ACCforum: Beneficiary faces ACC fraud charges - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Beneficiary faces ACC fraud charges Mike "Milky" Gibson

#121 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:57 PM

Alan you have mis interpreted

Sue North, Business Manager Operations, said ACC will continue to investigate and prosecute fraud.

As i see it all it means is ACC will continue to investigate and prosecute for fraud if clients commit offences it doesnt mean in my view they are still after Mr Gibson his case has been dealt with and is now over.

Not everyone is as radical as you Alan, admittedly he plead guilty to lesser charges and in my opinion even though a person shouldnt have to do that you need to outweigh the costs in this. To drag this through the courts would be stressful not only on Mike but his family, it will also cost him prob more than an excess of 100k to fight it and Im sure as nice as it would be to wipe it completely all things need to be weighed out.

The difference with Mike and you is he sees sense and can now get on with his life whereas you have fought and fought and you probably will fight until you die. I know what I would rather have. You have to stop at some point in your life and I think Mike has made a wise choice even though he shouldnt have been forced into that position.
0

#122 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 23 January 2010 - 05:58 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jan 22 2010, 11:11 PM, said:

Bill birch are you crazy or just plain stupid and incompetent as an ACC advocate?

Mike is not guilty of fraud and should appeal the summary proceedings decision based on inappropriate legal advice. Quite clearly the ACC have falsified their own records and made inappropriate contact with the treatment provider in an attempt to manipulate medical certificates. regardless as to what was on the medical certificates or whether might neglected to fully describe the extent of his injuries or the way in which it ebed and flowed. the final decision maker of the medical certificates is the treatment provider and if the ACC wanted to challenge any information that contributed to to those medical certificates it is the medical certificates that the ACC must challenge by way of superior medical reporting and its own cost brother than claiming fraud as a mechanism to reduce their liability as that is fraud in itself.


Alan, you could very well right with your name-calling, or perhaps at some subconscious level you could be holding a mirror up to yourself.

I think Mr Gibson's legal counsel did a very good job in the end in getting the charges reduced and avoiding a prison sentence. I do qualify this by saying that if the medical certificates stated the restrictions were only heavy lifting, twisting etc and there is evidence he did inform ACC of his activities then I may have a different view. But I would want to see the evidence first.



I am also of the view that an offence under section 308
1. is a criminal (not civil) offence. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/...p;p=1#DLM328054
2. can be termed "fraud" by definition of the word - http://legal-diction...onary.com/fraud

While it was reported that the maximum sentence was 3 months, my understanding it is 3 months per offence.

If someone can show me I am wrong in my opinion, and support it with a clear rationale, then I am open to that. But name calling, while Alan may think it is some sort of rationale, isn't going to change my opinion.



I am sure ACC and Mr Gibson can put a spin on it anyway they choose. I also think that both ACC and Mr Gibson could have handled things differently earlier on in the proceedings for the sake of both Mr Gibson and the levy/tax payer.

What the case highlights is that the onus is upon the claimant to ensure the medical certificates they provide to ACC accurately reflect the person's restrictions. The claimant also has a responsibility to follow medical advice. Call it crazy or incompetence on my part if you like, but that is my advice to others. Alan, ifyour opinion or advice is different then that is your right to express it. If others follow it then that is their right, they will be the ones who potentially suffer from it, not you (well apart from the mess you have already got yourself in) or me.

Anyway, hopefully ACC and Mr Gibson put the saga behind them so he can get on with his rehabilitation and, as he says, his independence and get ACC out of his life. I think it is something most claimants would like to do if they are able to.
0

#123 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 23 January 2010 - 06:43 AM

Please let's not get back to the slanging matches which recently stopped on the forum but now appear to be starting again.

There is an old proverb - don't criticise someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

I think we should try and mind our own business instead of trying to mind someone else's.
0

#124 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 23 January 2010 - 10:46 AM

I disagree with the part that keep to your own case.

Why????

It gives the ACC a greater advantage

One should be helping in getting a result that shows that having ambiguous medical certificates causes problems

Technical I think that it should be the employer that should be signing the medical certificate saying that the injured can not return to the pre accident employment. It is them that has to pay for any loss of productivity due to incapacity due to an accident.

So the medical certificate should go to your employer and the employer should decide if you are fit to return to your employment and the number of hours that you can do. It shouldn't be the Dr saying that the injured is not able to return to employment as the Dr does not control the level of performance that you do. Put the responsibly back were it belongs and that is the employer.

