ACCforum: Weal v ACC DC 183/2008 - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Weal v ACC DC 183/2008 Deemed review decision

#21 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 15 August 2008 - 12:35 PM

Tomo you are in deep waters here and your comments are rubbish.
It is time you used your own research instead of borrowing others.
You are NOT qualified to comment on this case and I am sure the Claimant here is very angry at your ill-founded comments.
Who do you think you are taking over every thread with your rubbish?
I hope readers of this site treat your stuff with a "pinch of salt".
0

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 August 2008 - 01:15 PM

Sparrow I had been provided with a copy of this file when my opinion was sought. I gave my opinion from my own research at the time, which has bee proven by the Beattie J. judgement to be correct, which has the meaning that my opinions are neither rubbish nor should be taken with a pinch of salt.

I also predicted the ongoing sequence of events which involve the ACC trying to bamboozle the courts with delay tactics that have no basis in law to give private investigators more time and even go on to a fraud prosecution. My suggestion has been a pro active response rather than taking a passive wait-and-see attitude.

It is very doubtful in my mind to that Mr Tui surely endorses the points he is presenting to the court on behalf of the ACC. After all he is simply acting on instructions from ACC legal services unit who will no doubt be plotting and scheming as we speak.
0

#23 User is offline   happy1 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 170
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 15 August 2008 - 02:33 PM

Fantastic .!Well done
0

#24 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 August 2008 - 02:43 PM

The reason this judgement concerns me is that it affects the outcome of what I have put before the court. In addition there are many parallels.

ACC revoking cover on the basis of a noninjury
ACC disregard independent irrefutable medical evidence
ACC with holding information
ACC alleging claimant with holding information
ACC alleging fraud
Robert Cheetham & Martin Williscroft involvement
ACC Legal Counsel Dane Tui
ACC disregarding deemed decisions
ACC misleading the reviewer with misinformation and half-truths while in possession of information debunking their position.

Above all denial of judicial process.


If my advice is not taken in this case with a successful outcome the failure could conceivably impact upon my case. Numerous questions put before Beattie J. remain unanswered which are important not just to this case it to myself as well. I am looking forward to this matter being tidied up prior to my making my presentations in February 2009.

So far the deemed decision is successful and cover is granted requiring the ACC to immediately calculate entitlements. This portion of the decision would be equally forceful as the Burnett decision also decided by Beattie J. whereby the ACC failed to carry out legislated procedures confounding judicial processes in what I believe to be an orchestrated manner.

So far so good and credit is given where credit is due. I trust that you will enjoy your backdated and ongoing entitlements starting now
0

#25 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 15 August 2008 - 02:53 PM

Thomas. Get the hint and bugger off.

This judgement does not concern you, your looney advice is not wanted nor sought and you do not comprehend the issues involved.
You have not been provided with a copy of this file, and if anyone followed your advice a deemed decision would never be achieved, your own unsuccessfull attempts being a good example.

You are deliberately blogging this thread so others get confused about the issues and cannot win.

I have nothing in common with you as I try to be forthright, honest and accountable; and you on the other hand are a slimy septic peddler of falsehoods and lies.
0

#26 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 August 2008 - 03:16 PM

The enemy of my enemy is my ally to the extent that

The mutual interest is in a clarification of law.

Friendship or the extent of personal regard is unnecessary
0

#27 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 15 August 2008 - 03:45 PM

