[Lead-Head]

Is there anybody out there?
My family and I have been exposed to LEAD POISONING while renovating an old house(1942).

I personally scraped and sanded this house for us to use for business purposes.Using all precautions to my knowledge as far as safety.Being a builder I knew
that sucking in dust is not good for your health.What I was not prepared for was the toxic effects of what came through my dust mask.
What was diagnosed as depression,fatigue,unknown aches and pains,stomach problems of no known origin for 3-4 years and the recent diagnosis of
severe depression after completion of the outside of the building I was eventually at the end of my tether.
When the drugs did not work in any way other than against me,my good lady said "Somethings not right here,lets get your blood checked for lead".
So 14 weeks after the most recent exposure I was tested!
Sure enough-Lead Poisoning.
Its been 6 months of hell.What has made it worse is the govt department that we as New Zealanders rely on to help is a JOKE!


Anyone out there agree or have similar experiences that can help us would be appreciated.
A.C.C has used some tactics which we believe go against our rights as Kiwis.

[Sparrow]

Dr Bill Glass in Christchurch is a good place to start with . He can evaluate the condition and write a report and offer treatment.
Others on here have had treatment etc from him. He is a poisons/toxicity Specialist.
Did you go to Review over ACC decision???

[Bill Birch]

If ACC has issued a decision you are unhappy with, you have the right to review that decision. All decisions about your claim must be issued in writing. ACC must inform you of your review rights. You normally have 3 months from the date of decision to lodge a review application.

ACC must comply with the ACC Code of Claimant's Rights. These can be found on ACC's web site. You have the right to complain if you think your rights has been breached. ACC will investigate and issue a decision.

If you feel ACC is mucking you around then you could also contact "service recovery" at ACC. They can be helpful in moving things along.

ACC;'s liability for lead poisoning will depend on
1. medical evidence incl. opinion and
2. whether the accident is considered work-related or non work related (exposure over a period of less than 1 month).

Once cover is established then you can receive entitlements, based on injury-related need and the requirements of the legislation


PS if Alan Thomas posts on this thread then click here. http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?showt...ost&p=71634

[Lead-Head]

Sparrow, on Sep 15 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Dr Bill Glass in Christchurch is a good place to start with . He can evaluate the condition and write a report and offer treatment.
Others on here have had treatment etc from him. He is a poisons/toxicity Specialist.
Did you go to Review over ACC decision???

Hi Sparrow,Im new to computers as well as chatting on line so bear with me.
Acc have used their own channels to conclude medical status of my condition.We have,with the aid of an Advocate,explored specialists in nurology and toxic
treatment.Acc have,in there 2nd Toxicology Board decision,not recognized the Doctor dealing with Cholation to show body burden.They state he is only a G.P.
The nuroligists report leaves the condition open to debate concerning symptoms.We have not placed his report with A.C.C as yet.
We have moved onto a Member of Parliament who is to see our Advocate this week.he sounds keen to look into A.C.C or go to minister of A.C.C.
We can not give up on this!
Lead-Head.

[Bill Birch]

Unfortunately, from my experience, going to the Ministerc of ACC is mostly a waste of time. It is ACC that makes the decision based on taking into account all the circumstances (incl the medical evidence) and the requirements of the legislation. Although the Minister may get ACC to have another look, but thats about as far as they involve themselves. Normally the Minister's response is prepared by an ACC employee.

[Spacecadet]

In my limited medical knowledge, I understand lead poisoning can be detected by a blood test. Howerer what can remain difficult to diagnose is the long term after affects of lead poisoning.
As for chelation therapy, it is still not generally accepted by the medical fraternity, although there is sound scientific reasons to why this therapy works, especially for heavy metal poisoning.
One need to pursue a claim under section 72, backed up by an ACC45 form completed by you doctor. If the claim is declined (usual for claims of this type, as they are classified by ACC as "high risk") then the claimant must go through the review and appeal process.

[doppelganger]

Just a quick read and it looks like ACC are not looking at the lead poisoning. They are looking at everything else that is the result of the poisoning.

MP's and ministers want you to believe that they will do something if they get into power. They have shown that they will not help any one with the legislation that they constructed

just remember that Any report gathered by ACC may have been edited by the Corporation.

treatment for lead poisoning I beleive is fresh air.

