ACCforum: Review v Hearing v Mediation-An ACC/DRSL Scam - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Review v Hearing v Mediation-An ACC/DRSL Scam

#1 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 11 January 2009 - 10:40 PM

When is a review a review and when is a hearing a review hearing and what is mediation and why is that when a claimant asks for mediation it is usually refused???

You should make yourselves familiar with the legislation, Part 5 Dispute Resolution, particularly section 142-148. Furthermore, you should all make yourselves familiar with Willson v ACC of which there are two high court cases, they can be found on the NZLII website http://www.nzlii.org...s.html#nz_cases The learned judge gives a very good description of what he thinks a review consist of - reviewers, read it and weep, make sure you understand his reasoning, no doubt it will clash with your contract, sorry, employment contract with drsl and the instructions of ACC.

Briefly, a review should consist of two parts, firstly, an informal review and secondly, a formal hearing, providing, that is, the parties agree not to have a hearing.

The parties to a review are the reviewer; the claimant, including his/her advocate/lawyer if the he/she requires representation together with medical, employer and personal witnesses if necessary; ACC, which on most occasions is one representative and must also include the case manager but rarely, if ever, does. The reviewer would then chair the review, hear submissions and question witnesses in an informal manner; ideally, that could be called a meeting of the minds with the aim of establishing the relevant facts.

It goes without saying that before the review is held, the reviewer would have held a case conference with the parties to set the date of the review, the timetable for an exchange of submissions, including authorities if necessary, an agreed bundle of documents, the parties who will attend in person (the claimant must decline attendance of parties by telephone, as is the usual method these days, except for unusual circumstances).

By this method it is possible that agreement can be reached and the reviewer can then make a decision without the need of proceeding to a formal hearing.

From a careful study of the legislation it will become apparent that this is what Parliament envisaged and intended when it enacted the IPRC Act, which is reinforced by the opinions of Justice McKenzie in Willson.

Let's face it, reviews as they are today are a scam with all the trappings of a kangaroo court; it is disgraceful, unlawful and reminiscent of the Stalin show trials of last century.

I understand there's a number of advocates and lawyers who are now insisting that an informal review should be held prior to a formal hearing, both of whom are experiencing resistance by the reviewers, no doubt because the proper process is excluded by their employment contract. No doubt ACC legal services will be applying pressure to the reviewers - so much for reviewers' independence and the observance of due process.

More to follow.
0

#2 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 12 January 2009 - 06:43 AM

View Postwatcha, on Jan 11 2009, 11:40 PM, said:

When is a review a review and when is a hearing a review hearing and what is mediation and why is that when a claimant asks for mediation it is usually refused???

You should make yourselves familiar with the legislation, Part 5 Dispute Resolution, particularly section 142-148. Furthermore, you should all make yourselves familiar with Willson v ACC of which there are two high court cases, they can be found on the NZLII website http://www.nzlii.org...s.html#nz_cases The learned judge gives a very good description of what he thinks a review consist of - reviewers, read it and weep, make sure you understand his reasoning, no doubt it will clash with your contract, sorry, employment contract with drsl and the instructions of ACC.

Briefly, a review should consist of two parts, firstly, an informal review and secondly, a formal hearing, providing, that is, the parties agree not to have a hearing.

The parties to a review are the reviewer; the claimant, including his/her advocate/lawyer if the he/she requires representation together with medical, employer and personal witnesses if necessary; ACC, which on most occasions is one representative and must also include the case manager but rarely, if ever, does. The reviewer would then chair the review, hear submissions and question witnesses in an informal manner; ideally, that could be called a meeting of the minds with the aim of establishing the relevant facts.

It goes without saying that before the review is held, the reviewer would have held a case conference with the parties to set the date of the review, the timetable for an exchange of submissions, including authorities if necessary, an agreed bundle of documents, the parties who will attend in person (the claimant must decline attendance of parties by telephone, as is the usual method these days, except for unusual circumstances).

By this method it is possible that agreement can be reached and the reviewer can then make a decision without the need of proceeding to a formal hearing.

From a careful study of the legislation it will become apparent that this is what Parliament envisaged and intended when it enacted the IPRC Act, which is reinforced by the opinions of Justice McKenzie in Willson.

