ACCforum: Rex Woodhouse - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Rex Woodhouse Be aware

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 28 January 2009 - 05:59 AM

Rex Woodhouse is an allocated reviewer dealing with reviews between ACC and claimant's. His statutory duty is to be independent and have had no involvement in a claim other than as a reviewer.

I searched Google today (28 January 2009) under the search "Rex Woodhouse @ ACC" and this was published as the email address for Rex Woodhouse at the seventh entry under the contact Find a Lawyer:-

"[email protected]"

The thread and email address is published by the Wellington District Law Society website - wellaw.

I have printed the Google page off to produce if necessary at a later date if/when the role or independence of Mr Woodhouse is challenged.

Worse, Mr Woodhouse is not disclosing to claimant's any involvement with ACC when he is acting as a reviewer.

On this basis alone there is an apprehension of bias. There can never be any certainty that Mr Woodhouse has never been involved in claims that he is now dealing with as a reviewer.

There is a long line of cases that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
0

#2 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 28 January 2009 - 07:20 AM

View Postmagnacarta, on Jan 28 2009, 06:59 AM, said:

Rex Woodhouse is an allocated reviewer dealing with reviews between ACC and claimant's. His statutory duty is to be independent and have had no involvement in a claim other than as a reviewer.

I searched Google today (28 January 2009) under the search "Rex Woodhouse @ ACC" and this was published as the email address for Rex Woodhouse at the seventh entry under the contact Find a Lawyer:-

"[email protected]"

The thread and email address is published by the Wellington District Law Society website - wellaw.

I have printed the Google page off to produce if necessary at a later date if/when the role or independence of Mr Woodhouse is challenged.

Worse, Mr Woodhouse is not disclosing to claimant's any involvement with ACC when he is acting as a reviewer.

On this basis alone there is an apprehension of bias. There can never be any certainty that Mr Woodhouse has never been involved in claims that he is now dealing with as a reviewer.

There is a long line of cases that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

Hi Magnacarta it is Darrell Pearce here. I had Rex Woodhouse as a reviewer & one thing he did not do is turn off the tape recorder after my review. He is an ex acc toady who is not independent at all. The reviewers are meant to be independent all the time when it comes to these contentious reviews. I do agree that there is apparent bias within drsl. The whole review process should be shifted to the courts where everybody would get a fair hearing. The whole review process is a shambles & should be fixed up immediately. If not then the case should just be decided in the courts as i said. If justice is to be done it should be seen to be done. You should grab yourself a copy of the willson case on nzlii.org. That case is a prime example of how inconsistent the review process is. The reviewers are employed by acc to shore their mates decisions. But i have doubts about the review process. In my own opinion i have had 11 reviews 6 were heard 5 were withdrawn. You can see how difficult it is to get a fair hearing.
I Look Forward To Your Reply Soon.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce.
0

#3 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 28 January 2009 - 08:12 AM

I have had Mr Woodhouse once. But over two hearings. One cannot accuse him of not listening. MInd you the case was a real mess by the time he got it and had already been to one Review.

It is now awaiting a Judgement from Appeal, so the least said the better.

Mini
0

#4 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 28 January 2009 - 10:03 AM

Hi darrel pearce

I have read both judgments in Willson v ACC and DRSL. Justice Mackenzie said in the first case at para[17] in discussing the good faith intention in the review process.

"It might be thought that that spirit would apply to the processes themselves, as well as to the issue under review. That is to say, it might be expected that ACC and the reviewer would be sensitive to ensure that concerns raised by an applicant as to process are taken into account. To do so is an important aspect of the requirement that not only should justice be done but it should also be seen to be done. Applicants are less likely to feel a decision is fair if it is reached by a process they perceive to be unfair. It seems from the correspondence that ACC was at one stage prepared to engage in dialogue over process issues. It would be unfortunate if an end to that process had been reached."

