Help
Dominion Post 13.03.2004
Attached File(s)
-
med_mis1.jpg (73K)
Number of downloads: 52
Page 1 of 1
Medical Misdiagnosis ACC Refuse to Pay
#1 Guest_NoRehab_*
Posted 13 March 2004 - 06:52 PM
Have a good read of this:
Dominion Post 13.03.2004
Dominion Post 13.03.2004
#2 Guest_NoRehab_*
Posted 13 March 2004 - 07:04 PM
Re "ACC refuses to pay for misdiagnosis" on p.A18, Sat 13/3/04 Dom Post from the NEWS section.
The story of Cheryl Wildbore.
This, when linked to "Medical mishap draft step in right direction - professor" of 11/3 and ""Disclosure of Harm - Statement for Consultation" (with comments by David Rankin) released by the Medical Council on 10/3 is a classic.
ACC twisting the facts to deny compensation yet again.
----------------------
ACC's Warren Macguire claims Cheryl Wildbore's claim was declined because:
"Diverticular disease is an acquired condition. Diverticular disease is not caused by registered health professionals. There is no causal link to the person seeking or receiving treatment given by or at the direction of a registered health professional, hence there is no personal injury as defined by the Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act."
Well, well, well. How Mr Macguire is playing with words.
The facts of this case were:
ACC law states medical error occurs "when you are injured because you did not receive treatment of a reasonable standard."
A normal person would see as clear as day that this lady was injured because she did not receive treatment of a reasonable standard. e.g. it is unreasonable to have doctors, especially ones who have hospital facilities at their disposal, failing to make correct diagnoses, Did they do the required tests or were they saving money.
Did they do a Barium enema? If so, were the films read correctly? Were other relevant tests done? Has ACC conducted an investigation to see why this lady was improperly diagnosed? Has the hospital conducted an investigation to see why this lady was improperly diagnosed? Have any of them bothered to find out how this happened?
Instead ACC's Warren Macguire plays with words. Staggeringly he makes the claim, "Diverticulitis is not caused by registered health professionals."
Excuse me, Mr Macguire. The questions that need answering here are:
You see, it is obvious to the most simple of us (but apparently not to Mr Maguire) that the fact this lady had diverticulitis was NOT the medical mishap. What was the medical mishap was that:
If Mr Macguire had to be cut open, lose part of his bowel and live with an ileostomy bag because his doctors mucked up until injury had developed I wonder if Mr Macguire would claim he had been injured? Or would he claim "No. No. There is no causal link." Or what about Ruth Dyson? Or Gary Wilson?
How ironic that the article "Medical mishap draft step in right direction - professor" had been published only 2 days earlier.
Professor Peter Davis, Helen Clark's husband no less, had said:
"I don't know that it's possible to get around admitting to a patient that something went wrong and, look, we mucked up somewhere."
It is even more ironic that the press release from the Medical Council, "Disclosure of Harm - Statement for Consultation" to which Helen Clark's husband alludes and which was published 1 day earlier included the following comments by ACC's General Manager, David Rankin:
"The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides a no-fault accident insurance for all New Zealand citizens and in the case of medical treatment, determines whether a patient is entitled to compensation due to medical misadventure.
ACC welcomes this statement for medical practitioners, as disclosure of harm is a key part in the process of ensuring New Zealanders are able to access compensation when they have suffered an adverse outcome from medical treatment. It is our hope that this statement will assist claimants to receive timely compensation.
Removing a person's right to sue for damages is a unique element of the New Zealand Accident Compensation Scheme. Early and accurate disclosure of harm will assist in the effective implementation of the compensation process.
David Rankin.
Oh yeah? What a joke.
Ask Cheryl Rand Wilbore who lives with an ileostomy bag after losing part of her bowel when doctors did not diagnose her illness.
She, Mr Rankin, has been refused compensation by ACC.
Perhaps you would like to explain why.
The story of Cheryl Wildbore.
This, when linked to "Medical mishap draft step in right direction - professor" of 11/3 and ""Disclosure of Harm - Statement for Consultation" (with comments by David Rankin) released by the Medical Council on 10/3 is a classic.
ACC twisting the facts to deny compensation yet again.
----------------------
ACC's Warren Macguire claims Cheryl Wildbore's claim was declined because:
"Diverticular disease is an acquired condition. Diverticular disease is not caused by registered health professionals. There is no causal link to the person seeking or receiving treatment given by or at the direction of a registered health professional, hence there is no personal injury as defined by the Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act."
Well, well, well. How Mr Macguire is playing with words.
The facts of this case were:
- This lady was admitted to Palmerston North Hospital.
- The doctors who cared for her there mucked up.
- Despite all their facilities at their dispoasl to test this lady they failed to make a proper or correct diagnosis.
- If the correct diagnosis had been made and proper treatment given her GP said she could have been back at work in 6 weeks.
- Because they got it wrong she was off work for 6 months.
ACC law states medical error occurs "when you are injured because you did not receive treatment of a reasonable standard."
A normal person would see as clear as day that this lady was injured because she did not receive treatment of a reasonable standard. e.g. it is unreasonable to have doctors, especially ones who have hospital facilities at their disposal, failing to make correct diagnoses, Did they do the required tests or were they saving money.
Did they do a Barium enema? If so, were the films read correctly? Were other relevant tests done? Has ACC conducted an investigation to see why this lady was improperly diagnosed? Has the hospital conducted an investigation to see why this lady was improperly diagnosed? Have any of them bothered to find out how this happened?