I've found this decision, and most of the commentary on this thread, to be very interesting,as I have a similar issue coming up for review. Judge Beattie identified two issues for determination: (1) did the reviewer have jurisdiction to determine whether Mr W was entitled to a deemed decision and; if so, (2) was Mr W entitled to a deemed decision?
In relation to (1) and (2) Judge Beattie said "yes". He found, as a fact, that Mr W "gave" his application for review to ACC (by fax) and this action was sufficient to constitute an application for review. He also found, as a fact, that ACC did not set the matter down for a hearing within the three month time period provided in the IPRCA, and that Mr W did not cause or contribute to that delay. As a result, Mr W was entitled to a deemed decision, and the reviewer had jurisdiction to determine that issue, that he had cover for dengue fever as a personal injury.
ACC, of course, immediately revoked that deemed decision, with the effect that Mr W does not have cover for dengue fever as personal injury. The interesting question, IMHO, is whether ACC has the legal power to overturn a decision in force as a result of its own administrative incompetence. On the one hand, ACC can argue that it cannot act outside the terms of the IPRCA (although we all know it does when it suits it) and provide cover for a condition (dengue fever) that it believes is not a "personal injury" as defined in the IPRCA. On the other hand, Mr W can argue (1) dengue fever is a "personal injury" as defined in the IPRCA; or (2) the effect of his entitlement to a deemed decision is that he has cover for a condition that is not personal injury and ACC should not be able to defeat the deeming provisions of the IPRCA by a sidewind. Of the two arguments, IMHO, I think (1) is the way to go, by close analysis of the IPCA definition of "personal injury". Is dengue fever a "personal injury" as defined by s26 IPRCA? S26(2) excludes personal injury caused wholly or substantially by disease or infection (which to me cover a fever), unless it falls within the provisions of s20(2)9e) to (h). These provisions cover diseases or infection that are: work related; treatment injury; a consequence of covered personal injury; or consequence of treatment for covered personal injury. Do any of these circumstances apply?
Another argument might be that ACC has no power to revoke cover under s65 IPRCA, as it did not make its decision granting cover in error; it made that decision by reason of failure to meet a statutory time limit. S65(2) provides that ACC may revise deemed decisions under s58, which is not the case here, IMHO. If so, its revocation decision is invalid, as the deeming decision was made as a result of s146, while s147(1) provides that the deeming decision binds ACC.
I think that's the way I'd argue it. Good luck.
0

#28 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 15 August 2008 - 04:05 PM

Thanks MG
ACC originally rejected my claim for Dengue, arguing was not work related. I reviewed this decision and argued that as I caught the disease while on a business trip to Fiji; and as I could not have caught it in NZ, it must by definition be a work related disease or infection. To support my argument I have provided accounts which showed the company paid for my travel prior to departure, and provided a letter from the accountant confirming it was indeed a business trip. (see s25 "diseases where an arthropod is a vector, such as malaria. are not covered unless work related") My argument was this disease was work related as I was on a business trip, and therefore was covered under the Act.
The claim was then resubmitted as a work related injury, processed according to s72 and cover was granted.
Only problem was - I never received any entitlements.
After two years of frustration I filed an application for review under s134(1)a, unreasonable delay in providing entitlements. ACC responded by revoking cover, I applied for review and now 2 years later that decision is confirmed by Judge Beattie as deemed.

IMHO, back in Feb 2007 when I notified ACC the decision to revoke cover was deemed decision, ACC should at that point have lodged an appeal under s151, but they did not do so. Instead they advised that I did not have a deemed decision as they had only just recieved my application for review. DRSL then tried to review the matter. My barrister refused to make submission to the review other than claim the issue was deemed and the Reviewer had no jurisdiction. As soon as the reviewer issued a decision - that I was not entitled to a deemed decision, I lodged an appeal, which has just been heard.
Meanwhile 67 months later - still no entitlements!
0

#29 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 15 August 2008 - 04:12 PM

Then you've got work related disease or infection, plus the revocation issue as well. Go for it.
0

#30 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 August 2008 - 12:56 PM

Snoopy this thread is not about me. This thread is about deemed decisions. Please remove your last post.
0

#31 User is offline   snoopy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 30-March 08

Posted 16 August 2008 - 12:59 PM

go suck thomas/
you tie yourself to reply in so many threads its stiff bikkies time.


acc sux's thread was not about you either but you feature in it quite famously. ;)

the thread starter is welcome to ask me to remove posts,NOT YOU.
0

#32 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 August 2008 - 02:37 PM

Those of us who are interested in discussing point of law have been discussing the enforcement procedures of decisions in face of the ACC continually attempting to disregard this aspect of legislation. We are not particularly interested in personalities.

ACC are encouraged into this practice by many claimants thinking that a deemed decision must be somehow authenticated by a reviewer forgetting that a deemed decision is as if a reviewer has made the decision cutting the reviewer out of the loop. Somehow these claimants are buying into the ACC propaganda which of course is making it hard for people like me who look to the legislation rather than the ACC for our entitlements.

In paragraph 25 of the Weal case a deemed decision is in the claimant's favour which means that the ACC is now delaying in the process to calculate earnings compensation and so forth from its previous decision. Despite Beattie J. being asked to progress that delay in paragraph 26 he has allowed an out of time appeal to the deemed decision to which he has just ruled on leaving asses in Mr Weal's mouth by merging both Mr weal and the ACCs appeals into one hearing which is of course unlawful. As Beattie J. is acting expediently rather than lawfully a matter should immediately progress to the High Court as Mr weal's application for appeal has in fact not received a decision and the ACC have received a favourable hearing despite not putting any submissions as to the reason for the lateness thus defeating the legislated procedure designed to protect Mr weal.