ACC and reviewers have simply thumbed their noses at that High Court dicta. It is being raised again and again at ACC and reviewer level.

This issue will eventually find its way back to the High Court and then we will see what the judge's have to say about continuing adverse conduct that they have spoken about which effectively brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
0

#5 User is offline   Witchiepoo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 27-January 05

Posted 28 January 2009 - 12:01 PM

Blimey, you were up early this morning Mags ! THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF !!!!!!!!! Not a good look ACC - SMELLS OF BENT !!!!
0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 28 January 2009 - 12:25 PM

Magna

I have often said that we are best off just going straight to Appeal at District Court. Your concerns are exactly the reasoning why I say that. I dont often feel as though I have been heard properly at Review.

Although I must say I have had two really good Reviewers, Peter Jackson and Nyleen Ford. Both very fair and right on the button with the legalize.

Keep on Keeping on.

Mini
0

#7 User is offline   TREASON? 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 04-February 09

Posted 07 February 2009 - 02:40 PM

REX WOODHOUSE

* previously employed by Healthwise/Workwise. Another fully owned ACC subsidiary company.

* He acted as a lawyer and gave flawed legal opinions on Long term Claimant files resulting in disentitlement.

* At that time Woodhouse did not hold any legal degree. (unsure about now but easy to check)

* He would give a quoted documentary legal opinion and one Dr SNYMAN also employed by Healthwise/Workwise would then assess the claimants file and supply a flawed medical opinion.

* Dr Snyman was doing this for mental health injuries including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder whilst not holding any Psychiatry or Psychology qualification.

* Both men did these assessments without the claimants knowledge, consent or participation.

* The files were being prepared for a panel set up by Ruth Dyson to consider future liability & management of numerous claims (Long termers, I suspect)

* In Particular this was done to the most difficult Long term claims including Police injured.

* I am available to give expert evidence in any hearing, especially District/High court. I will produce detailed and lenghty documentation of above and systemic Govt/ACC/Police corruption including issues in regard the 99 tail managment plan, accredited employers, reason for dumping thousands of Long term Claimants - in particular 1982 act claims as there has been an enormous fraud to overcome taxation liability.

* You must be aware that i have previously been in at least 3 review and 2 District court hearings all of which have resulted in no transcript or recording of hearing having been kept - for various excuses. Factual Documentary evidence is infalliable, irrefutable and very very damaging especially when mixed with direct witness evidence.

* I can travel anywhere in the South Island for modest reimbursement of fuel or to the North Island by arrangement.

Frank
0

#8 User is offline   Tattoo 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 07 February 2009 - 03:55 PM

Frank, appreciate the intel and noted.

I for one have not forgotten the late '90's exit 'progrom' either. There are thousands of claimants and their families who have had an injustice done to them, which is yet to be addressed.
0

#9 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 15 February 2009 - 08:34 AM

It is noted, as at 14 February 2009, the Google listing in the Wellington District Law Society wellaw website publication of email address - [email protected] - has been deleted.

Is seems clear, following the initial post on this forum, that somebody does not want the general public to know that Mr Woodhouse - acting as an independent reviewer in the discharge of his independent functions - was connected to, or involved with, ACC.

In my view, that is very concerning. In any event, an association with ACC remains posted on this forum. The perception or apprehension of bias remains.
0

#10 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 15 February 2009 - 10:51 AM

the Corporation had it removed by the time that I tried to down load the address. I also see that all ACC lawyers and legal servive lawyers are also listed.

At least we can complain to the law society about there behavioural problems.Having these peoples removed from the society would mean that they are not fit to be an ACC employee.
0

#11 User is offline   awryly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 07-October 06

Posted 15 July 2009 - 04:42 PM

When asked nicely, ACC does not seem particularly reticent about its association with Rex Woodhouse.

To wit:

Thank you for request.

You have asked for the following information under the OIA 1982.