Instead ACC's Warren Macguire plays with words. Staggeringly he makes the claim, "Diverticulitis is not caused by registered health professionals."
Excuse me, Mr Macguire. The questions that need answering here are:
- Is this extraordinary comment based on ignorance?
- On lack of intelligence?
- On deliberate obfuscation for the sake of it?
- Or as a means to get KPI bonus points?
You see, it is obvious to the most simple of us (but apparently not to Mr Maguire) that the fact this lady had diverticulitis was NOT the medical mishap. What was the medical mishap was that:
- the medical professionals failed to diagnose this condition.
- they failed to diagnose her condition for so long she suffered the injury of having a huge abscess develop that would not have developed if she had been properly diagnosed.
- because a huge abscess developed she was forced to suffer the injury of having surgery - of having to be cut open and lose part of her bowel.
- it was not the diverticulitis that was the injury. It was the abscess and the scalpel slashes and the lost section of bowel. It is also the ileostomy bag she has to live with after losing part of her bowel because doctors failed to diagnose her condition until it was too late.
If Mr Macguire had to be cut open, lose part of his bowel and live with an ileostomy bag because his doctors mucked up until injury had developed I wonder if Mr Macguire would claim he had been injured? Or would he claim "No. No. There is no causal link." Or what about Ruth Dyson? Or Gary Wilson?
How ironic that the article "Medical mishap draft step in right direction - professor" had been published only 2 days earlier.
Professor Peter Davis, Helen Clark's husband no less, had said:
"I don't know that it's possible to get around admitting to a patient that something went wrong and, look, we mucked up somewhere."
It is even more ironic that the press release from the Medical Council, "Disclosure of Harm - Statement for Consultation" to which Helen Clark's husband alludes and which was published 1 day earlier included the following comments by ACC's General Manager, David Rankin:
"The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides a no-fault accident insurance for all New Zealand citizens and in the case of medical treatment, determines whether a patient is entitled to compensation due to medical misadventure.
ACC welcomes this statement for medical practitioners, as disclosure of harm is a key part in the process of ensuring New Zealanders are able to access compensation when they have suffered an adverse outcome from medical treatment. It is our hope that this statement will assist claimants to receive timely compensation.
Removing a person's right to sue for damages is a unique element of the New Zealand Accident Compensation Scheme. Early and accurate disclosure of harm will assist in the effective implementation of the compensation process.
David Rankin.
Oh yeah? What a joke.
Ask Cheryl Rand Wilbore who lives with an ileostomy bag after losing part of her bowel when doctors did not diagnose her illness.
She, Mr Rankin, has been refused compensation by ACC.
Perhaps you would like to explain why.
#3
Down 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-September 03
Posted 14 March 2004 - 07:41 AM
And this one ...... transvered from the breaking news category
Chronic pain sufferer despairs
13 March 2004
By HELEN PICKERING
A nine month wait to get into Timaru's pain clinic, despite being an urgent case, has left St Andrews woman Glenda Savage believing local health professionals just do not care.
Glenda is in chronic and worsening pain. It is so severe she can get no relief from any position and medication makes little difference.
"I can't sit, stand or lie in bed. I constantly have to move around just to get some relief and I spend most of the time leaning against a wall or something."
Her problems began in 2001 when she had an accident at the gym which damaged nerves in the lower region of her spine. Although the pain was severe at the time it has continued to get worse and over the past few months she has been able to find no relief.
"I don't know how to describe the pain. I suppose its like a razor blade cutting through the tendons time and time again. It's so bad now I can't walk without a walking stick.
"A couple of weeks ago we went to the accident and emergency department because the pain was so bad."
That was a really unsatisfactory experience, Glenda said, and left her wanting just to go home. Then her doctor asked for an urgent appointment at the pain clinic for her, but after waiting two weeks and still no appointment card, she rang to find out what was going on.
"The woman told us we'd have to wait nine months for an appointment. I felt just terrible. The pain is excruciating.
"When I'm getting into bed at night I don't let Graeme (her husband) come into the room because it is so agonising lifting my feet up high enough. It's the same in the mornings getting up.
"He doesn't like to see it either. I just have tears streaming down my face.
"And showing our dogs, that's been my life but we have had to sell half our animals because its just not fair on them and it breaks my heart."
But after ringing the hospital and complaining about the wait a woman rang back – Glenda recorded the conversation – and she was told because they had complained she'd probably get in earlier.
Glenda says she is also having problems with ACC. She needs an operation but ACC is saying the injury is degenerative and age related – she is 48 – so they will not fund the operation.
"I have never asked them for anything; not wages not anything but to pay for the walking stick which I have to have.
" When I asked for the walking stick ACC sent me for an MRI scan which they paid for.
"It's got to the stage where I feel like ending it all."
ACC media adviser Fraser Folster said while he did not dispute that Glenda suffered from an incapacitating ailment, the medical information available indicated it was not due to an injury.
Because of that, ACC had declined to provide ongoing entitlements to her.
"ACC is confident it has performed the appropriate level of investigation and acquired the necessary information to fulfil its obligations to Mrs Savage in respect of this claim," he said.
However, Mr Folster added that there was now new information to hand and, though he did not want to raise Glenda's hope, it was possible ACC would relook at it.
South Canterbury District Health Board spokesperson Michele Keggenhoff said it was understandable that someone in pain did not like to wait to see a specialist.
"To fairly accommodate all people referred for specialist treatment, we have to look at their clinical reports and symptoms and then prioritise patients according to the severity of their conditions.
