ACCforum: Dispute Resolution Services Limited - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Dispute Resolution Services Limited This Tribunal is not Independent

#1 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 08 April 2004 - 11:52 AM

When one mentions the fact that ACC owns Dispute Resolution Services Limited. People just shake their heads and go away in apathetic disbelief knowing it will be true and another example of the corrupting of Policy holder rights. The amount of appeals and reviews called for in the ACC scheme at present indicate that something is definitely wrong with the decision making process within the Corporation. Why is DRSL wholly funded by ACC? ACC pulled two of its staff off the board of DRSL when it was exposed that they were there. If DRSL was "independent" why were they there?
Bearing in mind the scope of ACC reviews
and their precarious position in relation to their true master. Some reviewers do a fairly balanced review. Some, disliking what they seen with ACC, left and started practises fighting them.
There is no way the first step in a dispute between the policy holder and ACC should be heard by anything but a truly transparent and independent tribunal.
Can anyone find the latest figures. How much does DRSL cost the lavy paper, spelling intentional, that is how ACC sees the levy payer, think about it. How many reviews are heard each year now compared to 10 years ago. Labour promised to return ACC to the way it was. Well get the bloody Corporations hands out of the judicial and medical process. There is no way the assessment of a junior GP should be given the right to overturn the reports of more eminent medical specialists or the patients GP. Simply because he is "approved" by the insurance company that hires him. And if the doctor who is hired by that insurance company is found to be giving assessments that are plus 98% in favor of that insurance company and they both benefit financially from it. His independence should be seriously questioned because the man is obviously nothing but a cheap fraudster, hiding behind corrupt law. Look at Antoniadus and his trips to Queensland? is he independent. Lets have a look at their books and see how "independent" they would be without the wad that ACC sticks in their wallets via Provider payments. DRSL sees what is going on. Every day in their job they see the mental thuggery that is part of being permanently disabled and contracted, by the act to ACC. Daily they see the petty invasions lies and deceit of case managers, they give them names like Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler, they call her. Where is the decency in these highly paid professionals, Why do they not speak out? Because they are legally bound by their masters not to speak out. So how on earth can they be "Independent"?
1

#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 08 April 2004 - 11:30 PM

nothing on its own. Its in bed with everything that it touches. The Police are being paid by the corporation to get funding for road safety. This will be used to help the ACC when there are problems at the corporation office that are caused by the corporation. The client, policy holders, and claimer are all the same person. The client pays the levy, the policy holder holds the policy which is section 3 of the ACC Act., the claimer, claimant is the same person who claims on the policy.

The DSRL is there as a process in dealing with disputes. When the ACC does not supply what the levy is paid to supply and deliberately does not supply the service it is committing FRAUD.

Now Jocko if we look at your situation. You has a injury as well as an old injury.

When looking at section 3 (c ) ensuring that where injuries occur, the Corporation's primary focus should be on rehabilitation with a goal of achieving an appropriate quality of life trough the provision of entitlements that restores to the maximum practicable extent a claimant's health, independence, and participation.

Looking at your rehabilitation for your last accident. What did the corporation supply in the way of rehabilitation. NOTHING! What they did di was to send you to see if you could work 35 or more hours per week. Didn't you present a rehabilitation plan that showed that you could work 35 hours per week. Didn't your Doctor agree that you could carry out this rehabilitation that you presented to them?
Section 80 shows the purpose of rehabilitation. As you were already in employment and were fit for selected work you did not need to (b ) obtain employment; there fore you only needed the rehabilitation to (a ) maintain employment.

What happened to you the corporation ignored your rehabilitation plan and this meant that you lost the employment that you had. They proceeded to do a completely new rehabilitation plan that did not (a ) maintain employment; or obtain employment; or regain or acquire vocational independence.

Vocational independence in relation to a claimant, means the claimant's capacity, as determined under section 107 to engage in work - (a ) for which he or she is suited by reason of experience, education or training, or any combination of those things; and (b ) for 35 hours or more a week.

When asking how much rehabilitation you should receive this is stated in section 3 of 2001 Act. "With a goal of achieving an appropriate quality of life"

What is your quality of life? Unemployed, bankrupt, with little chance to return to your former occupation with out the rehabilitation.

Your case manager Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler only did the rehabilitation to acquire Vocational Independence which is mot what the Act is there to provide. The rehabilitation plan that the Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler, presented to you was able to be reviewed. This is the same as the rehabilitation plan that you presented to Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler can be reviewed also. Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler had made a decision not to use this plan which had a better chance of supplying the quality of life and regaining Vocational Independence .

As your situation is tat you are bankrupt and owning your own business just now is not allowed you do have a good chance to review the goings on in your file.

The Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler did not give you a decision about your rehabilitation plan did they? We know that they rejected it. But did they give you review rights.

Even if they have not given a decision to you the rehabilitation plan is still valid until a decision is given.

We know that the direction taken by Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler was not the correct one and you do not have a quality of life.

Section 110(3) states "the corporation must not require the claimant to participate in a assessment (Vocational Independence)-- (a) unless the claimant is likely to achieve vocational independence; and (B) until the claimant has completed any vocational rehabilitation that the Corporation was liable to provide under his or her individual rehabilitation plan"

Now the Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler did a Vocational independence when you had a rehabilitation plan if I am right.

