ACCforum: ACC Fraud Unit Audit - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

ACC Fraud Unit Audit Discussion and input please

#121 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 16 February 2014 - 08:22 AM

View Postpractioner123, on 16 February 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

I realize this is a very emotional challenge, and a tough hill to climb. I encourage you to go back to the beginning, and literally start over, applying what you know now, and going piece by piece, using each and every wrong you find, using the appropriate channel to correct it. Such as the Privacy commissioner. Perhaps they DID screw up, but now that you (and probably others) have been crucified because of mismanagement, you could be afforded the opportunity to make it right, by going back to the beginning, and PICKING APART, piece by piece, EVERYTHING that went wrong, You might have 2 dozen issues that will need to be addressed, and I think for sanity's sake, you should SEPARATE them as SEPARATE issues. Given your financial situation, perhaps the best place to start would be in things that cost you little or nothing, like Privacy Act/Commissioner. Re-doing ALL of your privacy act requests to ACC, except this time worded correctly, then firing off a complaint to the commissioner when they don't give you what they want. Since you have been convicted, the matter is considered "settled" so there is no reason why your entire criminal file should released, all warts present. There sounds like several issues that could be addressed in your case, and so I would go back, like a lawyer, wanting to file an appeal would do, except you are the lawyer. You have learned something through all of this? Now you have a chance to apply it, and ask for an appeal, even vacate the judgement if a miscarriage of justice occurred, but only if you can spot it. Did you ask for all email records, and attachments? What did you miss? What was allowed to be used against you. What did the judge/jury see that was so damning? It should be in the judge's opinion. Also, did you order a transcript of your trial?


I also made a post this morning to "Not their Victim" about the legal concept of "standing." Off work entitlement is a matter of standing- both for you and the doctor, and can be challenged/changed/amended. If you have NEW evidence, then that forms the basis of an appeal. Discovering a wrong within your case can form the basis of "new evidence," and the foundation of an appeal. Have you read David Bain's case? You can order a copy of it, if it has been released. There are other examples. Perhaps you could ask the lawyers helping you. They will know what I am talking about.

I would also have a look at the recent Lundy case, because that was overturned on the basis of poor evidence, the poor quality of which recently came to light. The DNA testing they used was of questionable value, and Lundy maintained his innocence. Not to say that he is a great guy, he could be a piece of sh-t, but the possibility of injustice happening to the public, generally, is far worse than one murderer walking free. Ewen McDonald would be walking free today had he not blurted out a series of confessions to police for other things he had done. Criminal cases, and how they are measured matter everything. Greg King was a master at his craft. I recommend reading anything you can find on his cases. And understand that anything you give, even seemingly harmlessly, can and WILL be used against you later.
0

#122 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 February 2014 - 08:27 AM

View Postpractioner123, on 16 February 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

How many privacy act requests have you done? Not their victim and buggy have plenty to say about privacy act, but I have not seen the same from you. That is all. Have you done any privacy act requests?


With the ACC it would be 100s and to the Privacy Commissioner enough for them to reply abusively. I was always polite.
0

#123 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 16 February 2014 - 09:29 AM

View Postpractioner123, on 16 February 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

I also made a post this morning to "Not their Victim" about the legal concept of "standing." Off work entitlement is a matter of standing- both for you and the doctor, and can be challenged/changed/amended. If you have NEW evidence, then that forms the basis of an appeal. Discovering a wrong within your case can form the basis of "new evidence," and the foundation of an appeal. Have you read David Bain's case? You can order a copy of it, if it has been released. There are other examples. Perhaps you could ask the lawyers helping you. They will know what I am talking about.

I would also have a look at the recent Lundy case, because that was overturned on the basis of poor evidence, the poor quality of which recently came to light. The DNA testing they used was of questionable value, and Lundy maintained his innocence. Not to say that he is a great guy, he could be a piece of sh-t, but the possibility of injustice happening to the public, generally, is far worse than one murderer walking free. Ewen McDonald would be walking free today had he not blurted out a series of confessions to police for other things he had done. Criminal cases, and how they are measured matter everything. Greg King was a master at his craft. I recommend reading anything you can find on his cases. And understand that anything you give, even seemingly harmlessly, can and WILL be used against you later.


You have just pointed out that Alan Thomas cases are not ACC cases at all. The are criminal cases that could happen to anyone who puts themselve in thoses positions. Straight out fraud, and straight threatening to harm. They shouldnt even be in here.

