ACCforum: IRP's - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

IRP's

#1 User is offline   pain_b_gone 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 24-October 07

Posted 24 October 2007 - 06:22 AM

Hi everyone
I am a long-term claimant with a spinal injury, having had 3 surgeries and related invasive prodecures, including a myelogram. I have epidural fibrosis and severe back/leg pain with all the associated symptoms of arach, and take a cocktail of medications to keep the pain as comfortable as possible.

I have recently been given a new CM due to the duration of my claim, my current IRP states this is to be reviewed before the 30/12/07. I was phoned by my CM t asking how I felt about a work trial, a little bemused I asked what this entailed and she went on to tell me I would need a IOA and IMA - these were previously done in 2001 which found I was incapable of working. I undertook these again last month, with NO new IRP being done - the results of the IMA found returning to work on a fulltime basis was rather remote. Of the jobs obtained from the IOA (all administration type) he advised "it is medically sustainable from a physical perspecitive but the effect of her pain on her work capacity can only be ascertained by a work trial"

My CM phoned following the meeting with the panel to discuss the results of the assessments, she said they felt a work trial should be done as the IMA had said there was NO physical reason preventing this. I have now been sent the list of providers for a WRP - I'm feeling very frustrated with increased pain as both my GP and Pain Specialist have said in the past this is a permanent condition and it would be highly unlikely to ever be able to return to the work force. Both have said ACC needs to recognise there are certain cases where we do not fit into their wee boxes and that the regulations are absurd.

Can someone please advise ime f my IRP should have been renewed with these assessments being stated.

Just one more frustrated "tail-end" - is this a beginning of the exist plan?????
0

#2 User is offline   waddie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-August 06

Posted 24 October 2007 - 07:15 AM

I have only time for a brief repy.

1. the IRP once agreed to or finalised becomes a decision that can be reviewed.
2. where ACC can make a work trial a compliance issue is unknown by me. It sounds like something akin to slavery making someone work for an employer for free. It is different to say going on a course or being provided a SERVICE. I forced this issue once and ACC back out before the review hearing took place and reinstated claimants weekly comp.
3. read section 75 to 99 and cl.7 (irp prep) of schedule 1 of the Act. The current legislation can be accessed via ACC's website. Someone may post a link for you.

Work Trials are good when all parties agree, they can have the oppsite effect if the claimant is unhappy about it and ACC make it a compliance issue. Like I said "akin to slavery". The employer is getting free labour and is not providing a service. It should be a mutually beneficial agreement. So I am uncertain a work trial meets the definition of vocational rehabilitation which is "a service". see s. 77 of the 2001 Act.

At the end of the day is "the service" going to meet the "outcome to be acheived".
0

#3 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 24 October 2007 - 07:23 AM

Sounds like Barbra Millar and co the exit brigade.

Be careful they do you no harm!

A new or altered irp must be negotiated with the claimant and their doctors and advisors and AGREED to.

Make sure that they have all the details right and that yoiu agree to all the alterations before you sign the new one they will present you with..generally with menences.

All communication in writing ....unplug the phone as far as they are concerned and advise thenm that all communication is to be in writing' Take support person / witness to all meetings and arsessments.

They can deem the new irp if you refuse to sign it but they will threaten and bluster but you do not have to sign the irp document you will be presented with.

They will deem which you can appeal once they make a decision and if you do not appeal and do not attend they will suspend or cancell your erc.

There are support groups around the country that can provide help and assistance in your dealing with the motley mob but beware There are some sharks operating as advocates that have a bead reputation of helpingon a percentage basis and in some extremes make things even more difficult for you.

Finallz do not despair there are quiet a few that have been and are going through this rail roading excersise.
Looks like ACC has returned to the old xmas exit pogrom that the do not apparentlz do .Ha.
Whats blood changed _

sorrz kezboard has gone crazy has reversed z and y kezs and Others producing wierd letters
.
Good luck.
0

#4 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 24 October 2007 - 08:06 AM

Hi pain_b_gone

Welcome to the ACCforum

I can't offer any input as in regard to what you ask as others here are more experianced/qualified for that, and no doubt, will/would go out of their way to help/assist/guide you as best as they can here on the forum.

re = "it is medically sustainable from a physical perspecitive but the effect of her pain on her work capacity can only be ascertained by a work trial"

Can I ask which ACC branch manages your files and you who assesed you?

