ACCforum: Dispute Resolution Services Limited - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Dispute Resolution Services Limited This Tribunal is not Independent

#21 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:24 PM

Tonyi yes we need to nip the bludgers that are on the gravey train. Case managers are a big part of the problem but it is the report writers that are compounding the situtation.

Educating will be the hardest thing unless you educate people to read the Act when applying for an entitlement.
0

#22 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 08 June 2006 - 11:22 AM

Surely to god reviewers are meant to be impartial, they don't even get oversight it seems. Fast as a wink your file is flicked back to acc and nothing is kept in the drsl office that can be checked on and they won't go over the documentation to check it when requested either. So much for the manager review quality person, must spend most of the day having picnics around the offices, sure as hell doesn't seem to do any work.

Grrrrrr Gloria
0

#23 User is offline   Accme 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 08 June 2006 - 12:57 PM

If you push people too far, Newtons Law will apply
0

#24 User is offline   wayne1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-February 06

Posted 09 June 2006 - 10:31 AM

Greetings

Can anyone tell me if DRSL operate under ACC ledgislation or government rules in the review of a review. Can the be sued !!!!!!!!!

Inflation at 4% therefore or weekly increase 4% in November
0

#25 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 09 June 2006 - 11:48 AM

Hi Wayne1

ACC legislation covers review process. see your 2001 Act for these Sections.

5: Dispute resolution
133 Effect of review or appeal on decisions
134 Who may apply for review
135 How to apply for review
136 Corporation to acknowledge receipt of review application
137 Corporation to engage and allocate reviewers
138 Reviewer's duty to act independently and disclose previous involvement
139 Corporation's duties to secure independence of reviewer
140 Conduct of review: general principles
141 Conduct of review: hearing to be held
142 Persons entitled to be present and heard at hearing
143 Record of hearing
144 Review decisions: formalities
145 Review decisions: substance
146 Deemed review decisions
147 Effect of review decisions
148 Costs on review
149 Who may appeal against review decision


Gloria
0

#26 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 09 June 2006 - 04:50 PM

Section 145 (1) is the section in what the reviewers job is

As I read it the reviewers job is simply that they must see that the case managers has made all of the decisions as per the legislation.

If the reviewer finds no fault then the decision is up held.

When fault is found the reviewer tells the case manager to apply the legislation in there job and not policy.

Problem is that the reviewer gets sidetracked and make decisions on policy and not the legislation.
0

#27 User is offline   suedem 

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

Posted 05 July 2006 - 05:52 PM

tonyj and Limoges, I agree with you. Knowing the law is of paramount importance for claimants who are able to do that. However, because ACC has got away with applying policy only for so long (which is often dodgy to say the least, when it comes to the legislation), they continue ad infinitum to follow their same abusive practises.

I frequently ask my case manager (and the branch manager) for the sections of the law to uphold their decisions but you know what? They have NEVER (and I mean NEVER) given them. That gives me to understand that their decisions are based on policy not legislation. This seems prevalent in some branches more than others. Also, frequent requests that they follow the ACC Code of Claimant Rights (which is dismal enough!) get nil response except to "come to my office and talk to me". Now tell me this: why don't they want to respond in writing? Too much evidence, perhaps? <_<
0

#28 User is offline   Chrissy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 25-August 05

Posted 16 January 2007 - 09:05 PM

Check this out!