"Patients with chronic pain are assessed as urgent, semi-urgent or routine.
"For the persistent pain clinic, Mrs Savage will be offered an appointment in accordance with the routine priority of her condition.
"Jumping anyone to the head of the queue without regard to prioritisation simply disadvantages someone else who also is in pain," Ms Keggenhoff said.
She said in response to the dissatisfaction expressed by Mr and Mrs Savage, the director of clinical services encouraged them to lodge a formal complaint so that all matters relating to their case could be fully investigated.
"We have put Mr and Mrs Savage in touch with the independent patient advocate to support and assist them through the complaint process," she said.
Glenda said they had left a message for the advocate to ring them but he had still not done so.
http://www.stuff.co....94a6010,00.html
Chronic pain sufferer despairs
13 March 2004
By HELEN PICKERING
A nine month wait to get into Timaru's pain clinic, despite being an urgent case, has left St Andrews woman Glenda Savage believing local health professionals just do not care.
Glenda is in chronic and worsening pain. It is so severe she can get no relief from any position and medication makes little difference.
"I can't sit, stand or lie in bed. I constantly have to move around just to get some relief and I spend most of the time leaning against a wall or something."
Her problems began in 2001 when she had an accident at the gym which damaged nerves in the lower region of her spine. Although the pain was severe at the time it has continued to get worse and over the past few months she has been able to find no relief.
"I don't know how to describe the pain. I suppose its like a razor blade cutting through the tendons time and time again. It's so bad now I can't walk without a walking stick.
"A couple of weeks ago we went to the accident and emergency department because the pain was so bad."
That was a really unsatisfactory experience, Glenda said, and left her wanting just to go home. Then her doctor asked for an urgent appointment at the pain clinic for her, but after waiting two weeks and still no appointment card, she rang to find out what was going on.
"The woman told us we'd have to wait nine months for an appointment. I felt just terrible. The pain is excruciating.
"When I'm getting into bed at night I don't let Graeme (her husband) come into the room because it is so agonising lifting my feet up high enough. It's the same in the mornings getting up.
"He doesn't like to see it either. I just have tears streaming down my face.
"And showing our dogs, that's been my life but we have had to sell half our animals because its just not fair on them and it breaks my heart."
But after ringing the hospital and complaining about the wait a woman rang back – Glenda recorded the conversation – and she was told because they had complained she'd probably get in earlier.
Glenda says she is also having problems with ACC. She needs an operation but ACC is saying the injury is degenerative and age related – she is 48 – so they will not fund the operation.
"I have never asked them for anything; not wages not anything but to pay for the walking stick which I have to have.
" When I asked for the walking stick ACC sent me for an MRI scan which they paid for.
"It's got to the stage where I feel like ending it all."
ACC media adviser Fraser Folster said while he did not dispute that Glenda suffered from an incapacitating ailment, the medical information available indicated it was not due to an injury.
Because of that, ACC had declined to provide ongoing entitlements to her.
"ACC is confident it has performed the appropriate level of investigation and acquired the necessary information to fulfil its obligations to Mrs Savage in respect of this claim," he said.
However, Mr Folster added that there was now new information to hand and, though he did not want to raise Glenda's hope, it was possible ACC would relook at it.
South Canterbury District Health Board spokesperson Michele Keggenhoff said it was understandable that someone in pain did not like to wait to see a specialist.
"To fairly accommodate all people referred for specialist treatment, we have to look at their clinical reports and symptoms and then prioritise patients according to the severity of their conditions.
"Patients with chronic pain are assessed as urgent, semi-urgent or routine.
"For the persistent pain clinic, Mrs Savage will be offered an appointment in accordance with the routine priority of her condition.
"Jumping anyone to the head of the queue without regard to prioritisation simply disadvantages someone else who also is in pain," Ms Keggenhoff said.
She said in response to the dissatisfaction expressed by Mr and Mrs Savage, the director of clinical services encouraged them to lodge a formal complaint so that all matters relating to their case could be fully investigated.
"We have put Mr and Mrs Savage in touch with the independent patient advocate to support and assist them through the complaint process," she said.
Glenda said they had left a message for the advocate to ring them but he had still not done so.
http://www.stuff.co....94a6010,00.html
#5 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 16 March 2004 - 07:41 AM
Neck pains symptom of brain haemorrhage, coroner finds
11 March 2004
A Lower Hutt man who thought he had hurt his neck doing sit-ups was in fact suffering from a brain haemorrhage that claimed his life, Wellington coroner Garry Evan said today.
Michael Francis Gilmoni died just after midnight on Christmas Day, 2000, six days after he first experienced neck pain and severe headaches during a workout and five days after he sought help from his GP.
In a reserved decision released today, Mr Evans found that Mr Gilmoni died from a brain haemorrhage and may have survived if his GP had asked more searching questions about his symptoms.
However, the doctor's task was made more difficult by the fact Mr Gilmoni's condition is rarely seen by GPs and is misdiagnosed in up to 50 per cent of cases. It was also not certain a specialist would have made a correct diagnosis without more information from Mr Gilmoni about the type and exact locality of the pain he was experiencing.
Mr Evans suppressed the GP's identity.
The GP told the court Mr Gilmoni visited him on December 20, 2000, complaining of neck pain and headaches that began suddenly while he was performing sit-ups the day before. The doctor assumed the pain was related to a previous spinal injury because Mr Gilmoni said it was preceded by a clicking sound in his neck.
