ACCforum: Sec 103 Test Of Incapacity And The Ima - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Sec 103 Test Of Incapacity And The Ima

#1 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 29 April 2007 - 05:16 PM

Use of the IMA as a sec 103 test of incapacity for employment.

Unfortunately this very important issue was not argued adequately in this case and Judge Ongley departed from reality.

ACC is laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 29 April 2007 - 06:56 PM

Why did not Ms Ross have a pain specialist report , to me this is one of the more significant factors the Judge should have taken into account...
All to often the broader chronic pain effects both physically but in particular the mental is disregarded .

tony
0

#3 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 29 April 2007 - 07:04 PM

Agree with you lot and after reading the decision I am at loss as to the court allowing the ACC to use the IMA to determine the injury status. The IMA is solely for the purpose of supplying Vocational Rehabilitation and not for determining if there is am incapacity under section 103.

To me it looks like that the ACC are abusing the Act in what they are doing.
0

#4 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 29 April 2007 - 07:22 PM

The percentage of impairment from Chronic Pain is determined by a Psychiatrist .
Pain Specialist is for "real" pain.
One is in the head and the other is in the body (and/or head)
0

#5 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 30 April 2007 - 08:32 AM

Wotevah, the pain is real, the pain is incapacitating, and the source is injury,
The system is stacked in favour of ACC and it's NO cover policy and head shrinks and all, repeat ALL, arsessments are predetermined with producing a leagal/quasi-legal document to defraud the claimant under the pretext of rehabilitation.
Have a look at the history of your Ima ioa and irp and you will see that it provides little or no real rehab, ignores real doctors oppinions of incapacity, and consists of mainly arsessments that may or may not happen or are selectively used without taking into account detrimental(to ACC) reccommendations.
The whole thing is being Illegally used for pecuniary gain totally and reprehensively to minimise ACC's liability and The labour party is, and has supported this thievery with convoluted legislation that does nothing for fair and honest and everything to do with corrupt and illegal.
ACC needs to be destroyed root and chapter Death to ACC.
0

#6 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 30 April 2007 - 05:12 PM

Read the Armstrong report. The Judges aren't interested in competing medical reports after ACC makes its decision. The time to object to ACC's assessments, and provide your own expert evidence, is before ACC decides you are vocationally independent. This is why, when ACC tells you that you must attend their assessments, you must ask, in writing, for a copy of the assessment before ACC takes the next step (and refers the assessment to its next assessor). You should then read the assessment closely and, if you disagree with it, write to ACC requesting correction of personal information. You should provide copies of the assessment to your treating doctors and ask them for a brief report on whether the assessment takes account of the effects of your injuries (ie pain condition and any unmet treatment needs). Be prepared to pay for these but send ACC copies of the invoices, along with the reports themselves, and ask them to reimburse you. Tell ACC you want copies of all correspondence between it and your treating doctors. Instruct your treating doctors not to talk to ACC over the phone (no "briefings" allowed) and to send you copies of all correspondence from them to ACC. Put all these documents in your ACC files, clearly marked so that when you go to review your evidence trail resembles ACC's but from the other side of the coin. If ACC gets reports from your doctors before it exits you and doesn't refer them to its assessors, it commits an error of law (failure to take relevant matters into account and, possibly, breach of legitimate expectation by you that it will treat you fairly). The way is then clear for you to go all the way to the High Court, if you need to. ACC will then be on notice that it can't shaft you as easily as it does to most other claimants and may shift to easier targets. If it does buy a fight, your chances of winning are higher. It is very important you do not sign any IRP that says you agree rehabilitation is complete and it is OK for ACC to refer you to the vocational rehabilitation process. Wait for ACC to issue its deeming decision, lodge your application for review, and ask for mediation.
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 30 April 2007 - 05:52 PM

My approach to this problem is somewhat more aggressive in the early stage. So far every single intervention has been successful.

Writing to the ACC asking for independent occupational and medical assessments to be changed is not possible because the Act effectively forbids it. If the ACC were able to make changes or recommend changes the assessment would not be independent.

If you don't agree with an assessment you must take the matter up with the assessor. The steps are as follows:

When having an assessment present the assessor with an agreement that he must sign to the effect that the assessment must be approved before been passed onto a third-party.

If you don't agree with the assessment prevent the assessment from getting into the hands of the ACC or anybody else by writing to the assessor describing the error in the assessment explained that wrong information cannot be permitted to transfer to another party. The fact that the ACC commission and paid for the assessment is irrelevant.

Once you are satisfied that the assessment has been corrected then allow the assessment to go on to the next stage.

Remember assessments are not a matter of negotiation but a matter of fact. If the facts are wrong in accordance with a superior authority then it would be illegal for the assessor to pass wrong information on to another party as the information is for the pecuniary advantage of another and is more likely than not going to be used in a judicial forum making the documents subject to being a false document designed to knowingly likely to pervert the course of justice.

False information comes in the form of not including all of the injuries and incapacities of which you have cover. Claiming you have task competency for the things you have no qualification experience and skill whereby it would be fraudulent for you to offer yourself to such services in the workplace. An occupational report that does not list all of the expected to work task activities, qualification and experience for each of those task activities etc etc.

