new decision to that effect of which I would then be entitled to a review hearing whereby the ACC would have to show that they have carried out the assessment procedure as prescribed by s37A which necessitates the ACC challenging the s37 medical certificate (ACC 18) of which by necessity would have to rely upon superior medical evidence if it wanted to claim information that the ACC 18 what wrongAnd that I could return to my preinjury occupation. Naturally be medical assessor the ACC would be required to rely on would need to know the individual work task activity preinjury. As ACC did not know what I did then they would not have been able to obtain any comparative information and therefore could not have had any information which is proof in itself the ACC never made an end of incapacity decision.

At this late stage ACC could conceivably gather the relevant information in order to make a new decision however that decision would start from the day they make a decision, the present. This means that my earnings compensation from the present back to the previous decision would need to be reinstated together with interest.
0

#9329 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:45 AM

claim canceled re the fraud investigation
investigation gathered inof re a possible INTENT TO DEFRAUD via the use of FALSE information supplied by you
claim over till you saw the judge
the judge was NOT interested nor did he use any medical evidence
he looked that whether there was an intent to defraud or there wasnt
HE FOUND THERE WAS AN INTENT TO DEFRAUD AND OF TO DE CLINKY YA WENT
ALL OVER ROVER TIME THEN ALAN

the fraud case decided you were a fraud
what the f has the acc legislation to do with this if you intently defrauded them showing you had an ability that you hid
clutching at straws alan and if they look at your original hector injury they be finding a LOT wrong there as misleading as well-[which aint had to find


dave
0

#9330 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 February 2014 - 11:09 AM

Does legislation and that the ACC to cancel a claim and entitlements because of fraud?

The answer is no



A claimant who for example is a spray painter who becomes chemically injured and suffers from brain damage gaining a valid claim because he cannot work in his pre-injury occupation is entitled to cover and entitlements.
Should that brain damaged injured spray painter, while still collecting ERC, decide to disregard his doctors advice that is not safe for him to carry out various work task activities commit fraud by taking a job as a truck driver and work full-time while being paid for that full-time work and therefore commit fraud by not informing the ACC to entitle the ACC to calculate abatement of earnings then that is obviously one issue.

However does working in total disregard of the doctors instructions and information on the medical certificates mean that the ACC can cancel the claim?

Does it mean that the ACC is able to say the claimant is not injured, the doctor was wrong and is therefore safe to work without arranging for the claimant to be reassessed by what the ACC viewed to be a more competent or reliable medical professional who in turn relies upon work task activity information from a relevant the qualified and experienced occupational professional?

Or

Is the ACC permitted to go ahead and make what it used to be a "commonsense" decision and cancelled the claim on the basis that they think they are qualified by way of their commonsense to usurp the authority of the Doctor?

Or

Is the ACC applies to maintain the safety of the general public and the claimant by seeking to have the spray-painted turn driver stopped from driving until he was medically cleared to do so?



These questions have already been answered by the courts on numerous occasions and the legal principles apply globally.

Those who are arguing a point of view should focused their attention on the issues at hand rather than a lot of emotional argy-bargy nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with ACC legislation. I guess that's what happens when people with flaming torches and pitchforks go on a rampage. It is a mystery to me how such people on the rampage attacking a single claimant consider that they are not part of a conspiracy.
0

#9331 User is offline   netcoachnz 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3454
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 24 February 2014 - 02:42 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 23 February 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

As you do not have any knowledge of the facts you are therefore not in a position to make an accusation that I am a liar.

What you are doing is cyber bullying in its purest form.
It is probably time that we considered excluding cyber bullies from membership on this site.
What do other members think?


Alan Thomas, you make this comment within the Rules Topic found in members only, Admin started this topic so should be keeping a watching brief as to suggestions.

The problem is who decides who is a cyber bully? Blurb's site acc-claimants dot info claims that the named forum members are bullies, trolls etc etc etc. Each individual post that is perceived to be bullying should be reported using *report post*.

How does Cyber Bully behaviour fit in with this sites founding principle of free speech?
1

#9332 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 February 2014 - 03:32 PM

View Postnetcoachnz, on 24 February 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

Alan Thomas, you make this comment within the Rules Topic found in members only, Admin started this topic so should be keeping a watching brief as to suggestions.