Yes I know what you all are going to say but the employers are trying to reduce the levy by claiming that the injured are not returning to work.

Alan I though that you would be the first to dig in deep and prove that the medical certificate does not comply with the legislation and make a big issue of it.

remember if Mike takes this further and you supply the information showing that the fraud unit is dishonest, the gainers of having the entitlements removed, and are in charge of the policies, then Alan you have no more than what you already have.

Just remember giving information is not directing the person to carry out your wishes.
0

#125 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 23 January 2010 - 11:57 AM

Significant I believe is, the fact that med cert declarations used to say something like.... this is an accurate reflection of my work capacity. A few years back that was changed to ....an accurate reflection of my activity restrictions. BIG BIG difference!!! The interesting thing is that the forms now have very very little space for doctors to write restrictions and ACC even did away with the section that had tick boxes to make it easy for the doctors to indicate restrictions. If ACC want these forms to list all activities they better redesign the forms and insist on Drs filling in the forms adinfinitum and pay them to do so. This just highlights the problems with the forms which are BTW the DOCTOR's medical certificates not the injured person's......sigh........
0

#126 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 23 January 2010 - 01:02 PM

With section 72 in mind: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/...resel#DLM101409

It is the claimant who obtains a certificate to certify their condition. I do not think it can be seen as a GP certifying you unfit without you indicating to the GP what you consider your restrictions to be. The GP must rely in part with subjective input from the claimant along with their own objective findings (in a very brief and limited examination). But I am sure, and I would have a reasonable expectation, that even if the GP had some doubts they would give their patient the benefit of the doubt and put the restrictions more or less as described to them by their patient.

For example,
if you tell your GP that you have been working happily for 15 hours a week (5 hours for 3 days using Tue and Thur to rest) but struggle to do any more, then it is likely the GP would put something like that on your certificate, or,

if you say "I can work on a computer for 2 hours a day fragmented throughout the day", again the GP might write something similar on the medical certificate.

So, while the GP is probably only going to write what they are comfortable writing, my experience is a significant majority of GP's are strongly influenced by what their patients tell them, and, at the end of the day the claimant signs the certificate saying it is an accurate reflection of their abilities. If it isn't then don't sign the certificate until it is.

Blaming the GP isn't going to cut it, they are not the ones receiving the weekly comp. Take a step back and take a look at things this way - We know some ACC assessors are toady's, but to be fair, a patient's GP should quite rightly err on your side (otherwise I personally would find another GP), only difference is we don't call them claimant toadies.

I realise that might not be what some claimants would like to think is the situation, but I am pretty sure that is how the decision makers, ie ACC, Reviewers and Judges, see things and to play the game you have to understand the rules.

So if nothing else, Mike Gibson's case is one to learn from rather than to put it down to being everyone else's fault other than the person who admitted his guilt in the end.
0

#127 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 23 January 2010 - 01:48 PM

Bill Birch

You are not wrong.

I impress on all the neccessity of having ACC do your Independence allowance for permanent injury. Mental and Physical. Also your Specialist reports saying your injuries are permanent and stable. Meaning they are essentually not going to get any worse or better over time. Not only does this give the reasoning as to your Doctors certificate, it also shows ACC that it is unlikely you can get back to work. with your injuries remaining permanent.

If after that you have the pleasure of living next door to people who will photograph you, dob you in, etc etc, then really your reputation was already shot. All this media hype about the guy having a reputation to lose is a load of bunkim. No one would have dobbed him if he had a good reputation. Most people are not like that. My neighbours are all great and they think I am great (I hope)!! I would never expect them to dob me anyway. Mind you the most they would find me doing outside is hang the washing on the line, or hose the house down, changing arms to relax position every five minutes or so. Sometimes, I can be seen washing my car, it takes most of the day and then they wont see me for a couple of days while I recuperate. But this is when you have a good reputation eh?? This is when people wont dob you in, because they are your friends and your effort in life goes into living independently.

Jocko is right we have a right to a life. But do try to be sensible and have a good life that includes your neighbours who can help in an emergency and appreciate that you try hard to remain independent, and do not criticise your trying to manage your own life.

Let this guy go about his business, hopefully he can make amends with his neighbours down the line. Sounds like he is going to make a bit out of his business if it is only going to take two nights of bed letting to allow him to go off ACC. So he will be OK!!!