My observation is that people are generally very compliant to authority rather than being compliant to the law demonstrating that the density to his subject themselves to the forcefulness of personalities. This lack of purity of heart corrupts the system.

The problem with many of these cases is that the right type of information has neither been asked more disclosed of in the first instance and that when matters do start to turn to custard there is even less transfer of information. On reading these submissions it is plain to see that Beattie J. has cause to be very suspicious and now wants to have the whole story disclosed in front of him despite this not being the proper way of processing such cases. The judge however conceivably can run the court however he pleases which may become a problem in the High Court because ACC district court matters have an extension beyond ordinary district court rules in as much as the judge can bring into evidence pretty well anything he pleases in his own way.
0

#33 User is offline   Bill Birch 

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

Posted 16 August 2008 - 10:36 PM

Any chance we can have this post immortalised somehow? It would be a shame to have it lost.


View Postsnoopy, on Aug 15 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

True to a certain extent thomo>
enemy's can become ally's to forward the betterment and gaining of justice however when enemy's unite to a common purpose you will find that deep down each one has a certain amount of mutal respect for the other side even though there personal ideals or cause's may differ greatly each is a measure / of similalarity in ability's to do battle and above all they have a common respect for the other side even though arch rivals,
the problem you have Mr Thomas is you are an unreliable a1 con man to the ones offering to help.you have a concrete tunnel veiw of issues.you believe you are the god of forum land in your own litle bent up world of fantasy that you are the biggest pain and costliest issue acc have in there arena.
wrong on all counts.they treat you with the same distrust that most of us out here do and that you are an unethical twister of information to suit your own ulterior motives and you have no concerns as to whom you harm as you take them along for the ride to nowhere using them to gain a point or two here and there but in effect 20 odd years of your so called expertise has got you nowhere\
if you had the talents to present and use properly the laws you tenet in a proper and orderly fashion in a decent presentable manner you would have had a result one way or the other a long time ago but that dont suit you as saint thomas the god of forum land and expert of all laws of the fantasy world you live in and you are nothing more than a radical lunatic playing at being a martyr .no ones following you to domesday and burning at the stake .thomas. mind you with the amount of firelighters youve thrown around it wont be long before acc burn your ass/

0

#34 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 17 August 2008 - 08:30 AM

To quote Judge Beattie in Thomas v ACC 215/07
"that this appellant (Thomas) whilst professing to have a profound knowledge of Accident Compensation matters, has in this case not seen the wood for the trees"
As all discussion on this thread has been blogged by the resident Cybertroll, discussion on this case has been shifted to ACCFocus. http://accfocus.org/forum/acc-processess/9...csions.html#901
0

#35 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 17 August 2008 - 12:00 PM

"We are not particularly interested in personalities". (In Mr Thomos post of Sat 2.73 )

This one sentence says it all and is the exact reason people give this person such a hard time.

Because the others of us that post here have a certain respect for each other, for what each is doing etc, then there is very little in the way of dedogitory remarks made between others. Because we are all here to help each other if we can.

Even if the information turns out to be not worth a pinch of salt, it is still gratefully received.

A lot of us have figured out that mr Thomo is in this for his own gratification. He is not "particularly interested in personalies".

No No No he wouldnt say Mini told me this or Spacecadet told me so and so.........no no no. It would be him that told the world that special something if it was successful. He would have had a great deal to do with the eventual successful outcome.

as he has posted recently on this thread, by mentioning that he has seen spaceys file. Never mind that it was a zillion years ago perhaps, I don't know. Only Sir Thomo must have been in there and had something to do with it.

Lots of people post on here that have had a hand in obtaining huge successes for people, never recognised or paid for their input. But they dont brag about the input they had etc. Not like this Thomo person.

I have read your case Spacecadet, It is like the "Oh what a tangled web we weave" eh?? It certainly looks to me as though you have had a significant win and ACC are running to cover their little mountain of deceit they have had going to trip up more than one poor claimant. I have a feeling you have made a real breakthrough here and the rest will only inforce what the Judge has put on paper on the 12 August.

The bit that grabbed my attention is the bit at [30] regarding Review cost to be referred back to the Reviewer for determination.

Now I have a Judge Ongley Case which says that he cannot interfere with the Reviewers not paying costs.

So two different Judges with two different stances regarding this issue of costs and dispersments.

I will pop over to the 'dark side' to see the rest of your tale.