Not sure by your posting, but have you requested, and recieved, a full and un-edited copy of your case file?

If not, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only member here to strongly advise that you do that without delay.

Cheers
0

#5 User is offline   pain_b_gone 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 24-October 07

Posted 24 October 2007 - 09:04 AM

Hi Blurb

Thanks for the quick response.

I am with the Hamilton Branch and had my IMA with David Prestage - who had said to me he doubted very much that ACC would pursue the work issue as he was certain I would not be able to work the required 30 - 35 hours. His other comments and recomendations appear to have been totally overlooked by the panel, as my CM stated the "it is medically sustainable from a physical perspecitive" only.

I have looked at the ACC act regarding IRP's - my current IRP has no mention of any assessments and that it would be reviewed on or before 30/12/07.
I have also looked at the supposed process before undertaking these assessments and it says I should have completed a questionnaire - hmm haven't had that!!

As you can imagine this has completely bluffed me as I have had full support from both my GP and Pain Specialist, with the quantity of medications I'm on and persistent pain which I've been told will be permanent even with the medications (unless I take an even higher dosage putting me into a zombie state), this just adds to even more stress/pain!!
:(
-1

#6 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 24 October 2007 - 12:13 PM

Hi Painbgone
What I suggest you do is to get your GP to send you back to your Specialist and get a report from him regarding your pain and disabilities.
It is obvious from your description and possible too that you have arach. that you are really unfit for work.
The legislation states that the Vocational rehab CANNOT commence till your situation has STABLILSED>
It seems that yours is still very unstable.
Does the report from the IMA mention 35hrs a week?????
If it does, ACC are breaking the law as an IMA IOA MUST NOT mention any hours to be worked. This is an INITIAL assessment.


They cannot just send you on a work trial to prove the sustainability of your condition!!!! And also, without the authority of th e GP who is your Primary carer.They are forcing something on you that is not legal in my opinion just to prove whether you can work or not and are ignoring your GP.
Also beware of Work hardening programmes which come under the guise of activity based programmes etc...

Your GP has an input into the IRP and never sign it till you are satisfied with it.An IRP is what it says, an Idividual rehab plan, so it is up to you to put in it what you WANT and dont sign it, send it in. The CM can change it unbeknown to you if you sign it first!! It is a legal doco and is really important that you get it right...!!
Not happy, then take it to MEdiation.
Do you get Social rehab from ACC?? By that I mean, and it is set out in the act, do you receive all the treatment you need,meds, homehelps, transport for undependence, IE a car that is suitable for you etc. There is a lot set out in the act...
Home modifications also and heating arrangements are all met by ACC if it has been assessed as necessary for your rehab...
.
You must remember that the ACC IMA is a TOADY and will write what ACC wants.
Who was he by the way? Names can be put up here and then we will know exactly what he is up to. Many of them are well known to us.
So no work programme or trial without the authority of GP!!!
Good luck, and beware, this time of year, CM';s are very active in the EXIT stuff as their KPI's for the bonuses are done in NOV/DEC
Good luck and hope this helps. MAny of us have been in this position!!
Take note of Flowers advice too, everything in writing and no phone calls. Also ask for your file, you will need this of you go to mediation or Review.
You can PM me if you need further help. There is a lot to be done with your case and NO work trials while your situation is unstable. ACC try and ignore the GP's but he is in the driving seat, remember that...
Sparrow
0

#7 User is offline   pain_b_gone 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 24-October 07

Posted 24 October 2007 - 12:46 PM

Hi Sparrow

Thank you for your wonderful advice.

Dr David Prestage in Hamilton did my IMA, he didn't make any reference to the number of hours - he says " It is not easy to assess work capacity, from a physical perspective she should be able to cope with a job that involves sitting most of the time, but does allow her to get up and move around on a regular basis. It is not possible to know what impact her pain and her medications will have on her ability to concentrate. At this stage the likelihood of getting back into the work force on a full-time basis is rather remote. A graduated work trial starting with a small number of hours on alternate days would be one way of assessing her capacity with a bit more certainty".