In fact, Mr Gilmoni had suffered the first stage of a subarachnoid haemorrhage, a condition which may have been picked up had the doctor inquired more robustly about the intensity of the headache.
If he had, he might have discovered the headache was of the "thunderclap" nature that indicated the need for specialist investigation and treatment.
Mr Gilmoni's death was the second in the past year involving a patient who presented to a GP with the early stages of a subarachnoid haemorrhage, but whose condition was not diagnosed.
"This sad case again illustrates the importance of good communication of information from patients and members of the patient's family to doctors and of the need for doctors to obtain as much information as possible in relation to presenting complaints," Mr Evans found.
He ordered that a copy of his findings be sent to the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners and the editors of New Zealand Family Physician and the New Zealand Medical Journal.
http://www.stuff.co....17a7144,00.html
11 March 2004
A Lower Hutt man who thought he had hurt his neck doing sit-ups was in fact suffering from a brain haemorrhage that claimed his life, Wellington coroner Garry Evan said today.
Michael Francis Gilmoni died just after midnight on Christmas Day, 2000, six days after he first experienced neck pain and severe headaches during a workout and five days after he sought help from his GP.
In a reserved decision released today, Mr Evans found that Mr Gilmoni died from a brain haemorrhage and may have survived if his GP had asked more searching questions about his symptoms.
However, the doctor's task was made more difficult by the fact Mr Gilmoni's condition is rarely seen by GPs and is misdiagnosed in up to 50 per cent of cases. It was also not certain a specialist would have made a correct diagnosis without more information from Mr Gilmoni about the type and exact locality of the pain he was experiencing.
Mr Evans suppressed the GP's identity.
The GP told the court Mr Gilmoni visited him on December 20, 2000, complaining of neck pain and headaches that began suddenly while he was performing sit-ups the day before. The doctor assumed the pain was related to a previous spinal injury because Mr Gilmoni said it was preceded by a clicking sound in his neck.
In fact, Mr Gilmoni had suffered the first stage of a subarachnoid haemorrhage, a condition which may have been picked up had the doctor inquired more robustly about the intensity of the headache.
If he had, he might have discovered the headache was of the "thunderclap" nature that indicated the need for specialist investigation and treatment.
Mr Gilmoni's death was the second in the past year involving a patient who presented to a GP with the early stages of a subarachnoid haemorrhage, but whose condition was not diagnosed.
"This sad case again illustrates the importance of good communication of information from patients and members of the patient's family to doctors and of the need for doctors to obtain as much information as possible in relation to presenting complaints," Mr Evans found.
He ordered that a copy of his findings be sent to the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners and the editors of New Zealand Family Physician and the New Zealand Medical Journal.
http://www.stuff.co....17a7144,00.html
#6 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 16 March 2004 - 04:06 PM
Surgeon admits failing Joy Martin
Joy Martin's surgeon admits his failure to treat the terminally-ill woman's ongoing nausea was unacceptable
16 March 2004
Lesley Martin's defence lawyer has taken the court through the litany of illnesses her mother suffered before her death.
Martin is on trial at the High Court at Wanganui charged with attempting to murder her mother Joy.
Donald Stevens QC has cross-examined Joy Martin's surgeon Roelof Van Dalen about the complications she suffered after her surgery for bowel cancer in early 1999.
He says she had persistent nausea and vomiting, pneumonia, septicaemia and numerous infections.
Dr Van Dalen says nothing was done to find out why Mrs Martin kept suffering from nausea.
Mr Stevens questioned Dr Van Dalen about the rectal irrigation Lesley had to perform on Mrs Martin, saying he understood that Mrs Martin considered it to be such an invasive and degrading thing to happen that she only wanted her daughter doing it.
He conceded his failure to treat the terminally-ill woman's ongoing nausea was unacceptable.
He says that when Mrs Martin was discharged from hospital in 1999, she was given only one week's anti-nausea medication and her GP was not notified for 11 days that she was now under his care.
He admits it was an inexcusable delay which meant Lesley was her mother's sole medical caregiver.
Dr Van Dalen says he did not know of the principle that palliative care should not be given by a loved one because their judgement can become clouded.
http://home.nzcity.c...lt.asp?id=40738
Joy Martin's surgeon admits his failure to treat the terminally-ill woman's ongoing nausea was unacceptable
16 March 2004
Lesley Martin's defence lawyer has taken the court through the litany of illnesses her mother suffered before her death.
Martin is on trial at the High Court at Wanganui charged with attempting to murder her mother Joy.
Donald Stevens QC has cross-examined Joy Martin's surgeon Roelof Van Dalen about the complications she suffered after her surgery for bowel cancer in early 1999.
He says she had persistent nausea and vomiting, pneumonia, septicaemia and numerous infections.
Dr Van Dalen says nothing was done to find out why Mrs Martin kept suffering from nausea.
Mr Stevens questioned Dr Van Dalen about the rectal irrigation Lesley had to perform on Mrs Martin, saying he understood that Mrs Martin considered it to be such an invasive and degrading thing to happen that she only wanted her daughter doing it.
He conceded his failure to treat the terminally-ill woman's ongoing nausea was unacceptable.
He says that when Mrs Martin was discharged from hospital in 1999, she was given only one week's anti-nausea medication and her GP was not notified for 11 days that she was now under his care.
He admits it was an inexcusable delay which meant Lesley was her mother's sole medical caregiver.