Good Luck and Cheers
Mini
0

#36 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 17 August 2008 - 12:58 PM

Mini
An appeal against the determination of costs made by the reviewer can be made under S149(1)b.
When this issue was raised, Judge Beattie commented that "reviewers think they have discretion in awarding costs, but that is not so."
The matter was referred back to DRSL so costs could be paid to the barrister in accordance with the set scale ($550).
Incidentally, the cost to Legal Services (charged back to ACC?) for bring this appeal amounted to $5,900, and it was only that low because I did most of the work myself. However, I had no other option but to appeal as the Reviewer agreed with ACC on the date of receipt of my application, which made it out of time.
0

#37 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 17 August 2008 - 01:24 PM

Yep I did request the appeal for costs under the relevent section of the Act. That is what Judge Ongley was replying too.

I had three cases relating to tax on the go at about the same time. For three different decisions. Not one of them gave me expenses. And as I did my own legal work I still had all the costs for expenses. postage telephone paper for submission x 3 (or is it 2) Never mind you get the idea. They all add up.

I joined two of the Reviews at Appeal, and I asked for expenses relating to both Reviews, which were adding up by this time. Zip doodily, so I am now asking for them through case going to TRA. If I dont get them there as obviously my case has merit or it wouldnt have come this far, I will simply ask for them amoung other costs to 'wrongful action'. It is interesting what Judge Beattie said as I have always said the wording of the Reviewers 'consideration' of costs expenses etc, has always been such, that even if not asked for the Reviewer has to consider the act of paying costs,expenses and disbursements etc.

By the by, I am aware that someone has gone for payment outside the legislation for the difference between the actual cost and the cost given by the court. No word on how it went yet, but fingers crossed.
0

#38 User is offline   Southernman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 10 October 2009 - 08:27 AM

This issue is still smoldering and slowly but surely heading to the High Court.
The submissions also show how far ACC will go acting outside the Act.

Attached File(s)


0

#39 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 10 October 2009 - 10:37 AM

Southernman

Keep us informed of the outcome.

Slippery little devils. I have a sneeking thought that they don't know any better

My expense issues, and others, are still awaiting decision at the High Court.

I think there is hope for us yet.

But the change in the laww before Xmas is going to make drastic changes I fear.

Go well, and thanks for the up-date.

Mini
0

#40 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 24 August 2011 - 12:31 AM

View PostSpacecadet, on 15 August 2008 - 04:05 PM, said:

Thanks MG
ACC originally rejected my claim for Dengue, arguing was not work related. I reviewed this decision and argued that as I caught the disease while on a business trip to Fiji; and as I could not have caught it in NZ, it must by definition be a work related disease or infection. To support my argument I have provided accounts which showed the company paid for my travel prior to departure, and provided a letter from the accountant confirming it was indeed a business trip. (see s25 "diseases where an arthropod is a vector, such as malaria. are not covered unless work related") My argument was this disease was work related as I was on a business trip, and therefore was covered under the Act.
The claim was then resubmitted as a work related injury, processed according to s72 and cover was granted.
Only problem was - I never received any entitlements.
After two years of frustration I filed an application for review under s134(1)a, unreasonable delay in providing entitlements. ACC responded by revoking cover, I applied for review and now 2 years later that decision is confirmed by Judge Beattie as deemed.

IMHO, back in Feb 2007 when I notified ACC the decision to revoke cover was deemed decision, ACC should at that point have lodged an appeal under s151, but they did not do so. Instead they advised that I did not have a deemed decision as they had only just recieved my application for review. DRSL then tried to review the matter. My barrister refused to make submission to the review other than claim the issue was deemed and the Reviewer had no jurisdiction. As soon as the reviewer issued a decision - that I was not entitled to a deemed decision, I lodged an appeal, which has just been heard.
Meanwhile 67 months later - still no entitlements!


Read the comments at the end of the article.

23 August 2011 Last updated at 00:46 GMT
Is the mosquito menace growing in the UK?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-14613140

Comments (97)
By Virginia Brown BBC News Magazine
Mosquito sucking blood

Complaints of mosquito bites are on the rise in the UK. So should Britons brace themselves for a future mosquito menace?

Hovering perfectly at ear level with a lingering, bothersome whine, mosquitoes leave you with bites that lead to itchy, swollen welts.

In much of the world, affected by malaria, repelling them is a matter of life and death. In the UK they are a mere annoyance, interrupting summer holidays and barbecues.