http://www.parliament.nz/CmsSystem/Templat...arch=-672520499

12547 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (12 Sep 2006): If a claim is not dismissed, how long is the average wait a claimant has to undergo before their claim is heard through Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL) in the last six years ?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: I am unable to provide a full answer to the member’s question as Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL) can provide the level of information the member has requested from February 2005 only. I have interpreted the member to mean matters that did not proceed to a review hearing when the member states “a claim is not dismissed”. For clarity, I am advised that DRSL use the term ‘dismissed’ when advising parties to a review that a review decision has upheld an ACC decision. Such ‘dismissed’ decisions have been included in the following statistics. For the period July 2005 to June 2006, the average time from when ACC receives notification of a request for review to a review hearing taking place is 109 calendar days. This can be broken down to an average of 18 calendar days for ACC to perform an administrative review, i.e. confirming or revoking its decision, then advising DRSL whether a hearing is needed. The balance is an average of 91 calendar days for the matter to go before a Review Officer. Additionally, I am advised that there is an average of a further 17 calendar days for DRSL to issue a decision.
12546 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (12 Sep 2006): How can a company owned by ACC, such as Disputes Resolutions Services Ltd (DRSL), provide a truly independent service for claimants or is DRSL really serving the needs of ACC?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: I refer the member to my answer to question for written answer 12545 (2006).
12487 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (11 Sep 2006): Is it true that approximately 70% of cases that go through Disputes Resolution Services Limited are decided in favour of ACC or otherwise withdrawn; is 70% a target for ACC as outlined on page 69 of the Annual Report 2005?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: Decisions where DRSL reviewers have decided that ACC has made the correct decision by law for the past 3 years are as follows: · 2003/2004 - 60.95% · 2004/2005 - 61.45% · 2005/2006 - 63.20% ACC has a target of 70% of ACC decisions being upheld on review. This is a target for quality decisions by ACC; it is not a measure of success for DRSL.
12488 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (11 Sep 2006): What percentage, if any, of Disputes Resolution Services Limited reviewers are former ACC employees, for the current year and in the last four years?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: I refer the Member to the attached table which shows the number of Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL) reviewers who were formerly employed by the Accident Compensation Corporation, for the past five years. Prior to the establishment of DRSL in 1999, all reviewers and support staff were employees of ACC. At the time DRSL was established, those staff moved to DRSL.
View attachment [PDF 4k]

12489 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (11 Sep 2006): How many, if any, of the 2432 claimant reviews that were dismissed in 2004 - 05 were dismissed for reasons of jurisdiction?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: When a review application is received, a reviewer determines if the review lodged falls under the statutory provisions of the Act. The reviewer then decides if the review application presented meets those provisions and, if not, will decide that there is no jurisdiction to hear the matter presented before them. Decisions with regard to jurisdiction are not dismissed, they are not heard. In such circumstances, DRSL will provide all parties to the review a formal written decision, which contains advice of the right to appeal to the District Court In 2004/2005, reviewers found that they had no jurisdiction for 406 reviews.
12486 (2006). Dr Paul Hutchison to the Minister for ACC (11 Sep 2006): Will the Minister support any call for a completely independent disputes resolution organization in order to ensure there is no conflict of intent with ACC?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: I consider the current statutory review process, managed by Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL), to be appropriate and to meet the requirements for independence outlined in Part 5 of the IPRC Act 2001. You will note that there are specific sections in this Part of the Act that protect the decision making of the reviewer from external influence. I do not consider there to be a conflict of interest between DRSL and ACC. As such, I do not feel it is necessary to introduce a new dispute resolution organisation to manage ACC reviews.
16923 (2004). Hon Tony Ryall to the Minister for ACC (18 Nov 2004): What are the qualifications of each of the current Dispute Resolution Services' reviewers?
Hon Ruth Dyson (Minister for ACC) replied: Section 9(2)(a) of the Official Information Act governs ACC’s ability to release personal information regarding each individual. Consequently, I am unable to release the personal information of the reviewers without their individual consent. The following information summarises the qualifications of reviewers at Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL). · There are 24 reviewers who are permanent employees of DRSL, one reviewer who is a casual employee and two reviewers who are contracted to conduct ACC reviews. · 25 have tertiary qualifications and two do not. · 17 have tertiary legal qualifications – LLB, LLB (Hons) or LLM – 14 of whom have been admitted as barristers and solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand or its equivalent in overseas jurisdictions. · 17 reviewers have tertiary Arts or Science Degrees – including BA, BA (Hons), MA or BSC – 11 of whom also have tertiary legal qualifications. · 7 have completed Graduate Diplomas in Dispute Resolution studies, and 6 have graduated from those studies. The 7 Reviewers with Graduate Diplomas and 4 others are Associates of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand. · As well as the above, several Reviewers have other qualifications including Rehabilitation, Teaching, Nursing, and Psychology. · The 2 staff who do not have tertiary qualifications have 16 and 25 years ACC scheme experience respectively

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
0

#29 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 16 January 2007 - 09:39 PM

there is 27 reviewers and look at the qualifications they have got.

to me it is either that they gained more qualifications instead of experance. Looks like that the ones that did my reviews had either 16 or 25 years of experence at ACC.
0

#30 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 16 January 2007 - 11:00 PM

27 reviewers by the number target in their contract should give you the number od disputes go through to the hearing stage. I saw that figure somewhere.
remember this is probably thier target figure of 30% to hearing stage it is then a simple extropolation to determine how many of the disattisfied 1 in 5 are eartagged bleating sheep.........
0