If he was to follow what you say under the ACC law, they would scream res Judicata at him at Review level and leave it there. So firstly he needs a reason to be having it called again. And you mention new evidence to overcome the res judicata. Now hopefully that will work and I will let you know.

I am simply saying they are actually not ACC cases. They are not under ACC law. And that is where the actions are being confused, because to my understanding, the cases or the fraud one has been taken under both the criminal law and the ACC law. Lots to go thru to start again.

Chipping away at these problems will take years and if they say no so often they push him into the H/c that cost money and lawyers, and you get so many cases piling one on top of the other, that it certainly becomes confusing. It certainly takes its toll. It is a lonely long road you take just awaiting letters from ACC and others. Going back is never easy.

I am not trying to put Mr Thomas off, he can do what he likes, but he didnt have to take the rest of us with him. His fight for his criminal cases shouldnt be on ACC fromum.

Just my thinking for the morning.
0

#124 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 February 2014 - 09:35 AM

Mini the ACC took me to the criminal court with their PRIVATE PROSECUTION on the basis of the PIs understanding of ACC law. How is that not an ACC case?
0

#125 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 18 February 2014 - 01:05 PM

For those whom still can not read.

This is what this topic we started is about,ACC Fraud Unit Audit not Personal Stories and ongoing repeated garbage.

Please do not post in this topic unless it is directly related to what we first started.

Note, the key word is Audit.

Thank you once more.


View Posthukildaspida, on 05 February 2009 - 11:12 AM, said:

In Advance it would be appreciated if you would PLEASE stick to this Topic & keep your personal stories where they belong.

There have been positive changes with the requirements relating to what Private Investigators are & are not able to do as a result of a number of you on this site & other places input.

Unfortunately an area that has not yet been addressed which one would've hoped would have been undertaken by now is that of an AUDIT of ACC staff & there actions etc who are involved in it's Fraud Unit to ensure Transparency & ACCountabilty.

It's a well known fact that Bank Staff must take at least a week off on annual leave to ensure they are not doing anything untoward to clients files & as financial gain is also possible with ACC staff should not ACC staff have to do the same?

As an example it is quite clear that there are people's ACC files that have had documents removed to make them look guilty of offences, including Fraud, that they have not committed, more than one set of files on clients & files in more than one place with a Liquorice allsorts of documents.

Should a 3rd party, NOT Private Investigators be assigned to do random Audits of clients files that have been accessed by the Fraud Unit to ensure documents are all intact etc?

This would ensure those whom are ACCountable for knowingly removing/ altering documents including that of an electronic nature etc are brought to ACCountabilty & if necessarily before a Criminal Court of Law.

What follow ups have been done on people to see what help etc they are getting who have had accidents & lost payments/entitlements as a result of false & vexatious allegations?

Are they on WINZ benenfits, back at full-time work etc as these things are all interelated?

What processes have been put in place by ACC to ensure full checks and balances are done PRIOR to any client files, including that of claimants, medical professionals etc, are referred for to Private Investigators for surveillance and or investigation?

Has there been any formal investigations done to see if there has been a history of conflicts of interest between ACC staff at their Fraud Unit since it was set up and that of Private Investigators who perfed from the Police?

Are there figures available for each year to show how much of ACC Levies have been spent on surveillance / investigations from all ACC branches?

What is the average number of hours spent on surveillance / investigation per ACC client?

What proceedures have been put in place by ACC to ensure that clients who have stood up for their Legal Rights are not further Victimised by repeated Investigations because someone in ACCs Fraud Unit has an axe to grind and *Flagged the clients ACC file as being a Risky Client?

* please refer to Flagged file threads on this & http://www.accfocus.org websites for further information.

0

#126 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 February 2014 - 02:41 PM


hukildaspida
You started this thread on the basis that there had been positive changes Subsequent tothe ACC fraud unit audit.

I think what is happening is that the postings being made now appear to be evidence that there has been no positive changes Coming from the ACC fraud unit audit. From what I am seeing they are carrying on "business as usual" be it in a more clandestine fashion.



0

#127 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 March 2014 - 10:47 AM

My application to the Court of Appeal to address the ACC modus operandi of the ACC fraud unit cancelling claims and initiating fraud proceedings is underway.

