ACCforum: Mediation and confidentiality - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Mediation and confidentiality What happens when they have broken the code of rights not once but 3

#1 User is offline   rivercity 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 19-July 08

  Posted 25 October 2008 - 08:46 PM

I have recently attended a mediation with acc staff, and the investigation unit & DSLR, they made me sign a confidentialty form. In the meetin it was admitted that they have breached my rights what options do I have to take it further. Any help would be great. Im certainly hope I don't just get an aplology.
I was also advised at the meeting that I am on their Risky Register, which apparently means I am a risk to there staff. Is anyone aware that they have a risky resgister and if so, do you think you should be told and also your Doctors advised as well as family members....even maybe the POLICE. as I am considered dangerous. I must say that I have never been in trouble in my life with police etc. They have judged and labelled me probally because I challenge them from time to time about there behaviour and actions. I must say they have disturbed me mentally in the last year with all there shit and lies. Any feed back would be great.
0

#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 26 October 2008 - 12:11 PM

Rivercity your answer to your question is in your post

Quote

probally because I challenge them from time to time about there behaviour and actions. I must say they have disturbed me mentally in the last year with all there shit and lies. Any feed back would be great.


you are at risk of having a new claim directly related to the actions of the ACC staff.

the staff members now need to be very careful in handleing your claims.

you may want to get the mental disturbance looked at and look at ways to not make it worse.

these would of cause make the ACC follow legislation and not policy. this would include not having any more indepent occupational assessment with out the ACC identifying the error in the previous one first.
0

#3 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 26 October 2008 - 01:30 PM

I would most certainly make an urgent request to ACC requiring, in procedural fairness, copies of your entry on this risk register and the explicit reasons for being placed on it.

It is becoming quite tiresome to continue to see ACC employees make such broad brush and defamatory assertions in front of, and to, third parties when evidence and reasoning is not produced.

It appears from your post that you knew nothing about this entry until this mediation.

If you disagree with it, then I would certainly demand to know the basis, legitmacy and credibility for that entry in the register and why you are on it particularly without being told and/or being given a fair chance and opportunity to respond.

I would advise ACC that they have 7 working days to respond.
0

#4 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:42 PM

Have a read of the topic 'Flagged Files' for Chris O'flaherty - National Security person to write to to get the Data you require.

There is also a link under Freefallnz post to http://accfocus.org where the full document on Risky Claimants etc is that you may wish to read is.
0

#5 User is offline   rivercity 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 19-July 08

  Posted 26 October 2008 - 06:31 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on Oct 26 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

I would most certainly make an urgent request to ACC requiring, in procedural fairness, copies of your entry on this risk register and the explicit reasons for being placed on it.

It is becoming quite tiresome to continue to see ACC employees make such broad brush and defamatory assertions in front of, and to, third parties when evidence and reasoning is not produced.

It appears from your post that you knew nothing about this entry until this mediation.

If you disagree with it, then I would certainly demand to know the basis, legitmacy and credibility for that entry in the register and why you are on it particularly without being told and/or being given a fair chance and opportunity to respond.

I would advise ACC that they have 7 working days to respond.

NO I didn't even know a risky register excisted, the question i asked them, was a quote they had put in a letter who accessed me which was "due to the complexity and nature of this case" we require you to have a chaperone, which was my case manager" ...I asked what to you mean by complex and the nature meant. well the Branch Manager left the room with the mediator, who advised she be up front with me, I cr :rolleyes: yed as the only risk I have ever been to them is to challenge them and ask for answers to my questions.
What disgusts me is that I have been labelled by an organisation that is supposed to be helping me. I wont rest this case, I will do what everyone has advised me to do in the forum so thank u all
1

#6 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 28 October 2008 - 10:04 AM