#31 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 04 February 2007 - 12:04 PM

View Posttonyj, on Mar 16 2006, 06:27 PM, said:

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


Gidday Tony my name is Darrell Pearce in reply to your question about the transcripts i have managed to obtain 3 transcripts in 4 of my reviews. Does that help you in any way particular way if not send me an e-mail [email protected]
0

#32 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 04 February 2007 - 12:16 PM

View Postflowers, on Jan 17 2007, 12:00 AM, said:

27 reviewers by the number target in their contract should give you the number od disputes go through to the hearing stage. I saw that figure somewhere.
remember this is probably thier target figure of 30% to hearing stage it is then a simple extropolation to determine how many of the disattisfied 1 in 5 are eartagged bleating sheep.........


Tony - yes I have been sent two transcripts for two reviews......interesting and bear no relation to outcomes.

The last transcript I had to fight hand tooth and nail to get.....and that took quite some time.

In prior times they provided transcripts with decisions.....today you have to fight.

So fight and don't give up until you get it. There are district court rules on this sort of thing....you have the right to ALL the information.

Gloria.
0

#33 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 February 2007 - 04:30 PM

I have asked for both tap and transcribed to 15 review hearing as I had on the same day. Regarding the jurisdictional issues the reviewer managed to make decisions that he did not have jurisdiction even though he did not received from me in a written documentation and I only spoke 2 interrupted sentences in answer to questions which had nothing to do with the case.

You should get on both transcript and that I then check the transfer for accuracy. Many times you will find critical words written down as unintelligible that are clearly audible. You should then write to them and asked them to correct the transcript.
0

#34 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 06 May 2007 - 10:18 PM

View PostGloria Mitchell, on Jun 8 2006, 11:22 AM, said:

Surely to god reviewers are meant to be impartial, they don't even get oversight it seems. Fast as a wink your file is flicked back to acc and nothing is kept in the drsl office that can be checked on and they won't go over the documentation to check it when requested either. So much for the manager review quality person, must spend most of the day having picnics around the offices, sure as hell doesn't seem to do any work.

Grrrrrr Gloria

Evening Gloria it is Darrell here. Can you tell me have you heard of MAREE HILL IN AUCKLAND. She is going to hear my application for review on the 1/6/07 at 2.00pm. What is she like i am going to Auckland for the hearing as i have to sort out my case manager before i fly back from Auckland. Is Maree an ex acc employee. John Orange was going to hear to the application in Takapuna but on the advice of Nathan Ormsby my advocate that we should get the reviewer changed as well so i did that.
REGARDS.
DARRELL.
0

#35 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 07 May 2007 - 12:58 AM

I have had a lot to do with Marie Hill while she was a complaints officer. Asked the person complained about to check the spelling etc and her reply letter etc. Totally subservient to her master's wishes without an independent source in her brain. Grossly incompetent.

I have had recent encounters with the as a reviewer. Unfortunately she hasn't changed.

Found in our favour and paid costs thou but the case was a no-brainer.
0

#36 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 07 May 2007 - 01:42 AM

whoops
0

#37 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 07 May 2007 - 01:52 AM

[/quote]
Evening Gloria it is Darrell here. Can you tell me have you heard of MAREE HILL IN AUCKLAND. She is going to hear my application for review on the 1/6/07 at 2.00pm. What is she like i am going to Auckland for the hearing as i have to sort out my case manager before i fly back from Auckland. Is Maree an ex acc employee. John Orange was going to hear to the application in Takapuna but on the advice of Nathan Ormsby my advocate that we should get the reviewer changed as well so i did that.
REGARDS.
DARRELL.
[/quote]
[/quote]


Hi Darrell,

First thing I suggest is you ask your advocate to show you he has ALL relevant medical reports and X-Ray reports...that he hasn't accidentally overlooked any documents in your file that are lynchpin documents that could possibly lose your case because he hasn't recognized them or their importance. Your first x-ray report is just such a document. If more claimants realised how important this report is, they would be much better off.

a reveiwer is a reviewer is a reviewer and they all have their orders to shaft as many as possible whether they deserve it or not.

Stand in line love and take your chances like the rest of us...but do your prep well because you need to have your ducks already lined up to take to court.

Don't you all just hate knowiing how inequitable the farce of the social insurance debacle in NZ is?