Let's face it, reviews as they are today are a scam with all the trappings of a kangaroo court; it is disgraceful, unlawful and reminiscent of the Stalin show trials of last century.

I understand there's a number of advocates and lawyers who are now insisting that an informal review should be held prior to a formal hearing, both of whom are experiencing resistance by the reviewers, no doubt because the proper process is excluded by their employment contract. No doubt ACC legal services will be applying pressure to the reviewers - so much for reviewers' independence and the observance of due process.

More to follow.

Hi Watcha it is Darrell Pearce here. I could not agree anymore. These reviewers who are employed by drsl are ex acc staff members who are employed by acc to back up acc's decisions as has happened in my case 2-3 times. I will have a look for the case of willson. Do you know the case number by any chance at al please. The acc in my case won't even go to mediation unless you can get a successful resolution. In my case i have had 6 reviews won 2 lost 4 strike rate 10% when it comes to these district court appeals had 3 lost 3 one was an acc appeal that they won thieving bastards they are. It all comes down to fairness & how does acc explain fairness they can't because they are fucken useless excuse the wording it is only 7.42am in the morning & for me to use that type of language is not like me. Grab a copy of judge cadenhead's decision in my case decision number 150/2008 where he to criticises the way the review process is conducted.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce.
0

#3 User is offline   gabby 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 25-November 07

Posted 12 January 2009 - 01:12 PM

View Postwatcha, on Jan 11 2009, 11:40 PM, said:

When is a review a review and when is a hearing a review hearing and what is mediation and why is that when a claimant asks for mediation it is usually refused???

You should make yourselves familiar with the legislation, Part 5 Dispute Resolution, particularly section 142-148. Furthermore, you should all make yourselves familiar with Willson v ACC of which there are two high court cases, they can be found on the NZLII website http://www.nzlii.org...s.html#nz_cases The learned judge gives a very good description of what he thinks a review consist of - reviewers, read it and weep, make sure you understand his reasoning, no doubt it will clash with your contract, sorry, employment contract with drsl and the instructions of ACC.

Briefly, a review should consist of two parts, firstly, an informal review and secondly, a formal hearing, providing, that is, the parties agree not to have a hearing.

The parties to a review are the reviewer; the claimant, including his/her advocate/lawyer if the he/she requires representation together with medical, employer and personal witnesses if necessary; ACC, which on most occasions is one representative and must also include the case manager but rarely, if ever, does. The reviewer would then chair the review, hear submissions and question witnesses in an informal manner; ideally, that could be called a meeting of the minds with the aim of establishing the relevant facts.

It goes without saying that before the review is held, the reviewer would have held a case conference with the parties to set the date of the review, the timetable for an exchange of submissions, including authorities if necessary, an agreed bundle of documents, the parties who will attend in person (the claimant must decline attendance of parties by telephone, as is the usual method these days, except for unusual circumstances).

By this method it is possible that agreement can be reached and the reviewer can then make a decision without the need of proceeding to a formal hearing.

From a careful study of the legislation it will become apparent that this is what Parliament envisaged and intended when it enacted the IPRC Act, which is reinforced by the opinions of Justice McKenzie in Willson.

Let's face it, reviews as they are today are a scam with all the trappings of a kangaroo court; it is disgraceful, unlawful and reminiscent of the Stalin show trials of last century.

I understand there's a number of advocates and lawyers who are now insisting that an informal review should be held prior to a formal hearing, both of whom are experiencing resistance by the reviewers, no doubt because the proper process is excluded by their employment contract. No doubt ACC legal services will be applying pressure to the reviewers - so much for reviewers' independence and the observance of due process.

More to follow.

thats how a review should be conducted well someone forgot to tell the drsl chch office because thats not how my recent review was done..it was a kangaroo court alright and there was only going to be one outcome..i was even told by a staff member at drsl in chch to get rid of my lawyer as i would have no chance of winning with him handling my case ..drsl needs a cleanout and it wont come soon enough.
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 12 January 2009 - 04:32 PM

Next time you are before a reviewer ask them how they learn to be a reviewer and who they go to when they are seeking legal advice regarding ACC legislated criteria. Of course reviewers lose their independence when these training courses and legal criteria originate from the ACC Corporation itself.