Yeah sounds wonderful - if only I could sit most of the time without having this debiliating pain in my back and legs - ohhh for one of our wonderful CM's to just have this for one day.

Thanks once again - it's the not knowing where or who to get advice from that can be most frustrating.
0

#8 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 24 October 2007 - 01:46 PM

First rule in dealing with ACC/insurers - never, ever talk to them verbally. Always communicate in writing. If they won't write, and insist on telling you things over the phone, always write back saying that your letter confirms your understanding of the verbal communications. This is very important. Second - you should write to ACC, copy to "Hon Ruth Dyson MP, Freepost, Parliament Buildings, Wellington" and say you do not agree to a work trial because the IMA did not recommend it. Say to ACC you want the outcome in IRP changed to: "maintain independence in daily living". If ACC cannot or will not do this, wait until it issues a decision deeming the IRP to be in effect, then instruct a competent advocate to lodge an application for review on your behalf and ask for mediation. Do not attempt this yourself or you are likely to get shafted. I hope this helps.
0

#9 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 24 October 2007 - 03:13 PM

:wub:
0

#10 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 24 October 2007 - 03:47 PM

Be very careful in how you put you can not work.

What are you physically able to do should be looked at. this means that you may be able to carry out a particular activity for 2 hours a day.

You say that you can't work and ACC will say that you are committing fraud as you have a work capacity of 2 hours per day.

the IOA and IMA is nothing to do with working 30 or 35 hours its all about looking at the most economical aspect to reduce the compensation.

ACC want a statement preferbly from a third party saying that you can not work and then get you to do a work trail saying that you can do 2 hours a day. this is all that is needed for the case manager to say that you medical reports are not accurate.

First get your file correct and true. If there is a statement in a medical report saying something like "the claimant says that she can not carry out this work" and if you could do that type of activity even for ten minutes have that corrected in saying that " the assessor says that the claimant can not carry out the work."

you do everything to make sure that everything is correct and every little thing. when that is correct you may find that you will be entitled to Rehabilitation. this may or may not end up in some type of employment.

Sparrow most injuries are stabilized after 6 months of ending treatment. the injury can be unreliable but still can be stabilized. The Acts are not written for claimants to sit around and be 100% fixed before returning to some form of work. The Acts are written so that full rehabilitation to the fullest extent can be obtained, but it is the claimant that must fight to get the rehabilitation so they get rehabilitated to the fullest extent.
0

#11 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 24 October 2007 - 05:24 PM

Dopel, you are talking rubbish!
0

#12 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 24 October 2007 - 05:34 PM

I'm afraid he's not. The Act is written in a way that makes it most unhelpful to claimants while providing ACC/insurers with ample opportunities to shift the costs of personal injury onto the victims and their immediate families. IMHO, this situation is an ongoing disgrace but, unfortunately, the only alternative on offer is even worse.
0

#13 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 24 October 2007 - 07:54 PM

Policy is the way ACC interprets the act to meet the contractural goals of thier stake holders as vested in the government of New Zealand.
The problem is not the act. It is the way it is administered.
The whole idea of acc was to prodvide care and rehabilitation without the confo rontational and tortical nature of dealing with Insurance companies when they realised that there was going to be an ongoing liability on their books.
and the log jam it caused in the courts.
ACC's approach is listen not to the claimant or their doctors and meet not their needs without protracted assessment by a bevy of their selected approved contracted teams of questionably independant and ethical fully qualified professionals unless it is in their interests to do so.
The individual has been assasinated one becomes a cypher in a fiscal balance sheet and is allowed only the creedence that is in the interests of get them off as quick and as cheap as possible.
over time we have here evidence , much documented of This Policys effects on the claimants and the community.
As it is administered as of this day and years past ACC is a compulsory con foisted on the taxpayer of New Zealand that any idiot walking the street would not buy.
Is this the intent of the act?

And although I agree with dopple there are some injuries that do not get better and some that like osteo arthritis which is caused by impact or torsion trauma and displacement is degenerateive and accellerates substantioall detet rioation of the whole physical being far beyond that which is the norm.......
0

#14 User is offline   pain_b_gone 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 24-October 07

Posted 24 October 2007 - 08:16 PM

View Postwaddie, on Oct 24 2007, 08:15 AM, said:

I have only time for a brief repy.