Get even with the system

The review officer will back the corporation side with the judicia thing when you will reply back that the Interpretation Act states that you must not loose entitlements by the actions of the corporation staff.

Before you start you will need to modify the rehabilitation plan for the corporation to supply the boat and run the business. (believe that you can not own a business because you are bankrupt.) This should be done after the plan is accepted as the situation was at the date of the rehabilitation plan.

Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler did not follow the Act in doing what they did. They cut corners left out bit to obtain there object. In the criminal world it is classes as fraud. It is no different when someone puts in a claim for a fictious injury. Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler made a fictious IRP that showed that you could work 35 hours and you could not defend that as you place a rehabilitation plan in front of then that you could work 35 plus hours with rehabilitation. The difference is that your plan gave you the quality of life when Kaye Costely, The Rottweiler's plan does not obtain all the objects. The review officer can not argue that fact
The problem is when the corporation staff stop any of the entitlements the staff is in the first stage of committing fraud. Every time a court decision goes against the corporation this is proof of fraud, but no one ever gets prosecuted for he offence of fraud, misleading or any of the others.
To really know if the review officer is independent ask him the question "have you or fellow review officers refereed any staff of the ACC to the police for fraud when the staff have obviously deceived a claimant out of there entitlement."
The answer to my knowledge is NO!
Then ask the question" If it was obvious to you during a review that a claimant is trying to commit Fraud, would you place the information in front of the ACC fraud unit." The Answer here is YES!

This would show that the review officer is not independent and even if he saw fraud the review officer would let it go through so the person could be prosecuted for fraud and a gloat from the review officer due to the reporting of the fraud.
0

#3 User is offline   yesno 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-February 06

Posted 16 March 2006 - 02:19 PM

How widespread is the practise of DRSL preparing for Appeals on Behalf of ACC?

What is their jurisiction to have any involvement whatsoever in ACC's defence of an appeal?

A recent review is now been prepared for Appeal by DRSL.

This is totally unfounded.
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 March 2006 - 05:15 PM

your decision is a well cared for and planed document. there is usually a lot of other information that is not related or has no decision on the information being chalanged.

in Page V ACC the lawyer for page states the reviewer did not consider several items that were placed before him. The lawyer brought those items forward for the judge to make a decision on.

Don't get side tracked by all the unnecessary information in the decision from the reviewer. Just make sure that the judge knows that it is misleading (if it is ) and should be disregarded when making his decision.
0

#5 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 16 March 2006 - 05:27 PM

Has anyone ever managed to get a copy of the tape or transcript of the DRSL attended reiew hearing .

I understood that they where supposed to be recorded and the recording kept available for two years ... AND available to the claimant .

Has anyone ever managed to get a copy??

tony
0

#6 User is offline   notafairgo 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 04-February 06

Posted 16 March 2006 - 05:52 PM

I understood it was common practice for DRSL to tape the review and also to provide a transcript.
Is this not so? <_<
0

#7 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 March 2006 - 05:56 PM

yes some people have and it is supprising that they use a special recording device that is no available to all.

I would suggest that all obtain a transcript and record the review youur self.

of course wait until after a secision.
0

#8 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 16 March 2006 - 06:04 PM

Greetings,
Yes... and riddled with "Inaudibles".... even on the transcript.
Was told today that at a review or "meetings" "They" may have a way, of rendering your recording "Inaudible".
Has anyone had the experience of their recording being total s... yet device works perfectly in any other situation. ???
0

#9 User is offline   Shannon 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 23-September 03

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:07 AM

Yes have had this happen to me when meeting with casemongrel and her team leader. 1 1/2 hr meeting reduced to roughly 15 minutes of tape time. We got the first 10 minutes at the beginning and the last 5 minutes at the end. Tape recorder works perfectly every other situation. Recorder failed to work (was intermittent and muffled) when team leader bought there recorder in so that they would have a copy also.
0

#10 User is offline   yesno 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-February 06

Posted 17 March 2006 - 11:32 AM

As discussed by manga carta on another thread, DRSL has an obligation to provide an accurate record of review.

i filmed one recently, (don't tell ACC) Smiles, so that when this all comes public we can Broadcast their lies. The professional quality audio makes out all of the statements, but as there was 10 people in the Room, and key ACC people deliberatley spoke in a way that their evidence was not clear, and the fact that the reviewers unidirectional mike was pointed at me, meant that DRSL's transcript missed most of the key parts from ACC.

Needless to say, our transcript is very clear and full. i think that at last count, in the transcript, there are several hundred breaches of the ACC Code...

Everyone has a right to have a copy of any review decision if you were there,

We should have a competition for high school students, like Spot the difference between the Pictures, but spot the difference between the review transcripts...

I believe that there are hundreds of discrepencies in each transcript, and every single one of them is in favour of ACC, or the reviewer in our case.

SMILES

YESNO
0

#11 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 17 March 2006 - 06:01 PM

there is a few simple rules when taping.

never put the recorder close tp another recorder. lot of the digital recorders have a white noise prodcer that cancels out noise. this will interfear with other recorders.