Essentially the fraud unit who do not receive any training in regards to ACC legislation who make decisions based on their own intuition are being called to account in as much as my submissions require all ACC to determine the ongoing entitlements in accordance with the legislated criteria. For example ACC relying upon the assumptions of members of the public who have the impression that someone is working being used by the ACC as the basis for asserting a claimant is no longer incapacitated instead of requiring a medical assessment by relevant specialists.
1

#128 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 19 March 2014 - 06:41 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 March 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

My application to the Court of Appeal to address the ACC modus operandi of the ACC fraud unit cancelling claims and initiating fraud proceedings is underway.

Essentially the fraud unit who do not receive any training in regards to ACC legislation who make decisions based on their own intuition are being called to account in as much as my submissions require all ACC to determine the ongoing entitlements in accordance with the legislated criteria. For example ACC relying upon the assumptions of members of the public who have the impression that someone is working being used by the ACC as the basis for asserting a claimant is no longer incapacitated instead of requiring a medical assessment by relevant specialists.


You were found GUILTY of
Using a document/s with an intent to gain a monetary advantage/pecuniary gain for yourself or others
The courts summing up show exactly why you were found guilty.
You INTENTLY mislead the acc re your claim details providing misleading false or completely left out details of what you were doing -thus you have no claim.
Playing with acc wont change the fraud sentence-
Should they go back to hector i'd be thinking ya have some more problems arrivingPosted Image
dave
0

#129 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 March 2014 - 06:53 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 19 March 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

You were found GUILTY of
Using a document/s with an intent to gain a monetary advantage/pecuniary gain for yourself or others
The courts summing up show exactly why you were found guilty.
You INTENTLY mislead the acc re your claim details providing misleading false or completely left out details of what you were doing -thus you have no claim.
Playing with acc wont change the fraud sentence-
Should they go back to hector i'd be thinking ya have some more problems arrivingPosted Image
dave


But David not even the ACC agree with you and Weal.

How do you explain that?
1

#130 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 20 March 2014 - 05:39 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 19 March 2014 - 06:53 PM, said:

But David not even the ACC agree with you and Weal.
-wheres the acc say that ?

How do you explain that?
yours to do -with documents tho.


They DID about YOUR PLANS TO BLOW THEM AND THERE STAFF to kingdom come with YOUR bomb making / machine gun / explosives knowledge.
.You dont even know the difference between File Creation DATES and Last accessed DATE of the file.Posted Image
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT.
Oh i forgot-you say that a no body used your computer and put them there-on the last accessed date when in fact the files date back from 2004
PLONKER.
2

#131 User is offline   jaffa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1792
  • Joined: 14-August 11
  • LocationWellington City

Posted 20 March 2014 - 11:03 PM

MINI said:

1392499752[/url]' post='178620']
You have just pointed out that Alan Thomas cases are not ACC cases at all. The are criminal cases that could happen to anyone who puts themselve in thoses positions. Straight out fraud, and straight threatening to harm. They shouldnt even be in here.

If he was to follow what you say under the ACC law, they would scream res Judicata at him at Review level and leave it there. So firstly he needs a reason to be having it called again. And you mention new evidence to overcome the res judicata. Now hopefully that will work and I will let you know.

I am simply saying they are actually not ACC cases. They are not under ACC law. And that is where the actions are being confused, because to my understanding, the cases or the fraud one has been taken under both the criminal law and the ACC law. Lots to go thru to start again.

Chipping away at these problems will take years and if they say no so often they push him into the H/c that cost money and lawyers, and you get so many cases piling one on top of the other, that it certainly becomes confusing. It certainly takes its toll. It is a lonely long road you take just awaiting letters from ACC and others. Going back is never easy.

I am not trying to put Mr Thomas off, he can do what he likes, but he didnt have to take the rest of us with him. His fight for his criminal cases shouldnt be on ACC fromum.

Just my thinking for the morning.


Wow mr thomas appears to have shot himself in the foot.
2

#132 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 22 December 2014 - 03:22 PM

We would be interested to know who the three Judges were at Court of Appeal.

Does anyone have a copy of this decision?


Battler fights on against ACC
ROB STOCK
Last updated 05:00, December 21 2014

http://www.stuff.co....-on-against-acc

An Auckland man fighting to quash his conviction for using a document dishonestly to obtain benefits from ACC says he will take his fight to the Supreme Court.

Former carpenter Michael Cruickshank was horrifically injured in a fall from a ladder in 1995 but, in 2010, ACC had him prosecuted in the Auckland District Court for secretly "working" in 2005.