1. the IRP once agreed to or finalised becomes a decision that can be reviewed.
2. where ACC can make a work trial a compliance issue is unknown by me. It sounds like something akin to slavery making someone work for an employer for free. It is different to say going on a course or being provided a SERVICE. I forced this issue once and ACC back out before the review hearing took place and reinstated claimants weekly comp.
3. read section 75 to 99 and cl.7 (irp prep) of schedule 1 of the Act. The current legislation can be accessed via ACC's website. Someone may post a link for you.

Work Trials are good when all parties agree, they can have the oppsite effect if the claimant is unhappy about it and ACC make it a compliance issue. Like I said "akin to slavery". The employer is getting free labour and is not providing a service. It should be a mutually beneficial agreement. So I am uncertain a work trial meets the definition of vocational rehabilitation which is "a service". see s. 77 of the 2001 Act.

At the end of the day is "the service" going to meet the "outcome to be acheived".


Hi Waddie
The strangest thing has just happened - I went into my emails and saw your reply come through and as quick as a wink it vanished - can't find it anywhere.
Would it be possible to please resend it - sorry - hopefully you still have it in your sent box.
Many thanks ;)
0

#15 User is offline   pain_b_gone 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 24-October 07

Posted 24 October 2007 - 08:52 PM

View Postpain_b_gone, on Oct 24 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

Hi Waddie
The strangest thing has just happened - I went into my emails and saw your reply come through and as quick as a wink it vanished - can't find it anywhere.
Would it be possible to please resend it - sorry - hopefully you still have it in your sent box.
Many thanks ;)

Hi Waddie
I'm sorry to be such a nuisance but I have just seen your reply come through twice and both times it's disappeared before I've been able to read it. I must have some "rule" on - if it's possible could you resend through this forum.
Sorry to be a pest - kind regards
0

#16 User is offline   waddie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-August 06

Posted 24 October 2007 - 09:08 PM

pain b gone, Not sure what the problem might be, but have sent the message via PM.
0

#17 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 24 October 2007 - 09:12 PM

Hi pain,

My suggestion is that you look very seriously at working part time if possible. this is so that the case manager gets bonuses because you are doing some part time work.

Sparrow I do as you say but just think what the case manager is trying to do because there is a dip stick at head office saying that after 3 months every one should be completely recovered and returned to work.

ACC have changed there tactics tfron 3 years ago and claimants must change with them.

I have also learned that the legislation has what is needed in the legislation so that entitlements can be provided.

Pain-b-gone return to the top or beginning of the thread and you might just see the message.

If it is a personal message click on the new message at the top right of the page.
0

#18 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 24 October 2007 - 10:47 PM

Dopel, it is aparrent that this person is in no fit state to be working an d to suggest he/she does is just silly!!
The IMA said to try a work trial to test out if they can work. That is not in the legislation!!

I suggest again to Pain that you get advice from a good advocate and get your IRP sorted and do not mention any work trials in the IRP at all.
You have to be passed fit by your GP to work and he agress you are unfit??

By going to work before your situation is stable is putting you in endangerment of re-injuring yourself.
If you are taking meds that are causing cognitive troubles, it could put you in danger if you tried working and had to step up the medication.
Have your tried alternative tratments like acupuncture/
This could go on your IRP too!!!
Good luck
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 24 October 2007 - 11:01 PM

I'm not saying that the person is fit for work but explaining the goals of ACC are. Don't put people in the trap so that PI's or they are now refered to as EO's can come along and curate a $300,000 plus bill for the claimant.

Here is ACC guide for occupational assessments.

take note that in the first few pages the Corporation wants a document useful for them. this document may be no use to the claimant at all.

Attached File(s)


0

#20 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 25 October 2007 - 12:33 AM

to access yor mailboxes the easiest way is to click on new messages and it will take you there even if you have no new mail. remember that if you want to save sent mail you must click the box at bottom of message before you send it.


Attached File  Capture.JPG (27.33K)
Number of downloads: 8
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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