Mini
0

#128 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2010 - 01:58 PM

As far as I can see it is absolute nonsense to think That a claimant can instruct or even influence what work restrictions the general practitioner places on the medical certificate. The who keep on saying this more probably than not do not have genuine injuries.

The legislation requires object if scientific clinical analysis of the biological condition so as to provide the ACC with information about what the claimant cannot do safely and without causing further harm. Obviously objective information cannot be influenced in any way or form. if the doctor has not placed object if the information into the medical certificate which is supported by scientific evidence then you must certainly find yourself another doctor.

A doctor in the south island who was influenced not to provide a scientifically based object of medical stiff accounts for his patient was severely censured by the medical council and fined $7,000.00..

Subjective information has no part to play on the medical certificates. Any doctor who relies upon subjective instead of objective information for the medical certificates faces serious disciplinary measures. the medical council has tried to distance themselves from medical certificates and competing medical reports for the ACC claiming that the medical report is not in relation to treatment however the claimants treatment providers cannot possibly enjoyed this luxury as the certificate is required for the purposes of gaining access to treatment together with other social rehabilitation entitlements to lessen the effects of the injury which is also effectively prescribing treatment .

The common thread of the problem is that the public of New Zealand have been engineered to think subjectively rather than objectively.

The ACC is required by legislation to accept claims for cover as a result of the object of medical information to the exclusion of all the other information describing the safety to work for the purposes of earnings reinjured level.

Mike for example being a heavy labor could no doubt move rocks and a launch boats all day every day. His entitlement to earnings compensation as described by the medical certificates and is that he cannot do his pre injury occupation. ACC by their own acknowledgement have not equipped him to work in any new occupation safely. It is not necessary for Mike to describe to the doctor or anybody else that he did a small percentage of activities that resembles his pre injury work task activities as he only needed to report to the ACC if he gained a fulltime capacity.

To clarify the nature of subjective information in such a case as Mike's , the information provided by Mike himself to his doctor is subjective information . In addition Mike sun information is medically unqualified and therefore irrelevant so it does not matter what Mike does or does not tell his doctor. the exact same principle applies with regards to Mike's of friends and neighbors or even the private investigators "subjective information" as it is not medically qualified.

Should the ACC perceived any anomalies between the subjective information of either self reporting or the reporting of informants and collected by private investigators then the only lawful think the ACC can do about it is give the claimant an ultimatum to make themselves available for a medical clinical examination so as the ACC may obtain a superior medical report. it is not until the ACC have before them information that reaches the medical criteria described in legislation that the ACC can make a determination as to the extent of incapacity and only then can the ACC make a decision about their ability. Only this type of information is relevant to a fraud investigation / prosecution. Any criminal conviction of taint without competing a medical information is of course and illegally obtained conviction, usually by the ACC misinforming the court as to the criteria found in the legislation.

This is how the law is constructed and anybody saying any thing different has been subject to the ACC social engineering type propaganda that has been reinforced by the illegally obtained convictions despite the fact that these convictions have been overturned and the supreme court has confirmed the length and the breadth of both the doctors and the claimants duties to the ACC regarding information disclosure.

I am very surprised at the high level of ignorance that is being posted by the various persons calling themselves advocates on the site. Perhaps they are trying to curry favor with the ACC.
0

#129 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 23 January 2010 - 02:03 PM

As they say Mini, all publicity is good. Perhaps this was a lost opportunity to promote his accommodation business. Have a few rocks for the guests to shift around and take them out after crays. Call it something like "The Milky Way B&B".


Alan, I agree with everything you say. There, feel better.
0

#130 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2010 - 02:13 PM

View PostBill Birch, on Jan 23 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

Alan, I agree with everything you say. There, feel better.


David
So you are in agreement with me that you are an incompetent advocate.
0

#131 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 23 January 2010 - 02:16 PM

Yes Alan, I am incompetent and such a fool for ever doubting your insightful opinions and reasoning. You give wonderful advice and everyone should follow it and hold you up to be the poster boy of the model claimant. I will leave my posts up so everyone can see just what an incompetent fool I am. Once again, a heartfelt thanks.
0

#132 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 23 January 2010 - 02:38 PM

But Mr Birch.....I really must object,

All Thomo said in that very long spell, was what I said re: cleaning the car, in less than one third the page space!!!