More often than not the ACC fail to notify claimants of their entitlement to "representation" at these assessments. The representative is not someone who hold your hand such as a relative or a friend. The explanation of what a representative is must be described by the ACC. The assessment can be delayed until such time as you have a suitably qualified representative available relevant to the particular assessment. That means if you were a tradesperson Toolmaker you might want someone along to your occupational assessment who knows what your work task competencies are so as the occupational assessor can determine which of those skills can be transferred to a different occupation. A representative who has blue hair or perhaps your mother would be quite a relevant and therefore not a representative.

If you plan to bring other information into the decision-making process that information must go to the assessors rather than the ACC itself as the ACC cannot judge matters of its own liability in the same way by judge cannot be a judge of a judge's own case. This is the reason why the legislation requires "independent" assessor's.

The easiest thing to do is to control the integrity of the assessors reports independently of the ACC. Part 5 of the ACC act does not cover the assessors themselves and they are subject to the crimes act if they produce a false document after being provided with superior information or made statements that they do not know to be true. For example if they said you were capable of doing a certain job when they had no knowledge of the tasks within that job they would be producing a document not known to be true which is of course the legal in this circumstance.

If you were to address the merits of the assessments with the ACC after they were down you have truly missed the boat. It is simply too late.

Solve the problems before they occur. Remember a stitch in time saves nine.
0

#8 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 30 April 2007 - 08:00 PM

If people follow your advice, Mr Thomas, I believe there is every chance ACC will suspend entitlements and will not reinstate them until the person complies with its demands. As you are no doubt aware, the law now permits ACC to permanently withhold entitlements during the period of suspension following unreasonable noncompliance. If a claimant is thus deprived of entitlements as a result of following your advice Mr Thomas, they would then be justified in suing you for negligence with loss based on loss of the chance to receive the suspended entitlements. Think carefully please before advising people to take steps that could cause them financial loss, to say nothing of further stress and anxiety.
1

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 30 April 2007 - 08:12 PM

MG

You are quite right that the ACC could and very likely would suspend entitlements for the stratagem I have proposed. It is however better to fight the battle at this stage when it can be one rather than after the assessments have been produced and the Corporation had made what is virtually an unassailable decision.

The Corporation would not be able to legally maintain a suspension of entitlements for this control of the assessor as it is not unreasonable to prevent the assessor from propagating false information or even information in dispute.

I would suggest that all of the alternatives be carefully examined and choose the battlefield whereby the war will be won rather than waiting for the moment when it is too late. My advice is carefully thought out but I would prefer it if you were to apply your experience and legal mind to the circumstances rather than permit the ACC to drive us like stock.
-1

#10 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 30 April 2007 - 08:44 PM

Define unreasonable noncompliance please MG.
Insisting on having ones rights respected perhaps?
0

#11 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 30 April 2007 - 08:50 PM

See my earlier post: it tells people when, and how, to get hold of the assessments and submit expert evidence on their behalf before ACC makes its decision. The, if ACC decides to stop entitlements when its has been clearly told rehabilitation is incomplete, the claimant should win at review or appeal. The Armstrong report confirms that it is a waste of time submitting expert evidence after the decision because the legal system gives undue deference to the opinions of ACC's assessors (in a manner totally contrary to the usual rules and processes of the legal system, IMHO). It is also important that people retain their entitlements for as long as they need them to cope with the effects of their injuries and don't fall into the trap of ACC pulling the plug on them by saying they are acting unreasonably and "frustrating their own rehabilitation". This is a charge ACC loves slinging at advocates, too, and can be a precursor to ACC de-selecting the advocate. Don't fall into that trap either.
0

#12 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 30 April 2007 - 10:28 PM

this is a very sore point with me. never been through the process (take note Gerald McGreevy it is not what you claim), but have seen many that have fror second and third time. What really gets me is that most do not get explained by anyone what the process is. You are there to look at all forms of Vocational Rehabilitation. Nothing more or nothing less. the IOA outcomes is to look at the job options that are suitable and available to the claimant the assessor will p-lace any training that is needed in there report. The Cost to gaining that training ect. It is a report to find seek and supply the needed training so that other employment becomes suitable for the claimant.

The claimant on the other hand knows that they can not return to there previous employment or that type of work. that is the sole reason for the IOA.

The Purpose of the IMA is to look and see if there is any medical grounds that need looked at. Remember by this time the ACC has made a decision on what Vocational Rehabilitation options are open. The claimant has placed there information in writing (other wise the assessors don't include the information into there assessments) to the assessor so that assessor puts a positive report forward.

Get Real and Get Tough or loose your entitlements through fraudent assessments.

as for section 103 the ACC can not use an assessment under section 93 and 94 legally to assess the claimant when the assessment is to see if the claimant is medical fit or can be substainable to carry out one of the occupation that is choosen.
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 01 May 2007 - 11:05 AM

Al9llifes

Non-compliance means non-compliance with the legislation. It does not mean non-compliance to the whimsical preferences of a petty bureaucrat.