Dr Van Dalen says he did not know of the principle that palliative care should not be given by a loved one because their judgement can become clouded.
http://home.nzcity.c...lt.asp?id=40738
#7 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 17 March 2004 - 11:18 AM
ACC change may not help city woman
17 March 2004
By ANNA WALLIS AND NZPA
Comprehensive changes to ACC rules may not come in soon enough for a Palmerston North woman who had to give up her job after what she says was a misdiagnosis of her condition.
More patients will be able to claim compensation following changes to ACC rules that come into effect on February 1 next year. New no-fault rules mean victims of medical misadventure will no longer need to prove a medical practioner was at fault or that the resulting injury was rare or severe. Last year, about 60 percent of claims to ACC were rejected because complainants couldn't prove fault or they had suffered because of medical process. This is now seen as contrary to ACC's no-fault policy.
Earlier this month, Cheryll Rand-Wildbore was turned down for ACC compensation. She claimed her bowel abscess was not picked up by Palmerston North Hospital. She now lives with an ileostomy bag after losing part of her bowel and has been off work since August 1. The ACC claim, which had the support of her GP, is being appealed. She has also taken a complaint about her treatment at the hospital to the Health and Disability Commissioner. And while she welcomed the change, she didn't think it would be made in time for her appeal to come under the new rules.
"It's come a little late, but it's great that they are changing the rules. It's difficult to fight these kind of things when you are ill . . . it will mean people will no longer have to justify themselves."
Medical misadventure claims cost ACC about $47 million a year. Changing the rules will cost an extra $8.6 million a year.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstanda...42a6003,00.html
17 March 2004
By ANNA WALLIS AND NZPA
Comprehensive changes to ACC rules may not come in soon enough for a Palmerston North woman who had to give up her job after what she says was a misdiagnosis of her condition.
More patients will be able to claim compensation following changes to ACC rules that come into effect on February 1 next year. New no-fault rules mean victims of medical misadventure will no longer need to prove a medical practioner was at fault or that the resulting injury was rare or severe. Last year, about 60 percent of claims to ACC were rejected because complainants couldn't prove fault or they had suffered because of medical process. This is now seen as contrary to ACC's no-fault policy.
Earlier this month, Cheryll Rand-Wildbore was turned down for ACC compensation. She claimed her bowel abscess was not picked up by Palmerston North Hospital. She now lives with an ileostomy bag after losing part of her bowel and has been off work since August 1. The ACC claim, which had the support of her GP, is being appealed. She has also taken a complaint about her treatment at the hospital to the Health and Disability Commissioner. And while she welcomed the change, she didn't think it would be made in time for her appeal to come under the new rules.
"It's come a little late, but it's great that they are changing the rules. It's difficult to fight these kind of things when you are ill . . . it will mean people will no longer have to justify themselves."
Medical misadventure claims cost ACC about $47 million a year. Changing the rules will cost an extra $8.6 million a year.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstanda...42a6003,00.html
#8 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 18 March 2004 - 01:58 AM
ACC changes 'trample protection for patients'
18 March 2004
By HELEN PICKERING
There will be no protection for patients and the public if the revamp to ACC's medical misadventure stands, Timaru man Bruce Wilson said on Wednesday.
Mr Wilson has been fighting for recognition of his wife's injuries since she was misdiagnosed by two GPs and suffered a massive heart attack in 1996.
He said without the medical misadventure clause in the ACC legislation, the doctors would have got off scot-free.
ACC Minister Ruth Dyson announced sweeping changes to to ACC this week which will cost taxpayers an extra $8.6 million per year, and medical misadventure has been renamed "treatment injury."
The new category removes the requirement to find fault (medical error), or to prove that a medical injury is rare or severe (medical mishap) before a patient is entitled to ACC cover.
But Mr Wilson said the new system takes away the requirement for professionals to investigate problems and report on whether their colleagues are acting to the expected and appropriate standard.
"I am lost for words with this new legislation. Basically, there is no protection for the public, professionals are not going to have accept responsibility and can continue to treat people even if the outcomes are not good.
"ACC should, at least, be keeping a record of the number of incidents a doctor is involved in so there is some safety check."
Mr Wilson is looking at taking legal action to have his gripes with the system sorted.
He said the proper procedure was not followed out following his wife Gill's collapse.
Mr Wilson said under section 154 of the Medical Practitioners Act, the Medical council was bound to investigate the treatment she received and that never happened. Instead, a registrar sent it to a Complaints Assessment Committee which found the opposite to the ACC investigation.
He said it was of enormous concern to him that the two doctors who treated his wife were found guilty of gross medical error, but were still practising without a black mark beside their names.
However, without the medical misadventure clause, they would not have received any rebuke at all.
"I feel the public has a right to be protected."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/timaruherald/...89a6571,00.html
18 March 2004
By HELEN PICKERING
There will be no protection for patients and the public if the revamp to ACC's medical misadventure stands, Timaru man Bruce Wilson said on Wednesday.
Mr Wilson has been fighting for recognition of his wife's injuries since she was misdiagnosed by two GPs and suffered a massive heart attack in 1996.
He said without the medical misadventure clause in the ACC legislation, the doctors would have got off scot-free.
ACC Minister Ruth Dyson announced sweeping changes to to ACC this week which will cost taxpayers an extra $8.6 million per year, and medical misadventure has been renamed "treatment injury."
The new category removes the requirement to find fault (medical error), or to prove that a medical injury is rare or severe (medical mishap) before a patient is entitled to ACC cover.
