[MG]

Here's one from the English Court of Appeal, overturning a decision by a social welfare agency to turf a refugee family onto the street. The woman of the family provided medical evidence that she suffered the equivalent of "mental injury" under our ACC scheme. The agency got one of its "preferred" doctors to rubbish the claim without even seeing her (sound familiar?). Once the "preferred" doctor told the agency what it wanted to hear, it wrote to the woman's lawyers, in fluent gobbledegook and told them to sod off (sound familiar?). The learned Judges, while being careful not to say the "preferred" doctor was a toady, noted that they had seen a number of his reports in similar cases, all of them justifying denial of entitlements, and made some very interesting comments about the proper use of experts towards the end of the judgment. Forum readers please note that, while this case does not constitute binding authority in NZ, it might well persuade decision-makers who venerate English law.  624.pdf (45.81K)
Number of downloads: 52

[watcha]

If Only ---

This example only serves to further illustrate just how one-sided the ACC review/appeal process is in Godzone, equally, this applies to our social welfare system.

Buggered if I know the answer, other than democratic overthrow of the powers that rule our lives from cradle to grave.

[DARRELLGEMMA]

MG, on Aug 29 2007, 12:12 AM, said:

Here's one from the English Court of Appeal, overturning a decision by a social welfare agency to turf a refugee family onto the street. The woman of the family provided medical evidence that she suffered the equivalent of "mental injury" under our ACC scheme. The agency got one of its "preferred" doctors to rubbish the claim without even seeing her (sound familiar?). Once the "preferred" doctor told the agency what it wanted to hear, it wrote to the woman's lawyers, in fluent gobbledegook and told them to sod off (sound familiar?). The learned Judges, while being careful not to say the "preferred" doctor was a toady, noted that they had seen a number of his reports in similar cases, all of them justifying denial of entitlements, and made some very interesting comments about the proper use of experts towards the end of the judgment. Forum readers please note that, while this case does not constitute binding authority in NZ, it might well persuade decision-makers who venerate English law. attachment

Evening MG it is Darrell here. Interesting case just goes to show that psychiatrists are more qualified than g.ps when it comes to doing assessments on sensitive issues claims( SEXUAL ABUSE) when a gp does not know how the sexual abuse has affected a claimants life like mine. I intend to use that case in my district court appeal when it is set down for a hearing. I don't think acc want to accept a report from a psychiatrist who is independent of ACC like Gil Newburn. I did talk to a psychiatrist in Hamilton & he said all claimants have to be treated in an equitable manner.
Regards.
Darrell Pearce.

[Hatikva]

Quote

intend to use that case in my district court appeal when it is set down for a hearing. I don't think acc want to accept a report from a psychiatrist who is independent of ACC like Gil Newburn. I did talk to a psychiatrist in Hamilton & he said all claimants have to be treated in an equitable manner.

Darrell...

Please continue to pursue the option of seeing Gil Newburn or another suitable professional who you have confidence in, and who is independant ... In my case, although it took a bit of time, and some concerted effort, ACC have accepted that Gil has provided, and continues to provide, ongoing support for my rehabilitation/wellbeing/ongoing treatment for TBI .. recently (last few weeks) my new case manager has supported (actually recommended) a new comprehensivel report from Gil regarding my current status and prospects for my future(and treatment necessary), taking into account a recent concussion which has added some new defects and should be included in the assessment.

This particular CM was very supportive, and positive in terms of getting treatment, rehabiliation and support for me .. and will be arranging new assessments.

So, a precident is established - perhaps you can request (demand) a report from Gil? Or a similar independant practitioner?

[Tomcat]

GREETINGS,
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE... Dr Gil Newburn is A1... He was not on the list given me... But ACC accepted my choice to go to him and covered all costs involved, without hassle...
And the report he gave has been accepted and of great help...

[DARRELLGEMMA]

Tomcat, on Oct 15 2007, 09:58 PM, said:

GREETINGS,
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE... Dr Gil Newburn is A1... He was not on the list given me... But ACC accepted my choice to go to him and covered all costs involved, without hassle...
And the report he gave has been accepted and of great help...

Afternoon Tomcat it is Darrell here. Did ACC tell you to see him & did they refer you to Dr Gil Newburn because acc told me that they don't accept his reports because he is not a qualified assessor. I am awaiting a further report from him before my next review hearing on the 22/11/07 here in New Plymouth. I think it is about time claimants starting acc where to go with there registered assessors.
It is about time acc started accepting claimants opinions about the assessment process. I do intend to call the assessment process into question at my district appeal hearing. Doctor Gil Newburn in one report gave me 20% for my sensitive claim & he agreed with Peter Grayson's report on my left knee which is 5% therefore a total of 24% whole person impairment acc referred Doctor Newburn's report to John Collier in Hamilton who is an acc toady.
Regards.
Darrell Pearce.

[Tomcat]

Greetings,
Darrell... I CHOSE TO GO TO DR GIL NEWBURN... refered by my GP... Even tho he was not on the list...

And his report has been accepted... Someone is "playing silly games"...
Sure... ACC dont like his assessment reports, because they are accurate...

Another case of Dr Gil's report, that refutes ACC toadies, rubbish...
has ACC spitting the dummy, and creating all kinds of delays for the court hearing...
ACC is being a proverbial rsole in this case...

[DARRELLGEMMA]

Tomcat, on Oct 15 2007, 05:52 PM, said:

Greetings,
Darrell... I CHOSE TO GO TO DR GIL NEWBURN... refered by my GP... Even tho he was not on the list...

And his report has been accepted... Someone is "playing silly games"...
Sure... ACC dont like his assessment reports, because they are accurate...

Another case of Dr Gil's report, that refutes ACC toadies, rubbish...
has ACC spitting the dummy, and creating all kinds of delays for the court hearing...
ACC is being a proverbial rsole in this case...

Evening Tomcat it is Darrell here. It was my case manager Kelly Kingsford who made the comment that ACC don't accept Gil Newburn's reports.
Regards.
Darrell Pearce.

[hukildaspida]

Thanks MG for bringing this case to our attention.

[netcoachnz]

I hope we see some NZ examples soon. I for one am tiring at the way some Medical Personnel who are paid by ACC are not held accountable.

[netcoachnz]

Refresh

[Moeroa]

MG said:

1188299532[/url]' post='50447']
Here's one from the English Court of Appeal, overturning a decision by a social welfare agency to turf a refugee family onto the street. The woman of the family provided medical evidence that she suffered the equivalent of "mental injury" under our ACC scheme. The agency got one of its "preferred" doctors to rubbish the claim without even seeing her (sound familiar?). Once the "preferred" doctor told the agency what it wanted to hear, it wrote to the woman's lawyers, in fluent gobbledegook and told them to sod off (sound familiar?). The learned Judges, while being careful not to say the "preferred" doctor was a toady, noted that they had seen a number of his reports in similar cases, all of them justifying denial of entitlements, and made some very interesting comments about the proper use of experts towards the end of the judgment. Forum readers please note that, while this case does not constitute binding authority in NZ, it might well persuade decision-makers who venerate English law. attachment

Thank you MG.