I am not sure but most recorders have a light that shows when there is a recording of volume. Make sure that its is working through out the recording.


ACC know and may obtain white noise makers so that no recording can be made. this means that they can not record either.
0

#12 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 17 March 2006 - 06:20 PM

A laptop computer with the recording resolution set to above 44 Hz will record everything. At that rate of recording don't even have to be very careful where you place the microphone. IT WILL PICK UP EVERYTHING CLEAR AS A BELL. You can then put the recording through a sound lab software to remove various distortions made by the ACC deliberately rattling their pens, fumbling with pages and other such trickery. ACC legal counsel are in the habit of deliberately perverting the course of justice by rendering their own voices inaudible, as do ACC staff, while telling their lies.

With recording of the above described resolution it is also possible to run stress analysis over the voice recording for purposes of determining indicators of knowing dishonesty. It is therefore important to flag points of fact known to the utterer of the statement to be dishonest to set benchmarks.

A second-hand laptop can be purchased for not much more than a reasonable micro cassette recorder.
0

#13 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 17 March 2006 - 06:39 PM

Really Should the IP. have to resort to such tactics
if we were dealing with an ACC. the boss, Dr White wants to control?.
0

#14 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 17 March 2006 - 06:56 PM

Greetings,
My lap top is audio and video capable... Built in mic and camera...
with mobile internet access. Should be rather usefull at this meeting. If it happens ???
I intend to test Audio / voice recorder (with USB input for PC)... before meeting.
0

#15 User is offline   yesno 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-February 06

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:20 PM

Hi All,

i recorded audio at 48Khz,

I could run a stress analysis but have since found that there is no need because all of their lies are documented in Pathway...

Including reviewers.

I cannot believe it.

I thought that the rules regarding all evidence is admissable to review is to protect the claimants but this is clearly not the case. It is there for ACC to lie.



YESno
0

#16 User is offline   suedem 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: 14-April 04

Posted 05 June 2006 - 11:12 PM

drsl is a total waste of time and money. you won't get me there again.

as for recording, the best thing you could invest in is a good pen-sized digital recorder which can download to your computer. works like a dream.
0

#17 User is offline   Limoges 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-November 04

Posted 06 June 2006 - 10:43 AM

I would like to know how many Forum members have won Review hearings when using a Lawyer? I am sure that the % of 'wins' goes up when doing this.

The fact of using a Lawyer (completely unreasonable for many, I know not to mention unfair) seems to help the claimant's case and this goes when the Lawyer is involved in any of the dealings with the Government Offices as well.
0

#18 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 06 June 2006 - 04:41 PM

The main thing to win at review is.

Have your facts right.
Have case law to back your argument.
Have better Medical oponion, to back your claim.

Without these there is no way you can win.

You do not need a lawyer for a lot of reviews, a good advocate is better some times. As they handle more cases and can advise what medical reports you need to win.

ACC turf a lot of people off on the advise of there BMA who most of the time is only a GP and is not qualified to over turn a specialist report.
0

#19 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:52 AM

I am about to put at risk some friendships as well close the door on some of my sources of free legal opinions .

BUT I have seen far more desirable outcomes at review and before it gets that far by concentrating what limited finacial recources they have on expert medical opinions .

The real need is to be able to find the expert's in the required field that is able to give a report that is appropriate and unable to be questioned. In fact if it is questioned so much so they the experts take up the challenge and affront to their opinions.
This is where the initial effoert should go , in finding these people.

It does cost to get a private specialist opinion but far leas than one will end up paying for a lawyer who will want to get the reports in anycase.

If we all knew to challenge any suspect medical report at the beginning rather than fight them in review and court later on I am sure things would be different.

We are seeing a climate that is encouraging more nna more lawyers and advocy services getting on to the ACC band wagon .

We end up doing the paying , it is out of our pockets and the only people to benifit are the ambulance chasers .

By exposing flawed medical reports by commissioning more qualified reports and overturning them right at the beginning will be the cheapest and faster solution .

The trouble is of course there are so many suspect reports and so few highly qualified experts with available time

The thing I emphasis is expert , highly qualified expert opinion not just someone who writes reports we want to hear , they may lack the credibility and grunt required .
Remeber just as we have notes of toady providers they must also have noted providers who seem to favour clients .
But BMA's do not ignore reports from highly respected speicaists .

We need to avoid the growth industry of ambulance chasers , stop feeding the beast .
We need to nip problems in the bud right at the beginning , and eductate those who follow us .

I know some aspects of law do need clarfification and need the expert help from lawyers but they are in fact a very limited occurance , most of the money going into the pockets of the advocte/legal services and it comes out of ours... unless you qualify for legal aid., but you still can end up paying..

The focus is to have the knowledge to do the right thing at the start of the problem..

tony
0

#20 User is offline   Limoges 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-November 04

Posted 07 June 2006 - 09:50 AM

tonyj

"We need to avoid the growth industry of ambulance chasers , stop feeding the beast .
We need to nip problems in the bud right at the beginning , and eductate those who follow us ."

I wholeheartedly agree!
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • 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