But Mr Wilson said the new system takes away the requirement for professionals to investigate problems and report on whether their colleagues are acting to the expected and appropriate standard.
"I am lost for words with this new legislation. Basically, there is no protection for the public, professionals are not going to have accept responsibility and can continue to treat people even if the outcomes are not good.
"ACC should, at least, be keeping a record of the number of incidents a doctor is involved in so there is some safety check."
Mr Wilson is looking at taking legal action to have his gripes with the system sorted.
He said the proper procedure was not followed out following his wife Gill's collapse.
Mr Wilson said under section 154 of the Medical Practitioners Act, the Medical council was bound to investigate the treatment she received and that never happened. Instead, a registrar sent it to a Complaints Assessment Committee which found the opposite to the ACC investigation.
He said it was of enormous concern to him that the two doctors who treated his wife were found guilty of gross medical error, but were still practising without a black mark beside their names.
However, without the medical misadventure clause, they would not have received any rebuke at all.
"I feel the public has a right to be protected."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/timaruherald/...89a6571,00.html
#9
accvictim
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 04-November 03
Posted 21 March 2004 - 10:34 PM
Sheryls case is a straight foward medical misadventure, there is no way of explaining ACCs stance on declining this case.
The only explanation I can offer is: ACC ARE DIRTY ROTTEN STINKING MONGRELS WHO SHOULD ALL ROT IN HELL!.
The only explanation I can offer is: ACC ARE DIRTY ROTTEN STINKING MONGRELS WHO SHOULD ALL ROT IN HELL!.
#10 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 06 April 2004 - 10:04 PM
Paralysed woman to discuss compensation with ACC
06 April 2004
When Margaret Rowe walked into Auckland Hospital with a sore back she never dreamed she would leave paralysed, after surgery to remove a supposed tumour went wrong.
The tumour was in fact a slipped disc and the operation had to be aborted halfway through when her blood pressure dropped to dangerous levels.
By the time the surgery was resumed the next morning, Mrs Rowe, 53, was paralysed from the chest down.
Today, a year after the operation, she will meet ACC officials to discuss compensation for medical misadventure.
After seeking independent advice, ACC has ruled that Mrs Rowe's paraplegia was a result of the surgery on April 3 last year.
The case was accepted under the criteria for medical mishap – where there is an adverse consequence of treatment correctly given. It means the surgeon was not to blame.
Despite this finding, Mrs Rowe has laid a complaint with the Health and Disability Commissioner, claiming she was not warned of the risks of such major surgery.
"If (the doctor) had said to me that it was a risky operation, I would have said to him forget it, but he didn't give me a choice.
"He didn't say to me that I might never walk."
The hospital's chief medical officer David Sage said Mrs Rowe, who lives in Thames, was transferred to Auckland after a CT scan at Waikato Hospital showed tissue pressing on her spinal cord.
The tissue was presumed to be a tumour – which looks similar to a slipped disc on an x-ray – and urgent surgery was needed.
Dr Sage said all surgery carried some degree of risk and Mrs Rowe signed a consent form beforehand.
Since leaving the hospital, Mrs Rowe has struggled to understand what went wrong. She can no longer care for her husband, who went blind after suffering a stroke in 2002, and they now live in a rest-home.
Mrs Rowe has fought depression and considered taking her life. What makes her angry is the fact the neurosurgeon never explained what happened.
"I hate him because he couldn't come and say sorry for what he had done. We actually requested twice for him to come to us but he never did."
Mrs Rowe has been cheered by news that she will become a grandmother for the first time, but her disability will affect even that one joy.
"I walked into that hospital and now I won't even be able to push that grandchild down the street."
She is concerned about what she describes as a growing number of medical misadventure cases "swept under the carpet".
After the operation, she was transferred to the Otara Spinal Unit, where she said she met another woman who had also been paralysed during surgery. She heard of six similar cases in the same month.
ACC figures show 2727 claims for medical misadventure in the year to last June, up 305 from the previous year. Just under 600 of those claims were accepted.
Since 1992, ACC has paid out for 86 medical misadventure claims related to neurosurgery.
Mrs Rowe hopes to be able to return home with her husband by the end of this year. She has had to wait for the ACC payout to adapt her home for wheelchair use.
Her payout should be worked out today, but Mrs Rowe said it would come as little compensation.
"All the money in the world will never help me walk again."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartim...49a6497,00.html
#11
ernie
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 26-April 04
Posted 01 October 2004 - 10:26 AM
To the recipient - this is what happens to you when you ask for HELP from yet another government department. Putting claimants through the process of denigration.
Accident Compensation Corporation
Complaints Service
P.O. Box 242
Freepost 264
WELLINGTON
30 September 2004
Dear Sir/Madam
Sequence of events involving Warren Maguire – Case Manager – Medical Misadventure Unit
On the 24th February 2003, Maurice Wildbore husband of claimant – Cheryll Rand Wildbore spoke to Warren Maguire by phone.
The following occurred:
Maurice asked Warren Maguire when would he be making a decision regarding Cheryll’s claim.
His response was prepare yourselves for disappointment – I have not even looked at the independent medical advisor report but it is fifty, fifty either way.
Maurice specifically requested that Warren Maguire call and speak to Maurice when he had made a decision and he was very clear and forthright about that as I was in no fit state to take the call myself due to my physical ill health, mental and emotional state at that time and I am still suffering physical and mental deficits. . Maurice was my support person . Maurice repeatedly told Warren Maguire that he went to work at 10.30am and to call before then as I would be here alone and that I needed Maurice to be present when he called.