The problem is who decides who is a cyber bully? Blurb's site acc-claimants dot info claims that the named forum members are bullies, trolls etc etc etc. Each individual post that is perceived to be bullying should be reported using *report post*.

How does Cyber Bully behaviour fit in with this sites founding principle of free speech?


My comments are in context with this thread in the public arena as it relates to the ACC practice of applying upon complete lunatics and cyber bullies as there information providers to cancel claims as was the case described in this thread. What I am saying is that the ACC are relied upon these types of people as the third party information providers which is a subject that the public should be completely aware of. With regards to whether or not these types of people that the ACC rely upon should be permitted to be members of the site is pressed an issue that could be discussed in a private portion of the form. However as members of the public have observed the barrage of these cyber bully attacks within this thread it is not unreasonable that I make comment in response so as members of the public see that these issues are being properly considered.

Having said that how will it you propose to be protected from these bullies of which the ACC as their information providers?
1

#9333 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 February 2014 - 03:40 PM

Net coachnz

Freedom of speech Remains free but suffers the penalties imposed upon those using such freedom to commit crimes. The site does not condone the commissioning of a crime. Cyber bullying which includes defamation of character most certainly is a serious crime.
1

#9334 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 24 February 2014 - 04:15 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 March 2007 - 01:36 PM, said:

A number of people have been making inquiries into my case given that the ACC had claimed my case is one of the top five cases of this type.

The case is very simple. ACC thought I was working in companies I owned that were managed. They relied on such information as my car was parked in the company car park without regard for the fact that I lived on the company premises in a sectioned off portion of the top floor of a high-rise building across the road from the Sheraton hotel.

These are highlights of the critical features only.

I was self-employed while at the same time being employed with Trigon Packaging Systems Ltd pre injury. Mechanical design engineer/project manager.

June 1989 strain injury go on ACC
December 1986 broken wrist while on ACC waiting for strain injury surgery.

ACC accept claim for both injuries and liability for ERC etc 1990

1990-ongoing Business interests continue without my being directly involved. I continue to seek meaningful involvement with residual capacity in accordance with S18 while incapacity for my pre injury continues S37.

1991 ACC advised that as I am permanently incapacitated with no possibility of returning to my pre injury occupation that should I become directly involved in my business interests and generate earnings they would not bother with the first 25% of my pre injury occupation earnings that would abate thereafter. (presumably under S60 as I was told they would not fund the reconstructive surgery nor provide occupational rehabilitation into a new occupation)

1991 ACC cancel claim (ERC and wrist surgery) after private investigator investigation.

1992 I win review hearings for both ERC and surgery.

1992 business interests continue and expand with by investing into my girlfriend's company while I think I had had the soft tissue reconstructive surgery and would return to my pre injury occupation after recovery.

1992 ACC instructs surgeon to perform wrong surgery without my knowledge. Surgery turns out to the ill-conceived nonconsensual experimental surgery that failed causing additional harm. ACC had instructed the surgeon to perform a salvage procedure that would guarantee no possibility of pre injury occupation and still would not provide vocational rehabilitation confirming the ongoing nature of a S60 decision without notifying me of the decision. The decision maker was John Orange one month prior to the well-known King versus ACC case. Making decisions in favour of the ACC but not notifying them hoping that the new Act would hide the decision. It was again confirmed that I was not to have any help from ACC for rehabilitation and would therefore self rehabilitate at my own cost rather than watch TV for the rest of my life.

1993 girlfriend's company expands and we move into commercial premises to live. ACC notified of my commercial interests and also fund a six-week business course as I did not have any management qualification or experience and thought that I might be able to utilize residual capacity in some other work activities while waiting for my recovery.

1993 hand turns purple requiring medical procedure to investigate the reason. During the procedure and medical accident causes a stroke and brain damage.

1994 My de facto wife and I went to China to meet her family and for her to enhance her business.

1994 I register a medical patent with a surgeon friend which resulted in an invitation to America (the Mayo Clinic) and Canada (an international surgeons conference) the Mayo Clinic suggested that given my wrist condition I would not be able to work with them on this project that suggested that I seek out a Chinese hospital to do this research for me and by the time that has been carried out my wrist might be better.