The non-compliance also must be unreasonable non-compliance. The ACC may at any time ask for any information through an assessment procedure pretty well as and when the likes. You do not have to comply with an unlawful procedure. In fact to do so would be to become complicit in the unlawful act.

A classical example is when no or inadequate information is considered for an assessment with the results that the assessor simply takes a lucky dip into the barrel of ACC job sheets. The report should be intercepted from going to the ACC every single time I do this because it is illegal for the ACC to ask for such a report and for the assessor to give it.

Screwing with your information against your permission is a little bit like rape. You should not let it happen and you should go to the police every time.
0

#14 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 01 May 2007 - 12:36 PM

Hi everyone

As I am at this moment going through this very issue of OTA ( you know the one who picks the jobs you could do if you 100% - doesn't take injury or other disabilities into consideration).

In my case the lady picked jobs from the skills that she thought I already had from the jobs I had already done.

So she picks 11 jobs, I go for IMA - in fact it turned out to be two IMA's. Will tell you more when I feel free enough.

I am making real sure they stick to the plan, so these are all initial assessments as I have never before had any Social or Voctional assessments.

Well the Dr comes back with I can do 10 of the 11 - mind you he admits that I would need retraining, and special accessories. The report is just a joke as the amount of retraining etc I would need, is 'improper' to even expect someone to give me a job.

So we are now at the cross road of if to start Vocation Rehabilitation or not. It is going to be awfully expensive for ACC and I would probably end up back on WINZ because of my 'other' disability. After all that, as it would have to be taken into consideration by WINZ but did not have to be taken into consideration by ACC IMA.

They would also have to pay all the legal costs of me resisting them all the way. This is not very cost effective.

This is the stage I think we should be Reviewing at. As there is clear paperwork and inuendos instead of facts to battle against.

As this is sensitive and still on-going I will say no more. But please remember, you first have to have something to fight against. And I truely believe this is the first chance we get a good go at the assessors decision and/or the IRP.

It will get them before you get to the VMA (as in the Ramsey case) which is latter on down the line and after you have had the retraining, rehabilitation etc which has been recognised. If it hasn't been recognised then that will be part of your Review.

Fingers crossed. End of May hopefully.

Mini
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 May 2007 - 01:19 PM

Mini

Do you in your opinion have a capacity potential after rehabilitation, while having regard for your injuries, to carry out the tasks of the jobs listed to the extent that an employer would be prepared to pay you wages? This is yes and no answer for each job.

The ACC have a right to reduce their liabilities by rehabilitating you. Resisting that process is unlawful.

If you have a genuine reason for resisting in any of these jobs then the particulars of the reason must be made known at the earliest time. It is best that these particulars well described by qualified persons.
0

#16 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 02 May 2007 - 01:58 PM

Mr Thomas

I did'nt ask for and do not require your assistance.

Go look after Benson, and get him out of the hole you have him in.

I'm not the one who has ever been illegal or non comforming.

In other words, get lost!!

Mini
0

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 May 2007 - 03:04 PM

Mini

Benson is not in a hole. His rehabilitation plan is now up and running and he is making fine progress towards vocational rehabilitation. We are hoping that the ACC may come to the party and help with the funding as described in legislation but other than that everything is just dandy.

Information on the site passed back and forth regarding problems as we see it generally beneficial. If you don't want me help it would still be beneficial for me to make comment with others have similar problems to yourself.

You seem to be having some difficulties in the concept that when what is illegal what is non conforming as if they are won on the same thing. In my own personal experience I engaged in self rehabilitation by exploring commercial opportunity utilising residual capacity. The ACC claim to this was illegal committed perjury to the courts regarding the nature of the act. The nature of the act is yet to be addressed appeal to the original decision where the information the ACC alleged to possess will be tested against the actual legislation so as to determine the ownership of my entitlements.

As to being a nonconformist of course I am not going to permit the ACC to steal my entitlements. If you think this is being a nonconformist I am sorry for you. Those of us who have the strength and courage combined with some last remaining residual capacity stand up against this tyranny should the treated with little bit more respect than you are showing Mini. Mini it is clear to me that the system has successfully ground you down and a place you in a little box somewhere. I find is very sad but it does show me that I must continue with my struggle so others and packaged in the same way.
0

#18 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 02 May 2007 - 06:10 PM

I must but in here
Mini; you claim the IMA didn't take all of your injuries when making the decision correct if I am wrong;
ALL INJURIES MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE IMA report??

Allan; If all injuries were not included or a verbal request 'all injuries be included 'along with 'Have you
read all my file', where do we as a forum learn.?
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 02 May 2007 - 08:24 PM

Just read that edward case and you can see that all injuries are not included for a good reason.

that is to EXIT you. then read section 103 where Watcha makes note on what can be assessed. Havent read your posting mini but that can be reviewed as your covered injuries are being assessed.

If you read the IMA instructions from ACC to assessor you will see that the assessor is to assess only the injuries specified by the ACC staff. This is a decision by that staff to remove all of your injuries.
0

#20 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 02 May 2007 - 09:45 PM

Lets learn rather than preach :) :)
edwards case is to start with now lets learn

the knowledge is within this group
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users