Warren Maguire called me on Thursday 26th February 2003 at approximately 1500hrs and told me what the decision was – he had declined it and seemed very proud about it. I subsequently called Maurice at work to tell him what Warren Maguire had done (contrary to what Maurice specifically told him not to do)
I subsequently went into an uncontrollable state of shock and was extremely upset Maurice had to take the rest of the afternoon off work to come home and look after me losing wages in the process.
Maurice consequently phoned Warren Maguire when he arrived home and challenged him as to why he had done, what he had specifically had asked him not to do regarding the communication of the decision. Maurice found him, like I did, he actually got a real “real kick” out of this and the tone in his voice said it all –he actually enjoyed upsetting me as a claimant (who are female in gender). The conversation continued for a while and in the end Warren Maguire terminated the call in a disparaging and denigrating manner saying “Bye, bye Maurice Bye, Bye, raising his tone and then saying Bye, bye, bye, Maurice ,bye ,bye then lowering his tone like a very young child would do – infantile to sum it up in a word.
Mark Davies had informed me in middle December 2003 that in his opinion my claim would be accepted and we both found Mark when he was Cheryll’s case manager to be an extremely understanding and decent man to deal with– we cannot however, say the same for Warren Maguire, quite the contrary.
Code of ACC Claimant’s Rights – The following rights have been breached
1. You have the right to be treated with dignity and respect
Warren Maguire’s attitude and behaviour towards us both has certainly not been dignified in the slightest and he has no respect for my feelings and those of my husband’s who has been my sole care giver for a significant amount of time (from March 2003 until the present day. In other words Warren Maguire could not care less because it is not affecting him – well not yet anyway.
2. You have the right to be treated fairly and to have your views considered
6. You have the right to be fully informed.
I did not receive a fair hearing and in my opinion my views were not considered in the slightest – quite the contrary I might add.
Warren Maguire had predetermined the outcome before considering all the facts in front of him i.e. the so called very highly paid independent medical advisor’s report and our view of that, was not taken into account at all.
You have the right to a support person or persons
Maurice specifically requested that Warren Maguire call and speak to Maurice when he had made a decision and he was very clear and forthright about that as I was in no fit state to take the call myself due to my physical ill health and her mental and emotional state at that time. . Maurice was my support person and advocate. Maurice repeatedly told Warren Maquire many times over that he went to work at 10.30am and to call before then as I would be here alone in the house and that I needed Maurice to be present when he called.
Warren Maguire called me on Thursday 26th February at approximately 1500hrs and told me what the decision was – he had declined it and seemed very proud about it
I subsequently called Maurice at work to tell him what Warren Maguire had done (contrary to what Maurice specifically told him not to do.)
I subsequently went into a uncontrollable state of shock and was extremely upset Maurice had to take the rest of the afternoon off work to come home and look after me and losing wages in the process something we could ill afford to have happen.
Maurice consequently phoned Warren Maguire when he arrived home and he challenged him as to why he had done, what he had specifically had asked him not to do regarding the communication of the decision. Maurice found him, like I did, he actually got a real “real kick” out of this and the tone in his voice said it all – he actually enjoyed upsetting me as a claimant (who is female in gender). The conservation continued for a while and in the end Warren Maguire terminated the call in a disparaging and denigrating manner saying “Bye, bye Maurice Bye, Bye, raising his tone and then saying Bye, bye, bye, Maurice , bye ,bye then lowering his tone like a very young child would do – infantile to sum it up in a word.
5.You have the right to effective communication
Unfortunately we have found Warren Maguire to have a very little in the way of communication skills let alone effective and have nothing more to say on the point
8.You have the right to complain
We had already brought the issue of Warren Maguire’s behaviour and attitude towards us to the attention of his team leader in early February 2004 but obviously nothing was done or if it was “I have already paid the price”by complaining as Warren Maguire’s behaviour and attitude towards us deteriorated further from that day forward. It almost like a childish game he plays – complain about me and you will face the consequences because I hold the power.
Yes I do have that right but by exercising it invariably “falls on deaf ears” as this most likely will – we have found ACC a very difficult organisation to deal with.
Warren Maguire Case Manager lacks compassion and seems only to be interested in saving ACC money and has no idea of the adverse affect that he has had on me as a “human being” let alone a medical misadventure claimant. He should be ashamed of himself but I feel he is probably too arrogant to even “blink a eyelid”
Also he took a further dislike to me and my husband when he discovered that Anna de Jonge –Patient Rights Advocacy Waikato Inc was handling my claim. He was very uncomplimentary and rude in his comments about Anna in a very discriminatory and denigrating manner. “Oh that women” “Oh her” were two of his commenst we can clearly recall.
We find this to gutter talk to say the least. We did not let personalities get in the way of this issue but unfortunately Warren Maguire cannot help himself in this regard, but gauging by his behaviour towards us to date that was not all surprising.
Dissatisfied, despondent and disappointed claimant.
Cheryll Rand Wildbore
Accident Compensation Corporation
Complaints Service
P.O. Box 242
Freepost 264
WELLINGTON
30 September 2004
Dear Sir/Madam
Sequence of events involving Warren Maguire – Case Manager – Medical Misadventure Unit
On the 24th February 2003, Maurice Wildbore husband of claimant – Cheryll Rand Wildbore spoke to Warren Maguire by phone.
The following occurred:
Maurice asked Warren Maguire when would he be making a decision regarding Cheryll’s claim.