"I have had information that Mr Rex Woodhouse, currently a reviewer of ACC complaints employed by Disputes Resolution Service Ltd, has also been employed previously by ACC itself. This raises a question of partiality."

Please identify:
(a) whether he has in fact been previously employed by ACC;
Yes, Rex Woodhouse has been previously employed at ACC.

(B) when his employment with ACC began and finished;
Began 16/09/2002 Finished 14/06/2007

the capacity in which he was employed by ACC;
Rex Woodhouse was employed as a Clinical Advisor in the Treatment Injury Centre (prior to this was called the Medical Misadventure Unit) for part of his time with ACC. His core role as Advisory Officer and Clinical Advisor in this Centre entailed him assessing claims using the medical misadventure and later the treatment injury legislation.

(d) how his transfer to DRSL occurred.
Rex Woodhouse resigned from ACC as he had applied for a position with DRSL and was successful in getting the position.

Regards


Whether this assists Mr Woodhouse's impartiality is a very open question.

And I wonder how many other reviewers have a similar association with ACC.
0

#12 User is offline   awryly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 07-October 06

Posted 15 July 2009 - 07:26 PM

I am still curious about how Mr Woodhouse spent the rest of his time with ACC...when he was not being a clinical adviser.

I am sure you are too.
0

#13 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 15 July 2009 - 08:13 PM

Clinical advisor and he has no Medical Quals . Typical of the quality work done by ACC isnt it!
0

#14 User is offline   awryly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 07-October 06

Posted 15 July 2009 - 08:26 PM

How do you know that? He was wearing a stethoscope when I met him.

But my knowledge of stethoscopes is admittedly limited.

Could have been a pair of foghorns
.
0

#15 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 15 July 2009 - 09:17 PM

View Postawryly, on Jul 15 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

I am still curious about how Mr Woodhouse spent the rest of his time with ACC...when he was not being a clinical adviser.

I am sure you are too.



going to unrelated functions that ACc got invited to. There is a St John's booklet with his name in it.

Sparrow you are right but then it is evidence and he wouldn't know the difference between left Leg or right Leg.
0

#16 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 July 2009 - 08:36 AM

Rex Woodhouse sounds like something on Fair Go. One of those sleazy thieving greasers that pops up everywhere stealing from vulnerable people. Oh ex ACC staff member,of course. They are all like Rex. You know, we should start thoroughly checking all of these bastards out. If they are like this naturally then there must be some ugly skeletons in closets in their personal lives.
0

#17 User is offline   TREASON? 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 04-February 09

Posted 16 July 2009 - 09:20 AM

REX WOODHOUSE



So he resigned from ACC to take up a job at ACC owned DRSL and they think that he remains independent and impartial..

Well there is one work that describes this action and its called CORRUPTION.... and of course we know there is a ton of evidence to PROVE corruption in ACC and that DRSL itself is CORRUPT.

I have checked my files and located pages of legal opinion WOODHOUSE gave on my case in Nov Dec 2003 whilst he was employed by ACC owned Healthwise/Workwise and at that time he did not hold any legal degree...

This is of course CORRUPTION...

See my earlier post above....

I am happy to supply these notes to anyone or prepare an affidavit to the same... or appear in any hearing to give said evidence.

I would immediately declare WOODHOUSE as Hostile and not independent or impartial in ANY proceedings.

It would be interesting to apply for evidence that the actual position WOODHOUSE obtained had in fact been advertised.

Regards


Frank Van Der Eik

ACC Claimant No T1459436/005

P O Box 568
TIMARU
0

#18 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 16 July 2009 - 11:25 AM

Is th eWoodhouse looking into ACC, the MP or this guy??
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 16 July 2009 - 03:08 PM

View PostSparrow, on Jul 16 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

Is th eWoodhouse looking into ACC, the MP or this guy??


no but could be a family member.

the MP also worked at ACC
0

#20 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 16 July 2009 - 03:47 PM

My case which involved this person still at Justice.

More later

Mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • 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