1995 ACC decide to provide an individual rehabilitation plan.

1995 My de facto wife now tired of waiting for me to recover and the lack of my contribution to her business (now second-biggest immigration consultancy in NZ and Chinese magazine) decides to leave me but as I had invested into her company and was a shareholder which had crippling overheads of which I was liable for, she couldn't take the company with her. I purchased her shares for one dollar and appointed the most senior consultant to manage the company.

1996 An ex ACC case manager who had also been an immigration consultant came to the company looking for me offering herself as the company manager. The ACC case manager and then current manager co managed the company but as I was not directly involved with the company activities it was unknown to me that they had set up separate companies and were embezzling both clients and funds. When they were discovered by the office manager they were dismissed. I was told that they would be a bloodbath and there was. The ACC private investigation now became more apparent. As I was incapacitated to address this management problem WINZ became involved in selecting a replacement manager. After a quick investigation he discovered gross dishonesty and carried out the dismissal and reconstruction.

1996 While this was going on ACC were playing their cards close to the chest pretending to provide an independent rehabilitation plan that a course like many others were in a. ACC agree that the surgery was wrong and further treatment is needed and as such cannot rehabilitate into a new occupation under S51. At the same time ACC are wishing that I take up a new occupation and I refuse wanting the prescribed surgery so I can return to my original occupation but reminded the ACC of all the various alternative activities I had been exploring (18 separate Iideas registered into companies to protect intellectual property in accordance with 1993 business course. A significant number of discussions took place regarding a variety of persons from the time of my injury whereby each material times the nature of discussion and intent would of course have been very different as the circumstances were changing ranging from being told I would return to work very shortly through to I would never work in my pre injury occupation again followed by I haven't actually receive the prescribed surgery which I won in the review hearing but when I do have that surgery I should be able to return to my pre injury occupation.

1996 I go to China in the hope that the project might get underway whereby my wrist would not be needed as I would only be giving verbal direction. While in China I also explore a number of other ideas & a provisional agreement in regards to an Internet project for when the peoples republic of china eventually have access to the Internet regarding artificial intelligence product database. The project remains on hold.

1996 ACC request I make a business plan of at least one of these ideas as part of my vocational rehabilitation. The idea I had in mind was 0800 0900 artificial intelligence employment consulting database in conjunction with the Internet as I had experience with the automation of information in the design of computer-controlled packaging machinery whereby I could utilise residual know-how. I funded perhaps $20,000 into the development of a software program whereby when complete I would possibly have a work capacity function with the assistance of voice software. I took on a business partner who had the necessary business experience, restraint and funding this company. In less than six months the company became profitable without my involvement and the partner abandoned me and my investment to set up a competing company.

1997 ACC informed of the first business plan failure then required I produce another business plan. This also involved an Internet-based artificial intelligence database involving product selection on an international level. The business plan was produced and presented to the ACC business consultant was followed by a thread of suspension if I don't produce a business plan even though it had already been delivered.

1997 being unable to suspend my entitlements the ACC then wanted me to be interviewed by their private investigator. The private investigator wanted me to answer yes or no to his questions which of course was an attempt confirm the Corporation's hypothesis that I was working and earning in my companies. Rather than answer yes and no I made reference to the information the ACC already had on file. The private investigator frustrated terminated the interview.

18 August 1997 the Corporation cancelled all entitlements and the claim (total declinature) under S73 on the basis that they alleged to possess information that I was working this can only mean that the Corporation believed I was no longer incapacitated and could return to my pre injury occupation relying upon S37A that does not have a clear decision-making criteria rather than alleging a capacity in a new occupation under S51.

I immediately asked to appeal and they said they were refused to give me the appeal forms as they discover they did not have any information that I was working after all and would I mind if my ERC continued and I would hold the private investigator interview again 20 October. I attended the interview and the private investigator started writing down answers to his own questions without my speaking. Of the information he did ask for and did receive there was no information inquiring into war describing work task activities at any material time. He asked questions regarding company ownership, shareholding directorship, signing lease agreements and other liabilities that company managers never under any circumstances would be required to sign. These activities of what I was engaged in were what is called it is read you to use of a director which is described as being exempt from ACC calculations, something of course the private investigator did not know of a mighty would not have relied upon that type of information. As the investigators notes could not be read I could not sign an it asked for a transcript which I would be in design if it contained what I said. I never received a copy until some years later.