The very basics of fairness and natural justice is a fundamental point of law that is not properly understood as a result of the ACC viewpoint contamination which is at odds with the higher courts.
0

#5 User is offline   Sitting Duck 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-January 08

Posted 12 January 2009 - 05:53 PM

If postings by Mr Thomas can be believed, then he is the biggest loser at review of all time.
His own reviews that he has proudly posted online have all been fundamentally flawed in fact and in law.
May I humbly suggest that his comment on this thread be treated with a bit of caution?
0

#6 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 12 January 2009 - 08:03 PM

View PostSitting Duck, on Jan 12 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

If postings by Mr Thomas can be believed, then he is the biggest loser at review of all time.
His own reviews that he has proudly posted online have all been fundamentally flawed in fact and in law.
May I humbly suggest that his comment on this thread be treated with a bit of caution?

Does anyone on this site have a copy of the reviewers training manual that these reviewers have to follow. If not let me know because i have the manual on me that the reviewers have to follow when becoming reviewers for DRSL. In my own personal opinion it is a conflict of interest because the reviewers are not independent at all. They are ex acc employees who are there to shore up their own mates reckless decision making procedure. I can confirm there are 15 reviewers who are not independent. But as i said there is no consistency whatsoever with these reviewers. Judge cadenhead in my case when declined my application for leave to appeal said that the review investigation was carried out independently or impartially. Decision number 150/2008. Paragraph 8. As i said i will send a copy of the reviewers training manual through so you's can see what has to be undertaken.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce.
0

#7 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 13 January 2009 - 09:38 AM

As I have often said, Review are a waste of time, we should be allowed to take our chances by going straight to the appeal court.

I have only ever won one Review out of approx 8, so seven have gone onto appeal anyway. To be sorted there.

Mini
0

#8 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 13 January 2009 - 11:34 AM

View PostMINI, on Jan 13 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

As I have often said, Review are a waste of time, we should be allowed to take our chances by going straight to the appeal court.

I have only ever won one Review out of approx 8, so seven have gone onto appeal anyway. To be sorted there.

Mini

Hi Mini it is Darrell here.You are right reviews are a waste of time. In my case i have had 6 reviews 5 of those reviews were for the independence allowance the other review was cover for a mental injury due to physical abuse. I have won 2 reviews but one of those reviews was overturned in the courts by acc. I can only think that the review process is more designed to suit the acc enviroment because acc pay these reviewers to uphold acc's decisions. They don't think about the claimants concerns. I wonder if these reviewers are also paid bonuses for keeping the claimant from receiving their entitlement to independence allowance, weekly compensation, lump sum compensation, earnings related compensation. I would like to think that there is no indepndence at all from these reviewers. Judge cadenhead in my case when he delined my application for leave to appeal was also scathing of the review process. He said & i quote the review investigation was not carried out in an impartial manner & therefore the review process should be sorted out immediately. Let me know what the outcome is in your district court appeal for an independence allowance.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce
0

#9 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 13 January 2009 - 01:04 PM

reviewers are there to cover up mistakes and nothing more. Prosecution of reviewers should happen when legislation is not applied.

But at least the Act is not as bad as the 1992 Act.

Section 163 allows the corporation staff to claim any level of earning with out any paper record with out the judge or reviewer checking that the earnings information is correct.

An example as in a memo.
as this confusing (as usual) letter indicated that the client was able to earn $672.34 a week for 7 weeks, it is apparent that he is now able to earn in excess of his pre-accident earnings. the decision to cease ERC from 29/3/92 was clearly correct.

at that time the up-dated earnings was $964.77 per week.

The reviewers decision states:
"This indicated the earning ability of $672.34 a week for a seven week period which also indicated to the Corporation that Mr Smith was well able to earn in excess of his relevant earnings figure."

before the review started the reviewer claimed that due to no decision being made on lots of different entitlement denials he could not make decisions on anything except that what the Corporation made his decision on.

but there is more,
It was as at 2 April 1992 that the Corporation advised Mr Smith that as he had not kept the Corporation up tp date with what earnings he was receiving that it would cease payment of earnings related compensation to him as of 29 March 1992.

