ACCforum: Deemed Decision Enforcement - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Deemed Decision Enforcement Judicial remedy

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

  Posted 15 December 2008 - 02:35 PM

When a review hearing application converts to a deemed decision and the ACC failed to notify the claimant or act upon that deemed decision and another review hearing application is submitted regarding the delay of process of the deemed decision but also does not receive a review hearing and converts to a deemed decision what is the next step?

I have 93 review hearing applications regarding the delay of process to notify and act upon deemed decisions. The reviewer wants to determine whether or not the substance of the original review hearing applications were valid. My position is that the ACC had the opportunity to make that challenge at the review hearing itself and as they did not a deemed decision has resulted as to the reviewer has made the decision and therefore binding upon all parties. If the ACC wanted to challenge the deemed decision in my favour they would need to do so before the district court as the reviewer has no jurisdiction.

Any thoughts on this topic?
0

#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:15 PM

In your case start again in asking ACC to make a decision on what ever entitlement that you were asking for.

You might post the section up what you are not entitled to receive due to a deemed decision.

No I have a very interesting Deemed decision. this is that the office of the Complaints Inveatihator has not investigated the complaint that the Corporation representive has been dishonest in putting before the courts what my covered injuries are.

Of cause this also happened in 1995 but were to from here.

that is for me to know and the ACC to wonder. I think that it is something to do with purgery.

Start again and make ACC make a decision All 93 of them.
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 December 2008 - 06:41 PM

No I like the Deemed Decision as it is in my favour
0

#4 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 16 December 2008 - 09:57 AM

Thomo quote:

"I have 93 Reveiw hearings."

You made them mate, you do them, don't start us on another thread, of "give me give me give me". You are toooooooo boring this close to Xmas.

And I am going Xmas shopping!!~!
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 December 2008 - 10:16 AM

Obviously 93 review hearing applications that have converted to deemed decisions, followed by 93 additional review hearing applications that have also converted to deemed decisions makes ACC history.

I have just got a fax from the reviewer wanting me to adjourn because the ACC continue to fail to make disclosure.

Yogi Bear clearly comprehended these types of situations when he said "it is like déjà vu all over again". When I went to review the 1997 decision to cancel my claim because the ACC claim to possess information I was working the ACC also refuse to disclose the alleged information resulting in the reviewer adjourning to give the ACC a chance to disclose the information. The ACC failed to make disclosure and the reviewer failed to reconvene.

Did I have a hearing then?

Am I going to have a hearing now?
The only difference this time is that instead of the ACC attending the hearing in person or by telephone and instead of sending the information relevant to the appeals, the ACC provide two security guards for the 93 hearings.

Will there be Christmas. Bah humbug!
0

#6 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 16 December 2008 - 11:28 AM

If it was me i would say no to any adjournment. ACC have had their chance to do it all. If they are deemed they need to accept the consequences of not dealing with the issues when they had the opportunity to do so.
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 December 2008 - 11:51 AM

Huggy I have gone away past that. I have submitted a complete set of the review hearing applications regarding the delay of process to comply with the previous deemed decision.

The reviewer wants to have a look at the original applications and ACC will not release a copy of the file so we are at a stalemate. As you can appreciate it is no good me claiming I have submitted a review hearing applications. We need the applications logged on to the ACC system for proof beyond reasonable doubt delivery.

The reviewer adjourned to allow the ACC the opportunity to give me a copy of my file.

This set of review hearing applications regarding delay of process of previous deemed decision is also became deemed 3 December 2008 because the ACC have not yet set a hearing date.

Question

What is the penalty for ACC preventing me from being heard by preventing me having access to my file so as I may make submissions from my file? Is there any automated process?

I cannot find anything under legislation that prevents the ACC from simply ignoring everybody. The reviewer telephoned me this morning and I asked him whether or not there was any legal mechanism to automate this decision in my favour if ACC did not disclose my file. He did not know the answer.
0

#8 User is offline   J. Bloggs 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 14-December 07

Posted 16 December 2008 - 04:30 PM

The question is begging.
Where are these so called 97 deemed decisions?
What are the review numbers?
A deemed decision is not automatic, first of all there must be a properly instigated review application, on an issue that is reviewable.
All I have observed in the past year has been 3 review application, published on line by Alan Thomas, which were not proper applications for issues capable of review.
0

#9 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 16 December 2008 - 04:39 PM

Mr Bloggs you are a refreshing change.
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 16 December 2008 - 04:45 PM

Alan

So you submitted the applications without getting them verified as having being filed. With a date stamp an e-mail or what ever.

