[MG]

Successful appeal against ACC decision that Mr S suffered no physical injury by gradual process. Evidence of ACC-doctor called "superficial" and "totally unsatisfactory" by Judge Beattie, who also noted that the statutory definition of "physical injury" in s26 of the IPRCA, expressly included the words "sprain or strain" and an elbow muscle strain was diagnosed by the GP. ACC-doctor also failed to put forward an alternative explanation for the cause of Mr S' injuries which, again, undermined his credibility. [MG comment: this case emphasizes, yet again, the importance of the medical evidence. Against the ACC-doctors, claimants must make sure their medical records are in order. In particular, the GP must diagnose an injury and be prepared to defend their diagnosis inthe face of ACC bullying. Mr S also obtained reports from an experienced orthopaedic surgeon, whose commented on work-related aspects of Mr S' injury were preferred by Judge Beattie over those of the, by now discredited ACC-doctor. Issues: (1) Why does ACC continue to use these toadies to shaft claimants; and (2) wouldn't Mr S have been rehabilitated, and perhaps returned to his pre-injyry employment, faster if ACC hadn't made him run the medico-legal gauntlet?  Sherwood.pdf (580.06K)
Number of downloads: 49

[batman]

The reason Acc use this BLUFF tatic is as most people don't have the money to take Acc on.So it is cost effective for Acc to carry on like they do.It seems to me that Acc is run more by accountants and lawyers than what was meant in the acc acts.Acc's first move is to get your money cut off and then most claiments fade away.

[happy1]

NO NOT ME ?getting adequate and appropriate rehabilitaion is like winning Lotto.Only no claimant can afford to buy a ticket !

[fairgo]

Excellent!! Good on Judge Beattie for calling it as it is! ACC accredited doctors are not above all others............