You didnt say you agreed with me!!! :blink:

Far out that Media report of Blurbs has really tickled my fancy.

Mini
0

#133 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2010 - 03:01 PM

Mini you have clearly failed to understand what I said . Perhaps you should read it again.
0

#134 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 23 January 2010 - 04:22 PM

Mini many years ago I had a neighbour who was a cop. I thought he was a great person until one day when he came to my place for a coffee he saw my new stereo that we had bought on HP, he then commented oh nice stereo went straight to it and looked at the back of it. In my opinion he was checking the serial number.

Anyway a couple of years later after an investigation I get the files released and I saw his name in there (ACC didnt black it out very well) This prick was calling ACC if I hung out some washing or called ACC to tell them I was outside pushing my kids on the swing.

What I am trying to say is its all very nice to have good neighbours (I thought they were good) but you still have to be very cautious because you dont know what they will do some day. After all how pathetic to call ACC if I was hanging some washing out or was pushing my kids on the swing. What did he expect me to do sit on my ass 24 hours a day lol.
0

#135 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 26 January 2010 - 04:28 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jan 22 2010, 11:11 PM, said:

Bill birch are you crazy or just plain stupid and incompetent as an ACC advocate?

Mike is not guilty of fraud and should appeal the summary proceedings decision based on inappropriate legal advice. Quite clearly the ACC have falsified their own records and made inappropriate contact with the treatment provider in an attempt to manipulate medical certificates. regardless as to what was on the medical certificates or whether might neglected to fully describe the extent of his injuries or the way in which it ebed and flowed. the final decision maker of the medical certificates is the treatment provider and if the ACC wanted to challenge any information that contributed to to those medical certificates it is the medical certificates that the ACC must challenge by way of superior medical reporting and its own cost brother than claiming fraud as a mechanism to reduce their liability as that is fraud in itself.



View PostBill Birch, on Jan 23 2010, 07:58 AM, said:

Alan, you could very well right with your name-calling, or perhaps at some subconscious level you could be holding a mirror up to yourself.

I think Mr Gibson's legal counsel did a very good job in the end in getting the charges reduced and avoiding a prison sentence. I do qualify this by saying that if the medical certificates stated the restrictions were only heavy lifting, twisting etc and there is evidence he did inform ACC of his activities then I may have a different view. But I would want to see the evidence first.
I am also of the view that an offence under section 308
1. is a criminal (not civil) offence. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/...p;p=1#DLM328054
2. can be termed "fraud" by definition of the word - http://legal-diction...onary.com/fraud

While it was reported that the maximum sentence was 3 months, my understanding it is 3 months per offence.

If someone can show me I am wrong in my opinion, and support it with a clear rationale, then I am open to that. But name calling, while Alan may think it is some sort of rationale, isn't going to change my opinion.
I am sure ACC and Mr Gibson can put a spin on it anyway they choose. I also think that both ACC and Mr Gibson could have handled things differently earlier on in the proceedings for the sake of both Mr Gibson and the levy/tax payer.

What the case highlights is that the onus is upon the claimant to ensure the medical certificates they provide to ACC accurately reflect the person's restrictions. The claimant also has a responsibility to follow medical advice. Call it crazy or incompetence on my part if you like, but that is my advice to others. Alan, ifyour opinion or advice is different then that is your right to express it. If others follow it then that is their right, they will be the ones who potentially suffer from it, not you (well apart from the mess you have already got yourself in) or me.

Anyway, hopefully ACC and Mr Gibson put the saga behind them so he can get on with his rehabilitation and, as he says, his independence and get ACC out of his life. I think it is something most claimants would like to do if they are able to.


View Postmagnacarta, on Jan 25 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

ACC cheat escapes prison
By EMMA DANGERFIELD - The Marlborough Express Last
(Extract)
Judge Gary MacAskill said whatever the opinion of media and the public, the fact was he had made statements which were wrong and therefore broke the law.

Each of the six charges could carry a term of imprisonment, which indicated the seriousness of the offending. It would also be very difficult to determine if or when Gibson would have been able to return to work had he been honest.

"While you were entitled to ACC payments throughout, records suggest you were rather fitter than you might have suggested."

In sentencing Gibson to 200 hours community work on each charge to run concurrently, Judge MacAskill said the crown's approach had been correct and it was important when dealing with ACC and taxpayers funds that people were fully honest.


Alan, I may have to retract my previous admission of being an incompetant fool. B)
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 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