Based on a survey of UK local authorities, reports of mosquito bites over the last 10 years are 2.5 times greater than in the 10 years up to 1996.

NHS Direct statistics show 9,061 calls in England complaining of bites and stings from early May this year to now - up nearly 15% from last summer. Not all bite complaints are due to mosquitoes - many can be attributed to bedbugs, midges and fleas.

But conditions in the UK, particularly in southeastern England, are increasingly hospitable to mosquitoes.

"The wet weather through May and June this year, along with a warm summer, has affected the population because mosquitoes like the standing breeding water," says zoologist Michael Bonsall at Oxford University.

It's difficult to track mosquito numbers accurately, but the UK authorities are trying to do so.
Continue reading the main story
Mosquito snapshot

Culex pipiens is the most common mosquito in Britain
Only females bite humans, males feed off nectar
Bites often occur at dawn and dusk, when mosquitoes' internal clocks tell them it's feeding time
A quarter of British species do not bite humans but feed on animals and birds
Anopheles mosquitoes are the only known carriers of malaria
Red bumps and itching caused by bites is an allergic reaction to the mosquito's saliva

The Health Protection Agency has organised the Mosquito Recording Scheme to look into where and how mosquitoes live and breed.

And the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, with help from the HPA, has created Mosquito Watch, a voluntary reporting system geared towards collecting and analysing various specimens.

Not only do mosquitoes swarm over pools of standing water, including bowls left outside for pets, they appear under man-hole covers and even travel on London's Tube network.

But while mosquitoes transmit deadly diseases in many parts of the world, they do not cause major harm in the UK.

They may spoil picnics in the park, but they are usually only a major problem when Britons travel to countries with malaria, dengue or other mosquito-borne diseases.

But once upon a time, malaria-carrying mosquitoes could be found in the salt marshes of southeastern England.

It is believed that malaria - literally "bad air" - dates back at least to Roman times in the UK, and outbreaks occurred as recently as the years just following World War I.

British doctor Ronald Ross, who discovered the malarial parasite living in the gastrointestinal tract of the Anopheles mosquito in the 19th Century, recruited teams to eliminate the larvae from stagnant pools and marshes.
Black-and-white striped Asian tiger mosquito bites a human The Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) has been spotted as close as Belgium

Malaria in England had effectively died out by the 1950s, mostly due to the draining of much of the marshland where mosquitoes bred.

But because of the growth of global travel, the number of imported cases of the disease in the UK has risen, with nearly 2,000 a year today.

In many cases, live mosquitoes have been found on aircraft, or travelling in luggage, having been transported from countries with malaria.

On rare occasions, people may even have contracted malaria in Europe and North America, dubbed "airport malaria".

Five of the 30-plus species of mosquito found in the UK are not native. One variety is coming alarmingly close to the UK. The Asian tiger mosquito - Aedes albopictus - known for its white and black striped pattern has been spotted as close as Belgium.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

It is possible that Aedes albopictus [Asian tiger mosquito] could make its way to the UK”

Dr James Logan Medical entomologist

While the species does not carry malaria, it does transmit West Nile virus, Yellow fever and dengue.

"It is possible that Aedes albopictus could make its way to the UK," says Dr James Logan, medical entomologist at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

"Because they lay their drought-resistant eggs in transportable materials, like used tyres, there is a possibility that they can be transported to a country where they are not normally found.

"Some studies suggest that they could survive the UK winter, however, to date this species has not been found in the UK and the HPA are keeping a watchful eye on it."

Bonsall agrees and adds that predictive models show how malaria-carrying species could even make their way to areas such as the North Kent marshes, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk.

Mosquitoes are becoming immune to the insecticides used to treat them - via spray or bed nets, according to a recent study from Senegal. Between 2007 and 2010, insects with a resistance to a popular type of pesticide rose from 8% to 48%.

"This could be a big problem for future control," says Dr Hilary Ranson, head of the vector group at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

But according to Dr Logan, the health infrastructure and access to drugs in the UK means malaria is unlikely to take hold and cause major problems.

Unlike much of the world, the rise of the mosquito will be a nuisance in the UK rather than a serious threat.
Your comments (97)

95.
fontaine61
29 Minutes ago

Those complaining about NHS treatment for mosi bites, have obviously never been to Scandinavia in the summer. In Sweden my wife was bitten around her eye, and her face swelled appalingly, her eye completely shut. After half a dozen locals had said to her "Hospital NOW" we took their advice. Anti-histamines and anti-biotics were needed to treat the bites. They treat mosi bites VERY seriously.
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