This is bull shit as the decision
I refer to my letter of 11 February 1992, a copy of which I enclose.
As you have not attempted to provide us with the details of your current employment and your ability to earn is no longer reduced as a result of your injury, the Corporation will cease payment of earnings related compensation as of 29 March 1992.

The rehabilitation Co-ordinator places in her memo dated 11 march 1992.
trevor advised he had been working in central Otago area but this job ceased on Friday 28 February, he apparently commenced the same on 12 January 1992.
he then stated that he was able to make up to $1,000.00 per week on this job...............................

and the reviewer Mr Shirley responded
"He immediately responded to the Corporation by stating that the last job he had worked 12 hours per day six days per week at an hourly rate of $9.3380 per hour. this work being from 13 January 1992 to 29 February 1992. At hearing he confirmed that these earnings were from Macrae Mining."

I did not confirm that I worked for Macraes mining as I have never been employed by any mining company. Before my injury I did mine for gold and shelite as a hobby. How did the reviewer get the information so wrong? decided to ignore written information that was in the file

Problem is the solicitor did not what to present facts and tell reviewer the truth that the only offences committed was from the case management team.
0

#10 User is offline   gabby 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 25-November 07

Posted 13 January 2009 - 01:31 PM

mini is so correct in saying reviews are a waste time..my last one the reviewer made it very obvious that she was there to uphold the acc decision..as soon as i hear the comment 'what do you do all day' which is what the reviewer said to me in a sarcastic manner i know things are not going to go well..also no eye to eye contact from her which takes the human element out on her part..these acc reviewers have to be challenged and taken to task they are a disgrace and give the handful of honest reviewers(i know of one at least)a bad rap.
0

#11 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 13 January 2009 - 03:53 PM

Does anyone have all the names of the reviewers DSRL uses & the periods that they were formerly employed by ACC in any capacity?

John Orange was one that comes to mind & he has now , thankfully, G O N E.
0

#12 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 13 January 2009 - 08:05 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on Jan 13 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Does anyone have all the names of the reviewers DSRL uses & the periods that they were formerly employed by ACC in any capacity?

John Orange was one that comes to mind & he has now , thankfully, G O N E.

Hi Hukildaspida it is Darrell here. I can name some more these reviewers to help you. They are as follows.
Justine Falconer
Peter Jackson now operations manager at drsl in hamilton
Margaret Barnett Davidson
Marie Hill
Rex woodhouse
Peter Barker
John Greene
Kay stringleman
John Haines
Dave Walker
Mike Dunn.
I hope that helps you out.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce
0

#13 User is offline   gabby 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 25-November 07

Posted 14 January 2009 - 10:34 AM

View Postdarrellpearce, on Jan 13 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

Hi Hukildaspida it is Darrell here. I can name some more these reviewers to help you. They are as follows.
Justine Falconer
Peter Jackson now operations manager at drsl in hamilton
Margaret Barnett Davidson
Marie Hill
Rex woodhouse
Peter Barker
John Greene
Kay stringleman
John Haines
Dave Walker
Mike Dunn.
I hope that helps you out.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce

Hi darrell these reviewers you have named are they known acc toadies(i know one is)or do we have someone in there whos regarded as fair and is prepared to at least listen to both sides?
0

#14 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 14 January 2009 - 03:46 PM

View Postgabby, on Jan 14 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

Hi darrell these reviewers you have named are they known acc toadies(i know one is)or do we have someone in there whos regarded as fair and is prepared to at least listen to both sides?