How dumb can a person be.........................and you held governance over companies............that was a disaster waiting to happen!!!
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 December 2008 - 06:24 PM

Mini there you go again making unsubstantiated assumption. Why earth would you think that I did not have proof of delivery? The point is establishing the ACC awareness or lack thereof for the point of criminal prosecutions of the individuals involved. They must make disclosure.
0

#12 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 16 December 2008 - 09:55 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 15 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

No I like the Deemed Decision as it is in my favour



And of cause each decision being reviewed was made by the Corporation, which included the information about applying for review.

No decision by ACC means that you will receive nothing.
0

#13 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 17 December 2008 - 05:38 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 16 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

Huggy I have gone away past that. I have submitted a complete set of the review hearing applications regarding the delay of process to comply with the previous deemed decision.

The reviewer wants to have a look at the original applications and ACC will not release a copy of the file so we are at a stalemate. As you can appreciate it is no good me claiming I have submitted a review hearing applications. We need the applications logged on to the ACC system for proof beyond reasonable doubt delivery.

The reviewer adjourned to allow the ACC the opportunity to give me a copy of my file.

This set of review hearing applications regarding delay of process of previous deemed decision is also became deemed 3 December 2008 because the ACC have not yet set a hearing date.

Question

What is the penalty for ACC preventing me from being heard by preventing me having access to my file so as I may make submissions from my file? Is there any automated process?

I cannot find anything under legislation that prevents the ACC from simply ignoring everybody. The reviewer telephoned me this morning and I asked him whether or not there was any legal mechanism to automate this decision in my favour if ACC did not disclose my file. He did not know the answer.


This is why I consider you did not have proof of delivery. You actually say you don't

You are seriously one sick cookie Mr Thomas.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 17 December 2008 - 05:52 PM

Mini nonsense. The first cerebral review hearing applications were submitted by a lawyer of which there are copies on the file. The majority of review hearing applications were submitted by facsimile of which I have an electronic receipt from the fax machine. The time and date matches up with a header held on the ACC copy of my file.

Mini why is it that you almost must take the low road?
Do you have some kind of compulsive obsessive disorder about me?
Are you hoping to be employed by the ACC?
0

#15 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 18 December 2008 - 01:53 PM

Quote Thomo

"As you can appreciate it is no good me claiming I have submitted a review hearing application. We need the applications logged on the to the ACC system for proof beyound reasonable doubt delivery".

I say again, you say it yourself, you did not get proof of delivery, such as date stamp over counter, or a e-mail to prove reciept.

Take note all, this is what happens when you dont follow through with taking proper control of your case.

Leave it to the Lawyer if you like, but you take the risk.

No harm in getting CM, or DRSL, to let you know on e-mail, where it is all at.

I do take a special interest in you Thomo it is true. Although I would no go so far as to say you are an obsession of mine. But defininately a special interest.

And yes I did offer my services to ACC Investigations. They didnt say yes, in fact I am on long term, so gather the answer is no. I would dearly have loved to investigate you. You would defininately have become an obsession then!!!!

I sincerely beleive we all get what we deserve, therefore it is somewhat of a tradedy that I cannot work. Whereas you look it as a tradedy that you cannot get 80% of your wage!!!

Suppose it takes all kinds.

Try to keep your story straight so I dont have to remind you all the time that you have cocked up!!
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 December 2008 - 03:54 PM

Mini your train of logic is defective.

I have proof that I have delivered.

I do not have proof that ACC have possession.

ACC have invited ACC to provide a copy of the file so as I may have proof that ACC have been in possession. The reviewer has asked ACC to provide a copy of the file which has met with a stony silence.

The reviewer is now satisfied that the ACC has provided me with a copy of my file but today he acknowledges that he does not have any information to determine whether or not the file is complete because the ACC would neither confirm nor deny. It means by which the reviewer satisfied himself was that one case manager said that he had given all of the file material that was in the branch. The other means was that he asked Mr Tui who described what the ACC should be doing rather than what ACC actually did.

The criminal court judge told the ACC to surrender the entire file. The ACC were allowed to be in contempt and the trial continued. Subsequent reviewers and district court judges have been equally permissive.

Of the 93 review hearing applications that have converted into a deemed decision is the reviewer was to have a look at the original decision in writing to determine whether or not there is a basis to appeal to the reviewer from which a deemed decision could ultimately result that no date had been set within the criteria, such as in these cases.