Excuse me, not a good day after fighting the paperwar .....again.

good luck Gloria.
0

#38 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 07 May 2007 - 11:57 AM

[quote name='Gloria Mitchell' date='May 7 2007, 01:52 AM' post='43614']
[/quote]
Evening Gloria it is Darrell here. Can you tell me have you heard of MAREE HILL IN AUCKLAND. She is going to hear my application for review on the 1/6/07 at 2.00pm. What is she like i am going to Auckland for the hearing as i have to sort out my case manager before i fly back from Auckland. Is Maree an ex acc employee. John Orange was going to hear to the application in Takapuna but on the advice of Nathan Ormsby my advocate that we should get the reviewer changed as well so i did that.
REGARDS.
DARRELL.
[/quote]
[/quote]


Hi Darrell,

First thing I suggest is you ask your advocate to show you he has ALL relevant medical reports and X-Ray reports...that he hasn't accidentally overlooked any documents in your file that are lynchpin documents that could possibly lose your case because he hasn't recognized them or their importance. Your first x-ray report is just such a document. If more claimants realised how important this report is, they would be much better off.

a reveiwer is a reviewer is a reviewer and they all have their orders to shaft as many as possible whether they deserve it or not.

Stand in line love and take your chances like the rest of us...but do your prep well because you need to have your ducks already lined up to take to court.

Don't you all just hate knowiing how inequitable the farce of the social insurance debacle in NZ is?

Excuse me, not a good day after fighting the paperwar .....again.

good luck Gloria.
[/quote]
Morning Gloria it is Darrell here. I got your e-mail this morning & i can tell you now that i know Nathan quite well. I have referred your e-mail straight to him to comment on I can also tell you you can't have free legal representation you have to pay for it & what happens is you sign an agreement for Nathan to be your legal reprensentative. I also want to tell you that Ian Brown is not a damn fine surgeon who is no longer carrying out orthopaedic surgery. I am also going to tell you that Ian Brown does not listen to a claimants point of view when it comes to these stupid assessments
REGARDS.
DARRELL.
0

#39 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 07 May 2007 - 01:37 PM

[/quote]
Morning Gloria it is Darrell here. I got your e-mail this morning & i can tell you now that i know Nathan quite well. I have referred your e-mail straight to him to comment on I can also tell you you can't have free legal representation you have to pay for it & what happens is you sign an agreement for Nathan to be your legal reprensentative. I also want to tell you that Ian Brown is not a damn fine surgeon who is no longer carrying out orthopaedic surgery. I am also going to tell you that Ian Brown does not listen to a claimants point of view when it comes to these stupid assessments
REGARDS.
DARRELL.
[/quote]


Well Darrell that was very nice of you. Nathan will not reply to me personally in answer to the issue in question....which I would have put up here I might add, if it was for public perusal. Please note that I didn't, nor did I state anything that I cannot back up.

Gloria Mitchell.....who paid for her inadequate representation.......twice!

Note....I have not heard of Maree Hill...you might like to pass that along as well.
0

#40 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 07 May 2007 - 01:54 PM

Nice One Darrell Pearce.....you email to me.....

"Gloria it is Darrell here. I referred your e-mail directly to Nathan ormsby & as i told you i know Nathan quite well so get over it. I think once Nathan has seen what you said he will consider his legal options just because you lost your review hearings you should not criticise other people for your mistakes.
BACK OFF & LEAVE NATHAN ALONE HE IS A BLOODY GOOD ADVOCATE. "

Darrell you have no NETIQUETTE, or manners.

Gloria.




[quote name='Gloria Mitchell' date='May 7 2007, 02:37 PM' post='43626']
[/quote]
Morning Gloria it is Darrell here. I got your e-mail this morning & i can tell you now that i know Nathan quite well. I have referred your e-mail straight to him to comment on I can also tell you you can't have free legal representation you have to pay for it & what happens is you sign an agreement for Nathan to be your legal reprensentative. I also want to tell you that Ian Brown is not a damn fine surgeon who is no longer carrying out orthopaedic surgery. I am also going to tell you that Ian Brown does not listen to a claimants point of view when it comes to these stupid assessments
REGARDS.
DARRELL.
[/quote]


Well Darrell that was very nice of you. Nathan will not reply to me personally in answer to the issue in question....which I would have put up here I might add, if it was for public perusal. Please note that I didn't, nor did I state anything that I cannot back up.

Gloria Mitchell.....who paid for her inadequate representation.......twice!

Note....I have not heard of Maree Hill...you might like to pass that along as well.
[/quote]
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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