At the end of October my entitlements stopped without a decision letter. I telephone inquiry I was informed that the August decision had been reinstated so they would provide me with a Review Hearing form which I submitted my application.

When my ERC stopped I immediately transferred to an invalids benefit as WINZ agreed that I had no capacity to work in any occupation more than 15 hours per week. WINZ had also provided the manager to the business I owned and was familiar with my circumstance. WINZ disagreed with the ACC who had disregarded the information given to them regarding interests over the years including right up to the present.

I received 4 days notice of the Review Hearing whereby the four days with the between Christmas and New Year preventing any possibility of legal counsel. Although I have requested the so-called "work" information at the material times that the ACC relied upon the Corporation refused to provide information claiming that they had protection of the information under the Privacy Act. The ACC failed to provide any information thus preventing the possibility of an appeal. The ACC did not go to the Review Hearing but provided the reviewer with a fraud file, asking the reviewer not to show it to me! I stated to the reviewer that of the ACC have not provided any work information for which they had based their decision on by default I must win. He agreed. So the adjourned but did not reconvene. In the meantime I was posted a statement from the landlord together with the lease agreement and two other unsigned statements produced by the private investigator was also did not provide any information about any work at any material time.

1998 the reviewer did not make a proper decision but simply decided not to overturn the ACC's decision based on the probability that the Corporation had made a proper decision given that there was a fraud investigation.

I submitted an appeal to the reviewers decision in the ACC asked the registrar of the district court to delay may appeal rights indefinitely because they did not want to release the information they claim to have describing work. The ACC then issued to search warrants looking for the information. They took away five boxes of information. One box went to the Crown counsel and the rest they retained for 18 months were upon to boxes were returned. A substantial number of documents describing what I was actually going remains with the ACC 10 years later which continues to be the cause of the delay to my appeal. The Corporation likewise have not yet described work task activity at any material time. The type of work task activity must demonstrate a capacity to return to my pre injury occupation. The ACC have also changed my pre injury job title from mechanical design engineer/project manager to Chief Executive/Managing Director. The change in time was quite odd as pre injury I employed a manager who I funded through an MBA to run my company and when I was with trigon of course they had their own management structure while I got on with the business of being a rock surgeon.

1998-present legal aid has been provided whereupon the ACC still has failed to release either my warrant seized property or the reason for believing I can work on my pre injury occupation or specify with due particularity any other work at any material time thus demonstrating an attempt should the onus upon myself to disprove a negative.

1997-present this case is now New Zealand's long-standing case waiting for appeal.

1999 the seven-week criminal trial resulted in a conviction on the basis that the ACC have made a decision that I do not have ACC entitlements and therefore to apply for entitlement using a medical certificate is fraud. In regards to sentencing I asked for a calculation to demonstrate the liability so the ACC asked Dr Monash to produce a medical report that stated I had tricked the doctors and surgeons into providing medical certificates and that I had a capacity to return to my pre injury occupation. Dr Monash was not provided with any medical information nor did he carry out a clinical examination. Dr Emrys was funded by myself to do a standard assessment as to determine my capacity to return to my pre injury occupation which included a thoroughgoing over of the specialist medical reports, medical certificates, his own clinical examination and an examination of loss of paperwork describing my pre injury occupation. His report clearly states that I cannot return to my pre injury occupation and that I have not yet had my surgery that will enable a return. He went on to say that hypothetically I could work 30 hours per week in some other light activity that did not compromise my injury. This means I would have to have a light job that did not involve my right-hand and did not overtaxed is my brain injury of which I could do while taking the maximum dose of an opiate. This gives the ACC the opportunity to rehabilitate me perhaps.

