ACCforum: independant allowances - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

independant allowances IA changed prior to 1997

#1 User is offline   twostickswalking 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-September 03

Posted 28 September 2003 - 07:48 PM

:huh: does anyone rember the IA prior to the act changing, that is when a
independant assessor would come to your home. I had an assessment done
in 1995, and just before the act changed ACC sent out a letter informing me that I had to attend a meeting with acc, to discuss the IA. failure to attend, would result in the IA being cancelled. as a result of attending this meeting I had a significat drop in IA. I was originally only asked 7 questions at this interview, but on reqquesting an copy some three years later not only did I discover, that 22
questions had been rescored.

Interestingly enough, the Rescored sheet, did not have a date, time or an ACC
signiture, just my intial at the bottom of the page. so in all intent an purposes
acc looked like it had no involement. therefore they illegally rescored many claimants. apparently according to the Ombudsman ACC sent out a taskforce.

Gary Wilson says only one or two persons were affected. you try getting a copy
of the old assessment sheets now. they are locked away somewhere. I have all the evidence to prove this
0

#2 User is offline   Down 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 28 September 2003 - 09:35 PM

A Functional Limitations Profile Questionaire ... was the name of the chids version that was used in 1996 to determine entitlement to an independence allowance from ACC, the "independent assessor " did a home visit for the assessment.

It is interesting when you read it now that the assessment was to decide the claimants Disability Percentage resulting from injuries for which ACC had accepted the claim.
0

#3 User is offline   Down 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 29 September 2003 - 06:53 AM

By the way.... the Independence Allowance Assessment was carried out by the National Research Bureau, Auckland. ACC paid the assessor $90.90 for their report and time.
0

#4 Guest_Guest_twostickswalking_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 September 2003 - 10:19 AM

[COLOR=orange] :o

I was concerned, about this assesment, like I say there was no indication of ACC
involvement, not by date, signiture, or intial, or to say the form had been rescored.
in anyway.

Although the IA may have been flawed. think of this if ACC had shall we say
"duped" the claimants, into intialling at the bottom of the page, and not every
amendedment.

then they have infact used this document to gain pucaniary (spt wrong) advantage.

think of this equation say ACC rescored 5,000 claimants, by 100/200 per month.
some may have only been entitled to $5.00 a week, as I was at that point, after being rescored

claimants would then give up, and not take the right to review. and if you multiply
that figure by 20 years, which some claimants may have been able to receive, had acc not illegally rescored this assesment. than we may be looking at 120 Million.

Because there has not been anymore complaints over the issue, and the fact that
Gary Wilson says one or two were affected, and the Ombudsman says a taskforce
was setup to do these assessments. there cannot be an investigation
interesting.
0

#5 User is offline   BillyBob 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

  Posted 03 October 2003 - 11:56 AM

CONFUSION REIGNS

Having just had my assessment for the IA it appears the doctor was in somewhat of a quandry as to how to rate my injury.

Its easy for them to follow the book and measure the extent of the loss of movement etc but when you throw in chronic regional pain syndrome with it and the pains stops a person using the particular limb or whatever is affected there appears to be no defined guidelines for the doctor to assess pain as a percentage.

This could mean that although i cant use an arm or leg or particular part of the body i could miss out on the IA as pain isnt rated as a disability.

They havent got a little plastic bendy thing which will say 30% of pain when it is checked with the chart in the assessment book.
It will be interesting to read the report when it is completed as the doctor agreed that my arm and shoulder is useless to me however he did not know at the time on how to rate the pain as a percentage.

The doctor was a nice guy and am sure he will try his best for me so now its a waiting game again.


anyone else had a similar experience and what was the outcome?

cheers
billybob
0

#6 User is offline   twostickswalking 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-September 03

Posted 03 October 2003 - 05:19 PM

[B] beware of the nice guys billybob, they can be very decieving, depends if the
acc has paid for his training, the main aim is to get you IA rating under 10 so they dont have to pay you anything
0

#7 Guest_flwrznz_*

  • Group: Guests

  Posted 04 October 2003 - 11:14 AM

BillyBob, on Oct 3 2003, 11:56 AM, said:

CONFUSION REIGNS

Having just had my assessment for the IA it appears the doctor was in somewhat of a quandry as to how to rate my injury.

Its easy for them to follow the book and measure the extent of the loss of movement etc but when you throw in chronic regional pain syndrome with it and the pains stops a person using the particular limb or whatever is affected there appears to be no defined guidelines for the doctor to assess pain as a percentage.

This could mean that although i cant use an arm or leg or particular part of the body i could miss out on the IA as pain isnt rated as a disability.

They havent got a little plastic bendy thing which will say 30% of pain when it is checked with the chart in the assessment book.
It will be interesting to read the report when it is completed as the doctor agreed that my arm and shoulder is useless to me however he did not know at the time on how to rate the pain as a percentage.

The doctor was a nice guy and am sure he will try his best for me so now its a waiting game again.


anyone else had a similar experience and what was the outcome?

cheers
billybob

:angry: Seems that ACC only provide guidelines that omit certains parts of the assessment methods as outlines in the AMA standards and in addition fail to advise the assessor the full extent of the accepted injuries by in my case ignoring the back injury as not applicable.

:angry: I have had 4 assessments that went fron 100% to 27% to 24% to 10%(by the same assessor) and 22% on re assessment due to my complaint about the back injury being ignored.

All this as my injuries deterioated. Mind you just try and get all the documentation that was generated from those assessments and you will find that you are up the proverbial.
:ph34r: There is someting rotten in the state of acc and tghe must be made to provide all the documentation.
Yeah! I know, they have to provide all the stuff but I believe that they hide that sort of stuff somewhere other than on your general files and when asked the reply usually is ''cant seem to locate that'', or "Thats all folks, there ain't no more, you prove there is more."
:(
0

#8 Guest_Guest_twostickswalking_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 04 October 2003 - 07:22 PM

[COLOR=red] florenz: You can ask for a copy of your IA from archives
in Dunedin, then check whether your rescored IA has been signed and dated by ACC, or if there has been any reference on the document stating that it has been rescored
0

#9 User is offline   broken 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 08 October 2003 - 12:09 AM

Hi 2stickswalking. If the document was not signed by anyone else but you then I doubt if it is a legal entity. If it is not legal then the reduction in I/A was also illegal making ACC liable to repay all the short payments made since. This may be far fetched but ???????????
0

#10 User is offline   twostickswalking 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-September 03

Posted 12 October 2003 - 08:41 PM

[FONT=Courier] to newbie

as far fetched as this may seem, I have the written proof: I even went as far
as approaching the SFO. Their response, was. As we have only received one complaint , we cannot prove their was ever a serious fraud against the ACC
until new complaints are received, so if you were ever a receiptant of the IA
and it was "rescored" and not signed or dated by the ACC, and you have their first intial
letter requesting you attend the meeting to discuss the IA. Then seriously thinkabout investigating this
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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