[Lead-Head]

HI Bill.I understand your reasoning.It leaves me wondering what the role of the A.C.C minister is though?
We will see what happens this week with the Advocate and this M.P.I do hope they do take into account all the circumstances.


Hi Spacecadet.I talked to a local specialist concerning Chelation.There is a short test to check Body Burden,$500.I know the system does not recognise
this test but find it hard to understand why a General Physician has more power over the decision.The letters of refusal are decided on the words of a Doctor in Waikato Hospital,a person who admitted she had to "look it up on the internet".She did this while my partner and I where in the appointment!


Just heard back from my Advocate,another attempt is going through-3 more weeks to wait.M.P may have already effected the situation.
I must say that the staff at Hamilton have been helpful and understanding.They are working for us to the best of their ability.

Mr Birch,are you an ex-M.P?I was quite young in the Muldoon era but remember the name.

[Lead-Head]

doppelganger, on Sep 16 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

Just a quick read and it looks like ACC are not looking at the lead poisoning. They are looking at everything else that is the result of the poisoning.

MP's and ministers want you to believe that they will do something if they get into power. They have shown that they will not help any one with the legislation that they constructed

just remember that Any report gathered by ACC may have been edited by the Corporation.

treatment for lead poisoning I beleive is fresh air.

Hi doppelganger,WOW you have hit the nail on the head!
Because of mis-diagnosis and delay in tests we have been treated as someone with depression with a side order of lead poisoning and not the reverse.
This is "Family killing stuff".

[Spacecadet]

Lead-Head, on Sep 16 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

Hi doppelganger,WOW you have hit the nail on the head!
Because of mis-diagnosis and delay in tests we have been treated as someone with depression with a side order of lead poisoning and not the reverse.
This is "Family killing stuff".

Lead head
you have his the nail (albeit a leadhead) on the head.
ACC are not interested in your claim. I agree with doppleganger in his post, in that ACC are looking for alternative reasons.
Please go back to my posting and make sure you have lodged a claim (ACC45 form) that is being processed under s72.
Do this as I know what I am talking about on these issues, having processed a claim under s72 while labelled as "hight risk" as any "gradual process injury" is labelled!
If ACC send a letter declining you claim, apply for a review, then upon the review decision (invariable in favour of ACC); lodge an appeal in the District Court. Be aware there are time limits to this process, and if you do not comply with the process or the time restraints then you are statute barred from your claim.

[Lead-Head]

Spacecadet.

This form(ACC45),is it separate to the original info from my G.P supporting my case?
I am prepared to go to court on this,if need be.s72 is also something I will discuss with my Advocate.


Am I able to ask if you reached a good outcome?I understand if you do not answer this question.

[Bill Birch]

Laedhead - no, thats the other bill birch. To get cover the process is, lodge a claim (acc45 form) - acc investigate - acc issue a decision - if declined, lodge a review application (you have 3 months from date of decision) - if review unsuccessful lodge an appeal to the district court. None of that involves pollies, but I guess they may help getting ACC to have another look at your claim.

Spacecadet - what section 72? thats responsibilities of a claimant

[Lead-Head]

Hi Bill,had to ask.
We have had two A.C.C toxicology Board decisions come back against us.Have we already filled in ACC45 form to have taken us to this point?
District court appeal -are we on track to follow this after our next round with Acc?Is there more to do?

I thank you all for your input!
It seems to me quite confusing,or maybe the system is unable to keep up with complex cases like mine.
Sorry,bit of a moan.

[Spacecadet]

Bill Birch, on Sep 16 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

Laedhead - no, thats the other bill birch. To get cover the process is, lodge a claim (acc45 form) - acc investigate - acc issue a decision - if declined, lodge a review application (you have 3 months from date of decision) - if review unsuccessful lodge an appeal to the district court. None of that involves pollies, but I guess they may help getting ACC to have another look at your claim.

Spacecadet - what section 72? thats responsibilities of a claimant

Sorry - slip of the tounge.
A case of lead poising is a claim under section 30; and is processed under Section 57 - not 72 as I quoted of the top of my head.