2007 A new lawyer has become involved in good on an application for legal aid which was declined on the basis that the case has no merit. The appeal to the Review Hearing is set down for 26 March 2007. If the ACC do not release the work task activity at the material times and did not return the warrant seized items and while it does not get legal aid while I would only be able to present my medical condition and then resign so as my new lawyer does not get an adjournment he will not continue.

13 March 2007 I received a letter from WINZ dated 26 March 2007 suspending my invalids benefit.

Even though I was already suffering from PTSD from the original injury and another type of PTSD, which I do not wish to discuss resulting from 2000-2001, my distress level is now considerably increased. Thanks to the numerous kind folks who are provided food packages, photocopy paper and various other support.

Apparently the ACC were attempting to develop, and may have successfully developed, an entirely different form of exit strategy. In my case if they thought I was working and earning, without a capacity to work and earn in a sustainable way in either my pre injury occupation or a new occupation, they would have been better to calculate an abatement of earnings. The Corporation have never sought reparation nor calculated payment of earnings which appears to be a little odd given that Michael Spraggon had promised that they were attempting to make such calculations 2003.

As they have no information of either work or earning I can understand why they have not made a calculation. That being the case why hadn't I had my claim reinstated.



And as this is to deal with Alans problems then one must look at the legislation

As the ACC were applying the 1992 legislation and Alan was working to the legislation he made sure this section was being completed

64 RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLAIMANT
(1) Every person who claims for or is in receipt of any rehabilitation, compensation, grant, or allowance shall, when reasonably required to do so by the Corporation,
(a) Give to the Corporation the prescribed certificate of a registered health professional as to such matters, and containing such information, as the Corporation requires:
(B) Furnish to the Corporation such other relevant information as the Corporation requires:
© Authorise the Corporation to obtain medical and other records which are or may be relevant to the claim:
(d) Undergo examination, at the expense of the Corporation, by an appropriate registered health professional specified by the Corporation for the purpose:
(e) Undergo assessment of impairment, disability, or handicap at the expense of the Corporation:
(f) Undergo assessment of present and likely capabilities for the purposes of rehabilitation at the expense of the Corporation:
(g) Take action by way of rehabilitation in order to endeavour to terminate or reduce the extent of any impairment, disability, or handicap.
(2) Every claimant under this Act and every person who is receiving or has received any payment or rehabilitation under this Act shall, whenever required by the Corporation, give to the Corporation a statement in writing, and, if the Corporation so requires, as a statutory declaration or in a form supplied by the Corporation, with respect to such matters relating to the person's entitlement or continuing entitlement to any payment or rehabilitation under this Act as the Corporation specifies.

You should have been able to produce business plans on all of those companies which you were involved with.
0

#9335 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:25 PM

There was from memory a hernia claim before this . Thanz for remembering about what some people have previously
posted as a true account. as
AS David has shown , to operate a yacht safely in the location claimed with an abdominal injury and
now Doppel quotes the then ACC law backs up the Judge.
0

#9336 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:28 PM


doppelganger

You should have been able to produce business plans on all of those companies which you were involved with.

I did
and more
0

#9337 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:31 PM

View Postgreg, on 24 February 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

There was from memory a hernia claim before this . Thanz for remembering about what some people have previously
posted as a true account. as
AS David has shown , to operate a yacht safely in the location claimed with an abdominal injury and
now Doppel quotes the then ACC law backs up the Judge.


But I didn't opperate the yacht safely and had an accedent.

Sorry, what backs up the judge on what??
0

#9338 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:32 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 February 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

doppelganger

You should have been able to produce business plans on all of those companies which you were involved with.

I did
and more

This is the "muddy the waters '....MR Thomas uses this when he won't or can't
Posters please stay only on the thread , If you must reply please 'copy and paste' in a related thread .
THIS IS ABOUT .

"Allegations of working while incapacitated"

Some more truths may come out .
0

#9339 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:35 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 February 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

But I didn't opperate the yacht safely and had an accedent.

Sorry, what backs up the judge on what??

The ACC law at the time required"" Dopple got it right..."""
0

#9340 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 February 2014 - 06:29 PM

View Postgreg, on 24 February 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

The ACC law at the time required"" Dopple got it right..."""


???
What are you trying to say?
0

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 465
  • 466
  • 467
  • 468
  • 469
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

6 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users