His response was prepare yourselves for disappointment – I have not even looked at the independent medical advisor report but it is fifty, fifty either way.
Maurice specifically requested that Warren Maguire call and speak to Maurice when he had made a decision and he was very clear and forthright about that as I was in no fit state to take the call myself due to my physical ill health, mental and emotional state at that time and I am still suffering physical and mental deficits. . Maurice was my support person . Maurice repeatedly told Warren Maguire that he went to work at 10.30am and to call before then as I would be here alone and that I needed Maurice to be present when he called.
Warren Maguire called me on Thursday 26th February 2003 at approximately 1500hrs and told me what the decision was – he had declined it and seemed very proud about it. I subsequently called Maurice at work to tell him what Warren Maguire had done (contrary to what Maurice specifically told him not to do)
I subsequently went into an uncontrollable state of shock and was extremely upset Maurice had to take the rest of the afternoon off work to come home and look after me losing wages in the process.
Maurice consequently phoned Warren Maguire when he arrived home and challenged him as to why he had done, what he had specifically had asked him not to do regarding the communication of the decision. Maurice found him, like I did, he actually got a real “real kick” out of this and the tone in his voice said it all –he actually enjoyed upsetting me as a claimant (who are female in gender). The conversation continued for a while and in the end Warren Maguire terminated the call in a disparaging and denigrating manner saying “Bye, bye Maurice Bye, Bye, raising his tone and then saying Bye, bye, bye, Maurice ,bye ,bye then lowering his tone like a very young child would do – infantile to sum it up in a word.
Mark Davies had informed me in middle December 2003 that in his opinion my claim would be accepted and we both found Mark when he was Cheryll’s case manager to be an extremely understanding and decent man to deal with– we cannot however, say the same for Warren Maguire, quite the contrary.
Code of ACC Claimant’s Rights – The following rights have been breached
1. You have the right to be treated with dignity and respect
Warren Maguire’s attitude and behaviour towards us both has certainly not been dignified in the slightest and he has no respect for my feelings and those of my husband’s who has been my sole care giver for a significant amount of time (from March 2003 until the present day. In other words Warren Maguire could not care less because it is not affecting him – well not yet anyway.
2. You have the right to be treated fairly and to have your views considered
6. You have the right to be fully informed.
I did not receive a fair hearing and in my opinion my views were not considered in the slightest – quite the contrary I might add.
Warren Maguire had predetermined the outcome before considering all the facts in front of him i.e. the so called very highly paid independent medical advisor’s report and our view of that, was not taken into account at all.
You have the right to a support person or persons
Maurice specifically requested that Warren Maguire call and speak to Maurice when he had made a decision and he was very clear and forthright about that as I was in no fit state to take the call myself due to my physical ill health and her mental and emotional state at that time. . Maurice was my support person and advocate. Maurice repeatedly told Warren Maquire many times over that he went to work at 10.30am and to call before then as I would be here alone in the house and that I needed Maurice to be present when he called.
Warren Maguire called me on Thursday 26th February at approximately 1500hrs and told me what the decision was – he had declined it and seemed very proud about it
I subsequently called Maurice at work to tell him what Warren Maguire had done (contrary to what Maurice specifically told him not to do.)
I subsequently went into a uncontrollable state of shock and was extremely upset Maurice had to take the rest of the afternoon off work to come home and look after me and losing wages in the process something we could ill afford to have happen.
Maurice consequently phoned Warren Maguire when he arrived home and he challenged him as to why he had done, what he had specifically had asked him not to do regarding the communication of the decision. Maurice found him, like I did, he actually got a real “real kick” out of this and the tone in his voice said it all – he actually enjoyed upsetting me as a claimant (who is female in gender). The conservation continued for a while and in the end Warren Maguire terminated the call in a disparaging and denigrating manner saying “Bye, bye Maurice Bye, Bye, raising his tone and then saying Bye, bye, bye, Maurice , bye ,bye then lowering his tone like a very young child would do – infantile to sum it up in a word.
5.You have the right to effective communication
Unfortunately we have found Warren Maguire to have a very little in the way of communication skills let alone effective and have nothing more to say on the point
8.You have the right to complain
We had already brought the issue of Warren Maguire’s behaviour and attitude towards us to the attention of his team leader in early February 2004 but obviously nothing was done or if it was “I have already paid the price”by complaining as Warren Maguire’s behaviour and attitude towards us deteriorated further from that day forward. It almost like a childish game he plays – complain about me and you will face the consequences because I hold the power.
Yes I do have that right but by exercising it invariably “falls on deaf ears” as this most likely will – we have found ACC a very difficult organisation to deal with.
Warren Maguire Case Manager lacks compassion and seems only to be interested in saving ACC money and has no idea of the adverse affect that he has had on me as a “human being” let alone a medical misadventure claimant. He should be ashamed of himself but I feel he is probably too arrogant to even “blink a eyelid”
Also he took a further dislike to me and my husband when he discovered that Anna de Jonge –Patient Rights Advocacy Waikato Inc was handling my claim. He was very uncomplimentary and rude in his comments about Anna in a very discriminatory and denigrating manner. “Oh that women” “Oh her” were two of his commenst we can clearly recall.
We find this to gutter talk to say the least. We did not let personalities get in the way of this issue but unfortunately Warren Maguire cannot help himself in this regard, but gauging by his behaviour towards us to date that was not all surprising.
Dissatisfied, despondent and disappointed claimant.
Cheryll Rand Wildbore
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1