Well I give you a bit of information that makes you so risky

This is from the Corporations policy

Quote

Risk assessment alarms and triggers checklist
Examples checklist of indicators or alarm triggers
Use this checklist of examples to help identify when to complete a fresh risk assessment
for a claim. (Print this document for easy regular reference, if wanted.)
Pre-assessment
Is there a significant claims history? For example:
? High number of claims.
? History of receiving weekly compensation on another claim for significant period.
? History of similar claims.
? Currently receiving entitlement on another open claim.
Communication
Is it difficult to obtain information from the claimant? For example:
? Cultural or language issues.
? Hearing issues.
? Refusal to talk.
? Unable to contact claimant over two days.
? Poor historian (claimant gives-vague or conflicting answers).
Medical Information
Has the claimant expressed dissatisfaction with their treatment? This can include
signals like:
? Seeing a number of different doctors.
? Changing treatments.
Are there other conditions that could impact on recovery? For example:
? Medical conditions.
? Other injuries.
? Drug or alcohol dependence.
? Reliance on prescription drugs.
Is the treatment or service provider not supporting the claimant's independence? For
example:
? Advice to cease job.
? Advice to stay off work until pain free.
? Excessive medical certification.
? No response from treatment provider to ACC queries.
Has there been any change in diagnosis, or any clinical complications?
Employment
Is there any evidence of job dissatisfaction? This can include signals like:
? Problems with employer relationship.
? Alternative career plans.
Is there any threat to the claimant's employment? For example:
? Redundancy.
? Temporary contract due to expire.
? Intending to, or has resigned.
Are there any other claimant related work issues? For example:
? Lack of transferable skills.
? Over age 50, with limited alternative employment opportunities.
? Working more than 40 hours per week.
? Short or erratic work history.
? Non work circumstances higher priority than return to work, including
pregnancy, death or illness of family member, and so on.
Other employment related work issues? For example:
? Heavy manual occupation.
? No alternative duties available.
? Performance issues.
? Unfavourable employer attitude towards ACC.
Family and Social
Is there any evidence of lack of support? This can include:
? Difficulty in accessing transport.
? Significant unpaid responsibilities.
? No-one available to help in the home.
? Breakdown in relationships or support system.
Attitudes and Behaviours
Is there a focus on pain, or on what the claimant cannot do? For example:
? Tried to return to work but too sore.
? Wants to return to work but has excuses why they cannot work.
Is there an emphasis on entitlement or blame? For example:
? Focus on weekly compensation.
? High weekly compensation.
? Request for expensive or unusual assistance.
? Reluctance to reduce or cease entitlement.
? Complaints, ministerial enquiries, or reviews.
Has the claimant experienced problems with "the system"? For example:
? Delay in cover.
? Delay in receiving surgery or other entitlements.
Are there any other behavioural issues? For example:
? Frequent contact from claimant.
? Evidence of contradictory behaviour.
? Non compliance with rehabilitation.
? Reliance on treatment or treatment providers.
? Obvious distress or


Now you have the info why they consider you risky you should now ask if there actions caused you to be risky like the ACC made a bad and incorrect decision forcing a review.
0

#7 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 28 October 2008 - 06:31 PM

Wish we had that information when we asked for it all those years ago.
That process is totally out of order and dare I say beyond It's remit under the Act. even under the ensuring that fruad is guarded against bit.

Many of those questions are nothing but a fishing expidition to see if they can evade liability.

ACC has been abusing the basic laws of privacy under the pretext of ensuring against fraud by using powers of compulsory compliance by the claimant to enforce replies and then misusing the answers to seemingly unrelated to the accident or the injuries but curiously searching questions This process is often enforced when claimant is still drugged and recovering.

Caveat emptor.
0

#8 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 29 October 2008 - 11:50 AM

I like the over 50, with limited employment opportunities.

So they are actually admitting that something that is illegal actually happens.

To start with, to be able to get weekly compensation you must be employed, which means you must have been in your job a while at least by that age. So why not help you salvage the job you know best with the employer you know best, by helping to pay part of the wages to have you stay there. That way they would solve the problem of a claimant being out of work and them having to pay full entitlement.

That would be nipping the problem in the bud.................or would that be too simple.
0

#9 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 29 October 2008 - 02:01 PM

View PostMINI, on Oct 29 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

I like the over 50, with limited employment opportunities.

So they are actually admitting that something that is illegal actually happens.

To start with, to be able to get weekly compensation you must be employed, which means you must have been in your job a while at least by that age. So why not help you salvage the job you know best with the employer you know best, by helping to pay part of the wages to have you stay there. That way they would solve the problem of a claimant being out of work and them having to pay full entitlement.

That would be nipping the problem in the bud.................or would that be too simple.