[Bill Birch]

Yes you would have to assume you have lodge a acc45 new injury claim thru your GP. It does sound as though it will be an uphill battle if the toxicology board has provided an opinion. It just depends on all the circumstances and the requirements of the legislation. However the issue of whether or not you have suffered a personal injury as defined in the Act usually comes down to the medical evidence, and what weight is placed on various medical opinions. That is how any Reviewer or Judge will look at it if you go through the disputes process - that is reviewing acc's decision to decline cover thru to appealing a review decision to the District Court.
.
While perseverance can win the day, in this situation my advice is to plan for the worst and hope for the best. There are times when a physical injury cannot be proved based on the balance of probability. To me it sounds like you need heavy weight medical evidence in the form of a specialist opinion.

[Lead-Head]

Good morning Bill,read your message at 5am.Your last couple of statements are on board(no pun intended).
I get the impression of a judicial system that works opposite to my position.Although I have commited no crime and feel to be the victim in this case,I must
prove "Beyond reasonable doubt"my position to be true.Does this concept not work both ways?

Is there not room for "Arthur Allan Thomas" in this situation?Do you understand my thoughts?
the only infomation relevant seems to be that recognized by the system.They appear to hold all the cards.
Who is this Specialist Opinion?

[Bill Birch]

Lead-Head, on Sep 17 2008, 07:02 AM, said:

Good morning Bill,read your message at 5am.Your last couple of statements are on board(no pun intended).
I get the impression of a judicial system that works opposite to my position.Although I have commited no crime and feel to be the victim in this case,I must
prove "Beyond reasonable doubt"my position to be true.Does this concept not work both ways?

Is there not room for "Arthur Allan Thomas" in this situation?Do you understand my thoughts?
the only infomation relevant seems to be that recognized by the system.They appear to hold all the cards.
Who is this Specialist Opinion?

No, not beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probability - ie more likely than not.

This is done by weighing up the medical evidence (incl medical opinion). Imagine a set of scales with evidence favouring ACC on one side, evidence favouring you on the other. Apply more weight to the most qualified opinion. Which way does the scales tip? If it tips in ACC's favour then you need more evidence to tip it in your favour. This is usually done by seeking a medical specialist opinion (in the area of toxicology I guess) and/or showing a flaw in ACC's evidence so less weight is applied to their evidence.

Note: The above is the issue is whether or not you suffered a physical injury ie lead poisoning.

As with every claim, all the circumstances need to be considered. The reason I am telling you this is because you need to understand what is required to overturn a decision to decline cover for a physical injury. If/once ACC has investigated to an extent reasonably necessary to issue a decision to decline cover for injury claim, the onus is on you to prove your case.

Reviewers and Judges are going to place the most weight on registered medical practitioners (registered with the Medical Council) who specialise in the area of medicine.

If ACC accept you have lead poisoning and the issue is whether or not it was caused by an accident (as defined in the legislation) then that is another matter, but it sounds to me like the issue is about whether you have suffered a physical injury to start with.

So while the Pollies may be able to get ACC to investigate further, the Pollies cannot make a decision for ACC.

[Lead-Head]

Bill,do i take into account the delay in blood tests,14 weeks after possible injury,as weight on my side?
Will finding a Toxicologist (independent) be recognised?
Where will I find this person?

I understand your points about the scales and will use what resources we have,big money involved.They are playing POKER with me (us).
They expect me to fold.On counts of time and kitty.
Is this a fair understanding of not only our case but also others who find themselves here?
I have looked at you and spacecadet on the other areas of legality.Im no lawyer so find your thoughts helpful.
My advocate may wish to comment here as she may offer extra relevence to all this.

[Sparrow]

As I said, Dr Bill Glass of Christchurch is your man.

[doppelganger]

ACc have a time limit to make a decision on the cover under section 58.

If ACC haven't looked at the lead poisoning but have been advised of it they might be out of time to decline the acceptance.

Its important to check the paper work and its is not good enough for the ACC to say that they didn't investigate the lead poisoning after they are out of time.

If they have made a error in accepting the claim under section 58 they willmake a decision under section 65.

Your MP can not do anything except to put preasure on ACC staff Most don't and are bullied by the Corporate office.