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

#21 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 19 December 2008 - 12:54 PM

"GEEEZE WAYNE"...

YOU JUST DONT GET IT DO YOU...

WE, THOSE OF US THAT HAVE GAINED OUR ENTITLEMENTS,
AS PER LEGISLATION / LAW,
HAVE DONE SO,
"OUR WAY"... HONESTLY

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SHOW FOR YOUR WAY... B)
0

#22 User is offline   MINI 

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

  Posted 19 December 2008 - 02:41 PM

Hee Hee hee Hee
0

#23 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 19 December 2008 - 03:54 PM

I guess I am now seeing into the mind of a person who wears a kaftan. I can only wonder what might pose a danger from under the ACC embroidered kaftan and whether or not you are wearing sandals and have a towel wrapped round your head to complete your fantasies.

I on the other hand had steered the course straight and true in accordance with the date of the expectation of compliance with legislated procedure followed by judicial enforcement to the exclusion of all other suggested remedies such as media or even the more extreme suggestions made by your colleagues of which you clearly planned to tar me with your brush.
0

#24 User is offline   J. Bloggs 

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

  Posted 19 December 2008 - 04:56 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 19 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

I guess I am now seeing into the mind of a person who wears a kaftan. I can only wonder what might pose a danger from under the ACC embroidered kaftan and whether or not you are wearing sandals and have a towel wrapped round your head to complete your fantasies.

I on the other hand had steered the course straight and true in accordance with the date of the expectation of compliance with legislated procedure followed by judicial enforcement to the exclusion of all other suggested remedies such as media or even the more extreme suggestions made by your colleagues of which you clearly planned to tar me with your brush.


Not even in your wildest fantasies!
0

#25 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 19 December 2008 - 05:48 PM

You like a good pasting eh Tankengine???
0

#26 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 December 2008 - 11:49 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 15 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

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?


It would seem that some refocusing on the topic "Replying to Deemed Decision and Enforcement" is necessary because of some Cybertrolls who have compulsive obsessive disorders regarding myself
0

#27 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 20 December 2008 - 12:24 PM

Oh you awake Thomo

Pretty handy with that knife and fork eh??? Where have all the postings gone??
0

#28 User is offline   Battleaxe 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8096
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 21 February 2015 - 01:10 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 15 December 2008 - 02:35 PM, said:

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?


I would appreciate your advice on this point:

I did not know anything about "deemed" decisions before reading about them at this forum.

I then read the legislation. Nothing in the legislation - that I can find at least - says a "deemed" decision cannot be reviewed in the following circumstances (which are mine) ---

1. The ACC made a pre-emptive and premature decision on my claim for cover on 4 June 2014. It had written and asked me to provide it with further information, and I had advised the C.M. that I had an appointment to consult an Orthopaedic Surgeon on 4 June 2014. Yes, that same day she made a decision based on two pieces of information that had to do with a claim for physiotherapy - not a claim for cover - and that had been reviewed where the decision of Fairway Resolution was to "dismiss" my application albeit after having a review hearing.

2. I applied for a review on 10 August 2014. This means my review application was in time.

3. On 10 September 2014 - a full month after I had filed my review application - the ACC revoked its earlier decline decision and partly accepted cover. Now this is where it gets interesting as the G.P. had filled in incorrect information on the ACC45 form, I was not told what information she provided the ACC, I was not given a copy of the claim form. So I made an information request, got a copy e-mailed to me of the ACC45 and then saw - with horror - that she had wrongly described my left heel injury as a "contusion" (bruise) when there had been no bruising of my heel and I had not reported bruising of my heel to her but I had said "it feels like a stone bruise". So ACC gave me cover of abrasions to my left foot toe and heel bruise. Then I got a diagnosis after consulting an Orthopaedic Surgeon and having MRI done on my left heel of plantar fascia rupture. I reported the error made by my G.P. on the ACC45 to my G.P. and to the ACC. My G.P. provided me with a Memo (printed out from her computer) which recorded the information I had provided at the consultation, onto which she stuck a post-it Note explaining the error made insofar as the heel "bruise" was concerned. The ACC C.M. said she wouldn't accept this Memo because it wasn't signed - it was signed - so I wrote to my G.P. again and asked her to include the information she had written on the post-it Note in a new Memo. She produced this and I sent it to the ACC. It was also signed. The ACC have refused to accept this amended Memo as evidence that I did not "bruise" my left heel. Meanwhile there has been the confirmed diagnosis of plantar fascia rupture.

4. So, I now sit with partial cover - for abrasions to a toe that heeled almost three years ago - cover for a heel "bruise" that never existed in the first instance, and no cover for the real heel injury of plantar fascia rupture.

5. Meanwhile I did not know until very recently that the ACC had not sent my review application to Fairway Resolution Limited for over 3 months! Then they tried to bully me into withdrawing it. The ACC Act says both parties have to agree with this and I refused. Now today I get a letter from the ACC's Team Manager, Margaret Tobin, saying that I did not have a "deemed" decision - even though the ACC did not revoke its original decision within the 3 months allowed by the ACC Act (original decision on 4 June, revoked decision replacing it on 10 September; which is a little more than 3 months). She argues that in a recent District Court decision of Ali's Home Help v ACC (NZACC340-2014) Judge Powell considered whether there was a deemed review caused by the late setting of a review hearing after ACC receiving a review application on a levy invoice. In his decision Judge Powell found that; "First, I cannot see on what basis there could have been a deemed decision in respect of the August invoice. Prior to the time for setting down the review hearing the Corporation revised its position and replaced the August invoice with the December invoice. At this point the August invoice ceased to have any effect, there was nothing to review, and therefore no basis for a hearing to be convened." She omits to make any mention of the fact that in the aforementioned case that the ACC revised its position by replacing the August invoice with the December invoice "PRIOR TO THE TIME FOR SETTING DOWN THE REVIEW HEARING." In addition, more than 3 months had passed between the time the ACC made its original decline claim decision and partial approve claim decision.

Also, is there any case law in this area that you can suggest I read please?

I have, by the way, applied for a review of the incorrect and unlawful 10 September 2014 decision to accept cover of my toe abrasions and non-existed heel "bruise".
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