What they really neeed Mini, is a few of us over on that side of the table......some who are able to see the wood for the trees.....some with a few working brain cells who can add one and one = problem to be addressed.

Sigh. Gloria.....in another life maybe!
0

#10 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 29 October 2008 - 02:11 PM

What Dopple has posted is a 'Risk assessment' - this refers to risks both to the client and to the scheme.

It is completely different from the 'Risky register' which I believe is based on behaviour of the client as determined by ACC.

Several years ago there was some discussion of the fact that ACC were 'red flagging' some client's files. This usually meant there was a perceived physical risk to ACC when dealing with that client. The basis for this categorisation should as Magna says be clearly articulated to the client with the right of response.
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 29 October 2008 - 02:55 PM

Fairgo the ACC had rated me as a risky claimant because of the perceived risk that I would litigate. The wording on my file goes like has "threatened litigation". ACC have taken me to court with the result that my threat to defend myself was realised as a reality. In other words in the mind they had proven that I was a vexatious litigant. The district court judge listened to what the ACC had to say about vexatious litigants and confirmed that their viewpoint was ill-conceived and wrong in law.

Over the years the "threatened litigation" has morphed or changed into simply "threatening" with the result that I have been trespassed every two years for the last 10 years. Obviously I am always calm and collected never raising my voice in anger or using any of seeing language etc. Always I conduct myself in a businesslike manner to the extent that any meeting I have ever had I always dress appropriately with a tie, suit and jackets etc. This only seemed to wind them up all the more I am contradicting everything they make up and write about me.

I have just received a call from a mediator to the ACC has agreed to fund. Hopefully this will serve to put my files in order and that in a businesslike way some forward ground may be made. Given that the ACC has already made my life completely public by the criminal trial and extensive interactions between private investigators and everyone who knows me the issue of my privacy is a dead issue but having said that I am very concerned that the perception of confidentiality and various consent issues is not properly understood by the ACC and their agents. I am sure you have worked in an area where you have encountered this problem again and again.

Rivercity it is quite common for ACC staff to put the most terrible spin on fragments of the relevant information so to draw conclusions that have absolutely no substance. Unfortunately ACC staff are selected from the lower levels of intellect the New Zealand who are Cherry picked for their gullibility and ease of manipulation by their masters. They then manufacture a whole different personality and persona for us to describe to others we may encounter such as medical professionals and home help providers. In my own case I have gone from being an ordinary businessman designing machinery through to in the minds eye of the ACC a mastermind of criminal endeavour, physically dangerous person including up to accusations of plotting and scheming to blow up buildings. Unfortunately when government departments put about such nonsense is they do so with the credibility of their advertised persona.
1

#12 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 29 October 2008 - 03:37 PM

My apologies to Rivercity that started this thread ; but pointing out the obvious - this thread is about to become hijacked by the resident cybertroll.
Thomas is classed as a No 1 risky claimant due to his fraudulent past (as confirmed by the Courts), his propensity to tell lies, his litigious nature, and his one eyed half arsed view of the legislation. What this has to do with mediation and confidentiality I do not know, but shows Thomas is back in his role of Cybertroll and blogger of all threads that don't concern him.
-1

#13 User is offline   Bullyed by ACC 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-October 08

Posted 29 October 2008 - 05:49 PM

View Postrivercity, on Oct 25 2008, 09:46 PM, said:

I have recently attended a mediation with acc staff, and the investigation unit & DSLR, they made me sign a confidentialty form. In the meetin it was admitted that they have breached my rights what options do I have to take it further. Any help would be great. Im certainly hope I don't just get an aplology.
I was also advised at the meeting that I am on their Risky Register, which apparently means I am a risk to there staff. Is anyone aware that they have a risky resgister and if so, do you think you should be told and also your Doctors advised as well as family members....even maybe the POLICE. as I am considered dangerous. I must say that I have never been in trouble in my life with police etc. They have judged and labelled me probally because I challenge them from time to time about there behaviour and actions. I must say they have disturbed me mentally in the last year with all there shit and lies. Any feed back would be great.


