[MG]

Here is a recent, and interesting, decision from Judge Barber. The ACC-doctor (Gollop) reckoned that Mr Hall could work sustainably for 35 or more hours a week in nine listed job options. Mr H attended Court, gace evidence and impressed Judge Barber with his honesty. Judge B accepted that Mr H was in severe pain at times, which must affect his capacity for work. However he said that, legally, he was bound to accept the opinion of the ACC-doctor. So Judge B asked for further medical reports and recommended that ACC reinstate weekly compensation for 6 months wile that evidence was obtained.
[MG comment]: further evidence that the VI process is hopelessly flawed and grossly unjust. Why is it that Judges, who are paid a a small fortune by taxpayers, are prevented from exercising their powers of judgment to determine matters of fact? AFAIK, this suspension of the ordinary principles of procedural justice occurs nowhere else but in our ACC scheme, where claimants are treated as second-class citizens. IMHO, this case adds to the conclusions reached in the Armstrong report, which the DOL now appears to be sweeping under the carpet.  Hall.pdf (1.2MB)
Number of downloads: 35

[Gloria Mitchell]

In this "case" MG, I can see where this man would be better off to have contacted a legally trained person who could have steered him towards a more definitive expression of his expectation of the outcome of the appeal.

I do understand that under current legislation it is harder to gain and maintain erc. But surely, you would think, it would be in everyones interest for this work opportunity to have been taken up and the income abated.

Knee pain as he describes can be really debilitating and when it is, there is also the question of sleep which is very broken when you can get it. Rest is not often painfree with a condition like that.....IMHExperience.

Gloria.

[MG]

I think you''re right Gloria and I'd be interested to know whether ACC have, in fact, followed Judge Barber's recommendation and reinstated WC until the specialists have reported. It defies common sense that someone who an experienced District Court Judge accepts as a credible witness cannot successfully overturn a bureaucratic decision to deny his fundamental human right to an adequate income where he is unable to earn a living for himself because of personal injury. This is precisely why the ACC scheme was established in the first place. Cases like this demonstrate how the principles behind the scheme have been subverted and corrupted by the bureaucracy and their toadies.