Hi Gabby it is Darrell here. To answer your question i can confirm that Marie Hill is ex acc as she used to work at acc legal services, & was also a senior complaints investigator in my opinion not independent. Kaye stringleman used to also work in acc legal services again like Marie Hill not independent. The best reviewer i had was Peter Jackson he heard 2 of my reviews & he in my favour twice. I do have those 2 review decisions from him on me if you want me to post you a copy of those 2 decisions i had in my favour. Send me a personal e-mail to [email protected] or give me a call on 067696440.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce.
0

#15 User is offline   gabby 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 25-November 07

Posted 15 January 2009 - 09:26 AM

View Postdarrellpearce, on Jan 14 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

Hi Gabby it is Darrell here. To answer your question i can confirm that Marie Hill is ex acc as she used to work at acc legal services, & was also a senior complaints investigator in my opinion not independent. Kaye stringleman used to also work in acc legal services again like Marie Hill not independent. The best reviewer i had was Peter Jackson he heard 2 of my reviews & he in my favour twice. I do have those 2 review decisions from him on me if you want me to post you a copy of those 2 decisions i had in my favour. Send me a personal e-mail to [email protected] or give me a call on 067696440.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce.

hi darrell thanks for that offer..I am collecting information on drsl reviewers to post an up to date list of the honest and fair ones who give claimants a decent hearing and also of course a list of the acc toadies who we need to weed out and expose.thanks again but i wont need those decisions of yours.cheers gabby.
0

#16 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 15 January 2009 - 01:04 PM

View Postgabby, on Jan 15 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

hi darrell thanks for that offer..I am collecting information on drsl reviewers to post an up to date list of the honest and fair ones who give claimants a decent hearing and also of course a list of the acc toadies who we need to weed out and expose.thanks again but i wont need those decisions of yours.cheers gabby.

Hi Gabby it is Darrell here. Just one other reviewer to add as well. Rex Woodhouse. He used to work at acc as well. Just was not sure if i had included him or not. So I thought best to send the info to you. I have since lodged a complaint with the complaints investigator. Around the issue of fairness. I should hear back in the next few weeks with regards to the outcome. I am going to write to acc to request mediation. If they refuse then i will be off to the high court for some form of judicial remedy i.e High Court Injunction. Anyway if you want a hand then feel free to give me a call on 06 7696440. I am only to happy to help.
Look Forward To Your Reply Soon.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce.
0

#17 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 16 January 2009 - 07:11 AM

View PostMINI, on Jan 13 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

As I have often said, Review are a waste of time, we should be allowed to take our chances by going straight to the appeal court.

I have only ever won one Review out of approx 8, so seven have gone onto appeal anyway. To be sorted there.

Mini

Hi Mini it is Darrell here. You are absolutely right. The review process is a failure because the reviewers are biased & are ex acc employees. I have had 6 reviews 5 of those reviews were for the independence allowance & the other review i had was for a mental injury due to physical abuse. I lost that review as well. That went to appeal last year but i withdrew it due to insufficent evidence. Anyway i have found this. Right to Justice. If your rights may be affected by a decision of a tribunal or public authority you have the right to a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker apply for judicial review of that decision. The Willson case is a prime example that the review process is a failure. No wonder acc won't go to mediation. I have lodged a complaint with the complaints investigator. Once i hear back from the investigator i will be writing to acc to ask for mediation. If they refuse then i will be of to the high court. Anyway all the best with case & good luck.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce
0

#18 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 16 January 2009 - 10:32 AM

i had a bit of surprising information that a review that is known to make false decision and knowingly are false decision has now become a justice of the piece.

this is W. L. Shirley 42 Beach Street St Clair Dunedin. phone 455 4616

I do not believe that this person is a fit and proper person to be a JP. Does any one know how to register a complaint so as to have this person removed. Wonder how many other reviewers are looking at becoming JP's.
0

#19 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 16 January 2009 - 03:54 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on Jan 16 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

i had a bit of surprising information that a review that is known to make false decision and knowingly are false decision has now become a justice of the piece.

this is W. L. Shirley 42 Beach Street St Clair Dunedin. phone 455 4616

I do not believe that this person is a fit and proper person to be a JP. Does any one know how to register a complaint so as to have this person removed. Wonder how many other reviewers are looking at becoming JP's.



Try doing a search on Google on Justices of the Peace in NZ - alternately contact Citizens Advice as they have JPS do work for them & should be able to put you in the right direction how you become one etc.Their is Legislation somewhere as we recall reading it.
0

#20 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 16 January 2009 - 06:16 PM

Dopel, I agree with you.
Waren Shirley is not a suitable person to deliver just and fair decisions!
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