ACC did make a decision that there had been an overpayment when accusing me of fraud and prosecuting successfully on the basis of an overpayment decision. The reviewer disagrees because the ACC had made a decision that could be reviewed because they did not put it in writing and therefore cannot become a deemed decision because a deemed decision as to originate from a decision in writing. On this point of course I disagree. Decision does not have to be in writing for it to be a decision. This is confirmed by the Burnett case.

With regards to persons with your mental disposition I think it is reasonable to conclude that there are many people just like you were employed by the ACC. I am also confident in stating that many employees of the ACC would like to be engaged in my case in some way given the level of controversy. Obviously my case is ultimately going to make and break a few careers in the ACC given that it is the biggest longest lasting and judicially most expensive place in the ACC history. It is for this reason a significant number ACC employees have expressed their own personal viewpoints to me despite the fact that is against their employers very directed and personalised instructions. Obviously I must respect the confidences in the meantime until it will not affect these people's positions.

Mini I think the real tragedy is that I have not been able to continue with my preinjury occupation to the extent that very large numbers of people have lost their jobs because they depended upon what I did. Possibly even greater than that is the fact that the medical equipment being developed did not continue on resulting in a percentage loss in surgical results which is of course a life in a situation. It was more things in life than being well rewarded financially for what we do. My income from the profits of companies I owned preinjury was far greater than the wages are received from those companies and as such the 80% is not really proper compensation for the injury even if it was paid.

Many ideas you and I look at life from different perspectives.

Many my story has always been razor sharp and consistent. You are the one that is behaving like a mad woman with diarrhoea.
0

#17 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 19 December 2008 - 11:20 AM

Mr Thomas, your story changes every day and is embellished at every point.

I dont believe a word you say.
go get a life like everyone else has had to do.
However, there is one thing blatantly obvious, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY ENJOYING ALL THE PUBLICITY AND ATTENTION YOU ARE GETTING.

You are just enjoying all the legal activites surrounding you.
This is all your choice and lifestyle and if you choose this way, well that is your problem.

Litigation is your way of dealing with a problem that has got out of control.You will never ever win, you are too ignorant of the law and legislation and proceedures. You havent a clue and are looking to members of the site to do your homework and if the advice is not to your liking well then we have pages of rant from you.

You are costing this country needles expense. ACC is obliged to carry it thru and you know that.We are not amused at this blatant expense. What has been spent on needless hundreds of proceedures could have rehabbed all the folk on this forum.
you are utterly selfish.
But it is your life and you are a litagious little boy. An example of this is the way you have been threatening a number of members of this site including myself with court prceedures.
Another example of how your brain works.
You need to take a look at yourself, go get a job and a life.
You will never win at court or needless Review. You will NEVER "make or break " a single ACC persons job.
You go about it all the wrong way.
Many of us have won Mediations and Reviews and are laughing all the way to the Bank, this will NEVER happen to you till you get your head around the real issues.
I can't be bothered with your rants, you need an immediate change in lifestyle to cope.

I hope your Christmas is a time for you to consider changing your life and the first thing to do is throw away the voice activated software that WAS NOT FUNDED BY YOURSELF AND YOU KNOW YOU ARE LYING. You have provided us a completley different story right here on ACC forum.
Throw away the pooter and enjoy some life without ranting EVERY single day.
Course this will be hard for you to do as you have no other interest in life but litigation.... ;)
0

#18 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 19 December 2008 - 11:45 AM

Couldnt have put it better myself Sparrow.

have a Merry one Girl
Mini
0

#19 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 19 December 2008 - 12:14 PM

View PostMINI, on Dec 19 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Couldnt have put it better myself Sparrow.

have a Merry one Girl
Mini


Totally agree...

One thing You seem to be oblivious to turdo is,
there are many people "out there", not connected to ACC,
or the forum, who know you and remember you of old,
of your "sneaky schemes",
and the real truth of "how YOUR ACC SAGA began"... ;)
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 December 2008 - 12:33 PM

How unfortunate that people do not think this site is for the purposes of sharing problems and information. How unfortunate that when some people on this site recommend surrender and when that advice is not acted upon get all bitter and twisted. How unfortunate that so many on this site have succumbed to the ACC propaganda that promotes negotiation of an entitlement to something less than what the law requires.

How unfortunate it is that there are not more of us who endeavoured to learn the law and stand up against a multibillion-dollar Corporation that squanders our entitlements and therefore lives by their incompetence and wasteful practices to the tune of not less than $4 billion, but wait there is more it is more like $6 billion not counting the contingent liability, those who claim that they are owed money by the ACC of which the ACC has written down their books. This would then go well over $10 billion.
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