ACCforum: Treatment Injury - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Treatment Injury McNaught v ACC - DC 163/2008

#1 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 30 July 2008 - 03:10 PM

One of the key points in this decision is that information provided to the GP about possible exposure to campylobacter was not passed onto the A&E Clinic at the hospital. This information and failing to carry out a CT scan that may have excluded other conditions lead to diagnostic surgery (laparotomy) that could probably have been avoided.

Therefore, the GP was one of the treatment providers providing the treatment even though they referred the patient to A&E so the failure to pass on possible relevant information to the hospital and the hospitals failure to carry out a scan caused a treatment injury. The claimant was was left with a significant abdominal scar, this being the physical injury.

Also, reference to Section 32(1)c "not a necessary part, or normal consequence, of the treatment" being separate ie can be one or the other.


http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/e..._ctrb091511.pdf
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 July 2008 - 03:38 PM

David a very good win for cover so as to receive and entitlements. Well done.

Ultimately what is the ACC liability to provide entitlements in this case?
How has this judgement affected treatment provider culpability in regards to our all piano responsibility insurance policy?
In addition has the wrong diagnostic procedure financially inconvenience this fellow?
0

#3 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 30 July 2008 - 04:08 PM

Thank you Alan, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the individual's claim outside of the decision.

Entitlements are based on injury-related need.
How this judgement affects the treatment providers will be something between the Corporation and the treatment providers, I suppose.
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 July 2008 - 04:35 PM

The issue of how our global insurance scheme impact upon employers and treatment providers is an area that I am greatly concerned about as there appears to be no actual motivating force such as potential for a lawsuit involving large amounts of money. Hypothetically your client may very well have suffered no actual loss of earnings because of the wrong diagnostic procedure as his recovery time from his medical condition itself would likely have taken longer than recovery from the diagnostic procedure with the result that he is not out of pocket with the result that nobody "carries the can". When nobody carries the can as it were there is no motivation of improvement. Hospitals keep on making mistakes and dangerous employers continue to be dangerous.

My own circumstances is that after winning a review hearing four reconstructive surgery ACC instructed a salvage procedure of which the surgeon changed his mind halfway through carrying out an experimental procedure that went wrong causing significant additional incapacity. But the ACC and the surgeon had escaped scot-free so far. I would imagine these experiences are commonplace which explains my interest in what your next step would be so as your win does not become a meaningless gesture.
0

#5 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 30 July 2008 - 04:56 PM

What entitlements the claimant I represent is entitled to is none of your business Alan.

If you want to find out if the Corporation has discussed with the Nelson Public Hospital about looking at making changes to its procedures, then why don't you ask them.

FFS
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 July 2008 - 05:39 PM

David once again you are losing sight of the purpose of the site which is to examine and comprehend points of law and what is written in the postings rather than your interpretation of underlying motives. Please refer to yourself back to my post number 4 so we can have a more meaningful interaction.
0

#7 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 30 July 2008 - 06:27 PM

Sicko Tomo, Mind your own business
0

#8 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 30 July 2008 - 06:37 PM

[quote name='Alan Thomas' date='Jul 30 2008, 05:39 PM' post='68165']
[b]David once again you are losing sight of the purpose of the site which is to examine and comprehend points of law[/b]

This site cannot and should not ever become a legal playground and again should not be the place to offer or disseminate legal opinions.

By all means post judgements and decisions, but for us to bandy about legal statutes when we have no formal training or legal experience does the credibility of this no good IMHO.

I think you have to revisit why this board was set up for in the first place which was to be a gathering site for mutual help and support not a branch of Community Law or Citizen's Advice or the Doctrines of Alan Gordon Thomas

Ask Tomcat why he asked the first question that started this whole story. I'm sure he never meant it to become a free legal service.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 July 2008 - 06:55 PM

Medwyn it is not for you or anyone else to decide the purpose or limitations of this site. Please leave such important matters up to those who instigated and maintain its existence. The site most certainly is to discuss matters of law and fact in the context of personal opinion. The site certainly did not start with Tomcat and neither is the site simply limited to mutual help and support. The origins of the site go back to 1998 in the context of being a depository of information and an information provider.

Every reasonable thinking person knows that for medical advice you go to a medical professional and the legal advice you go to legal professional. Obviously we do not get medical advice from therapists and neither do we get legal advice from advocates.

Medwyn try your best not to be a cyber bully.
0

#10 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 30 July 2008 - 07:06 PM

Sicko Tomo, who is the cyber troll bully?????
Back to your box would be a great idea. This members of this forum are not going to be dictated to by YOU..... :angry:
0

#11 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 30 July 2008 - 08:33 PM

 Alan Thomas, on Jul 30 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

[b]

Every reasonable thinking person knows that for medical advice you go to a medical professional and the legal advice you go to legal professional. Obviously we do not get medical advice from therapists and neither do we get legal advice from advocates.

Medwyn try your best not to be a cyber bully.

I won't try to bully you, you beat yourself enough as it is.

This is not , was not and never ever will be YOUR SITE. got it? it belongs to all who have contributed to it's current form, despite your efforts to manipulate, control and administer for your own ends.

As for the above quote, that's a bit rich from one who spouts forth all manner of medication advice and orthopaedic intervention advice, plus your unbeleievable take on ACC legislation and the Crimes Act.
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 30 July 2008 - 08:48 PM

Sicko Tankengine

For goodness sake get off you own trolley for a while and just be happy in a job well done leaving the door open for others in similar positions.

Obviously your case has nothing to do with this persons. No similarities at all.

Remember you are the one that won't post relevant details when you don't want too. So each of us should have the same choice.
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