Treatment Injury McNaught v ACC - DC 163/2008
#1
Posted 30 July 2008 - 03:10 PM
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
#2
Posted 30 July 2008 - 03:38 PM
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?
#3
Posted 30 July 2008 - 04:08 PM
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.
#4
Posted 30 July 2008 - 04:35 PM
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.
#5
Posted 30 July 2008 - 04:56 PM
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
#6
Posted 30 July 2008 - 05:39 PM
#8
Posted 30 July 2008 - 06:37 PM
[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.
#9
Posted 30 July 2008 - 06:55 PM
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.
#10
Posted 30 July 2008 - 07:06 PM
Back to your box would be a great idea. This members of this forum are not going to be dictated to by YOU.....

#11
Posted 30 July 2008 - 08:33 PM
Alan Thomas, on Jul 30 2008, 06:55 PM, said:
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.
#12
Posted 30 July 2008 - 08:48 PM
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.