Don't let them label you just because your not a sheep!!!! You are totally right to feel as you do towards ACC. I have since met many people (good honest people) with horific and almost unbelievable stories of what they have been through with this system. It is the hardest thing I have ever dealt with including my permanent injury!! I have never known such 'meanness' thank fully. I encourage you to feel confident inside and know it is NOT YOU!! All the best.
0

#14 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 30 October 2008 - 07:33 AM

I am inclined to think that ACC has been budding the bush for a long time.

Before much money has been paid out ACC dilligently pressure the employer to keep on payroll with reduced capacity.
As to any retraining, reskilling, this seems to be a whole salami by itself and hard found.
Salvaging a career or a job with an employer you love and trust are sometimes not an option due to changes in capacities, proper rehabilitation, retraining, reduced earning and job opportunity scope with higher costs from on going needs, accessories, medical, mobility, assistance, access, etc. often outweigh any topup of erc ACC may grudgingly remit.

We all see in these pages what happens later.
$1000 a week earners trying to cope on half that and unable to make ends meet, and when the injuries take over getting ACC to accept that injuries existed or the current condition is the result of the accident. etcetera, etcetera, ad infinartum.

ACC are very good at salvaging liability and do everything inside and outside the law to make sure that the do not pay the claimant their FULL entitlement. EVER.

If they spent more on providing genuine quality rehab, free gym, etc. and proper support and less on KPI bonuses, Free Gym, for the hard working and stressed staff, spent less time making litegious decisions and defending them to the bitter end, Got rid of the quackery of assorted toady arsessors and providers and utilised recognised professional truely independant specialists and services, take their advice provide, what is needed when it is needed and not have cases still being argued about decade or more later.
Or for that matter the need for boaards like this!!!!!

river city.

I for one can attest to feelings of imbalance in my dealings with ACC.
I can only attribute it to one thing.
ACCitis.

It can cause one to doubt ones reality.

The stress generates depression, anger, frustration, irritability and a whole lot of negative emotions and unbalances our equilibrium.
Doctors quickly offer a chemical solution to cope with the stress and it all goes down hill from there as one is so doped up they cant be bothered for a while. Which makes it all the harder to sort out when one eventually tries to work out where to go from here and get on with it. This forum is a good alternative to the doctor because you find it is not you ...... it is the bloody ACC ........ and there are others have the same problems, and a shit load of good advice.

I hope you kept a recording or had a witness when you were so disgracefully accosted in such an indimidantory way by your insurer's goon squad.

Happy Hunting! :rolleyes:
1

#15 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:14 AM

Rivercity

Above, you have a couple of good examples of claimants doing nothing, while ACC do their thing.

We all know they do it and luckily most of us are prepared to react. Glad to see you are on the right track quickly.

Taking action is time consuming and utterly back breaking and mind bending, but the outcomes are good. They will respect your tenacity after a while and know you are going to backlash at whatever they do which is incorrect. This red flag flying is probably part of their way of giving you another shot of adrenelin.

You do what you have to do to get to the bottom of it and keep us informed as it is interesting that it should still be going on when there is so much spoken about tidying the whole internal structure up.

I honestly find that getting to the Court in the shortest time possible is the way to go. Don't forget to log your complaints with the powers that be, so you can show your need to have others intervene, to the Judge. And if it ever comes to "Payment outside the legislation". You have all your complaints registered.

Fancy not telling you you are considered high risk. I don't suppose I am as I sit in with the Manager on my own etc etc.

But come to think of it there was an extra person in the Court room for a while a couple of weeks back!!!

Must ask the register why she was there, like am I considered a risk???

It is true I could be with a couple of people, but not those from whom I get my money. I am not that stupid yet!!!

Good Luck and please keep us informed.

Still Mini
-1

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:51 PM

NoDRSL The origins of this list have a lineage back to the USA in the 1980s. ACC created the cutdown version you have represented some time in the early 1990s. I think it is to be found in the INFORME program Mid-1990s and onward.

This exact form was produced to my file around 1994. For examples,
Question number 2 The ACC had difficulty comprehending the nature of my preinjury occupation. The nature of the occupation was simply beyond their comprehension given that I was involved in the design and manufacture of computer-controlled automated machinery.
Question number 3 indicated that I was not satisfied with medical treatment and that my injury had changed from elbow to hand when in fact I had injuries to both with ACC arranging for surgery to my elbow while my doctor had arranged surgery for my hand.
Question number 15 rated me as risky because I disagreed with the case management decision not to accept cover and that I knocked on the manager's door with the result that the manager immediately changed the case manager's decision in my favour. Obviously I would later be accused of planning to blow up that branch office 20 years later.
1

#17 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 31 October 2008 - 09:42 AM

What goes around comes around!!!
-1

#18 Guest_Snowman_*

  • Group: Guests

  Posted 31 October 2008 - 12:23 PM

CYBERTROLL go away, you seem to over-ride everyone's topic with your own crap. You have your own thread on here Please confine yourself to that Thank You (Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas, Allegations of working while incapacitated)

My apologies to Rivercity as this thread has a lot of interest and does not need to be hijacked by the resident cybertroll.

It is a shame that he spoils everything that is good.
-1

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 08 November 2008 - 09:48 PM

just to let you all know the ACC policy on identifying work place risk and how to deal with it.

read and ask your self if the policy is actions that will result in being labled to risky.

Attached File(s)


0

#20 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 29 April 2012 - 03:51 AM

ACC's Worksafe Policy on Threatening Situations document that is in the above link is well worth reading.

We trust the same applies to clients concerns when dealing with ACC's where staff have exhibited such behavior....

Privacy, abusive documentation....

In our opinion we should all be entitled to feel safe when interacting with ACC staff & their agents in the same way they are entitled to feel safe with their clients.


View Postdoppelganger, on 08 November 2008 - 09:48 PM, said:

just to let you all know the ACC policy on identifying work place risk and how to deal with it.
Attached File(s)

Attached File WorkSafePolicy_threatning_situations.doc (318.5K)



Aggressive Or Threatening Situations
People can be abusive to you either in person or on the phone. Tolerance of abuse over the phone can be interpreted as a willingness by ACC staff clients to accept this behaviour when we meet with customers. ACC clients consider the following behaviour to be unacceptable:

• Unwelcome or offensive gestures

• Abusive or obscene language

• Racist or sexist comments

• Verbal or physical intimidation

• Any verbal or written threat

• Sexual harassment

• Being under the influence of drugs, alcohol or solvents

• Physical violence

• Defacing or destroying property.

• Any behaviour of a similar type.


You do not have to tolerate unacceptable behaviour or any situation where you feel unsafe. Immediately remove yourself from the situation or terminate the phone call and seek assistance from your manager or a colleague.

If someone becomes aggressive or threatening.
• Remain professional
Keep your language unemotional
Avoid sarcasm and cynicism
Do not use patronising and aggressive language


And
The Risky Claimant Staff Register
The Risky Claimant Staff Register is a record of all claimants staff who have the Care Indicator Box activated in their Pathway records.

The purpose of the Care Indicator Box is to ensure that staff clients are notified through the Pathway system that the claimant staff member they are about to interview has been identified as a potential hazard to the safety of ACC employees and/ clients or service providers. This prior warning allows the staff member client to more correctly assess the potential hazard to safety and arrange for another person to be present in the interview. The support person may be another staff clients family member, a provider or a Security Guard.


Criteria for Activating the Care Indicator Box

ACC claimants considers ACC staff who threaten (or potentially threaten) the safety of staff themselves, other
claimants or ACC property are either a significant hazard or a significant potential hazard.
They must have their Care Indicator Box activated and recorded as Category One, Two or
Three depending on the circumstances.

Category One and Two

Claimants ACC employees who meet one of the following criteria are a significant hazard to the safety of ACC employees Claimants and/or service providers and must have their Care Indicator Box activated and recorded as Category One or Two depending on the circumstances.
Claimants ACC staff are a significant hazard if they have:

• Been or are physically violent

• A history of violence or aggressive behaviour

• Known convictions for violence

• A mental health history of violence or aggressive behaviour

• Made threats previously against ACC clients, ACCtheir staff or Agents acting on ACC’stheir behalf

• Intimidated a staff member to the extent that they felt unsafe through written abuse or verbal abuse (face-to-face or over the telephone)
• Has exhibited homicidal ideation (fantasies).

Note: Record as Category One if the claimant staff member has a primary diagnosis of a mental health illness and is under the care of a Case-Worker within a Mental Health Team.

Note: Record as Category Two if the claimant has a primary diagnosis of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) or a mental health diagnosis.
2

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