A jury at the Auckland District Court found him not guilty of obtaining by deception - indicating they did not believe he had received money for the "work" ACC alleged he had undertaken.

ACC has subsequently admitted Cruickshank was unfit to work during the entire period in which the secret work was alleged to have taken place.

The corporation was forced to repay him the "reparation" he had earlier been ordered to pay ACC.

Bizarrely, however, the jury found him guilty of using a document dishonestly, a medical certificate provided by a doctor who had judged Cruickshank unfit to work.

The jury found he had used it over a period of time including several weeks before the document came into existence.

The Court of Appeal in Auckland turned down Cruickshank's bid to get the conviction quashed, saying he filed his application almost four years too late. The ruling also rejected Cruickshank's claim that the judge in his original trial had erred in his summing up for the jury. Similarly, it rejected his contention that the Crown had misled the jury by not telling it that even had Cruickshank done the modest amount of work alleged, and been paid for it, it would not have ended his entitlements, merely resulted in his weekly payments being reduced for each dollar he earned.

Had the jury known that, Cruickshank's lawyer Eric Forster believes the verdict could have been different, as the motive for acting dishonestly would have been much reduced.

But the panel of three judges ruled that it was the duty of Cruickshank's defence counsel to bring evidence in his defence, not the Crown's.


And, it found nothing wrong with the judge's summing up at Cruickshank's original trial. During that trial, the Crown produced witnesses who claimed Cruickshank had worked for them, though the defence produced witnesses who claimed that, while present sporadically during some painting and renovation work, Cruickshank's involvement was minor, unpaid and could not be properly described as work.

Cruickshank, who denies he ever did secret work, is furious at the Court of Appeal decision to rely on time limits designed to prevent cases dragging on for decades. He believes himself to be a victim of a conspiracy to cover up his abuse at the hands of ACC, which he calls a "state terrorist".

Cruickshank's lawyer has lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge the Court of Appeal's ruling, and will make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission over ACC's treatment of his client.

The thing that makes Cruickshank angry is that while he was dragged through court by ACC, nobody from ACC has ever faced action as a result of a litany of wrongdoing to him. Among ACC's actions which have inflamed Cruickshank's sense of injustice, is that it used his prosecution as a reason to stop his entitlements.

That was illegal under the ACC Act, and in March 2011 the corporation was forced to repay "reparation" Cruickshank had been ordered to pay when he was found guilty, and to reinstate his entitlements, and make a large backdated payment to him.

At the Court of Appeal in Auckland in late November, Forster claimed there was a "systemic" problem with ACC prosecuting claimants for dishonestly trying to gain compensation before even establishing whether they were legally entitled to the payments.

It was the second large backdated payment ACC has had to make to Cruickshank.

A QC investigation in 2003 into his treatment at the hands of ACC found the corporation had badly failed him, and wrongly stopped his entitlements. In that report, QC Ailsa Duffy said ACC needed to recognise that "until Mr Cruickshank receives due recognition from ACC of the harm its past actions have caused him he will be unable to move on from his present position".

Harm included Cruickshank's inability to access rehabilitation since February 2000.

Duffy also found that ACC staff had behaved unprofessionally including offering his wife a job, paying her $20,000 that should have gone to him, and wrongfully placing Cruickshank with its "remote claims unit" which has "ghost" advisers dealing with troublesome cases.

ACC even claimed Cruickshank made a threat to kill against an ACC staffer. It later withdrew that claim after Cruickshank was able to prove it to be false.

Cruickshank has made a complaint to the police about his treatment by ACC, alleging officers who wilfully breached the ACC Act could be prosecuted under the Crimes Act, but his complaint has not gone anywhere as yet.

The Crown opposed Cruickshank's appeal, saying no adequate reason had been given for the nearly four-year delay in proceedings.

Cruickshank said a lack of resources and his continued victimisation by ACC had left him worn down "emotionally, financially and psychologically".

- Sunday Star Times


View Postdoppelganger, on 07 August 2010 - 11:21 PM, said:

A case that martin made a decision bit considered it not a decision.

Cruickshank v Accident Compensation Corporation [2008] NZACC 271 (7 November 2008)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD AT ROTORUA

Decision No. 271/2008

IN THE MATTER of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and
Compensation Act 2001

AND

IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act

BETWEEN MICHAEL CRUICKSHANK

(Al 344/08)

Appellant

AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION

CORPORATION

Respondent

HEARD at ROTORUA on 21 October 2008

APPEARANCES

Mr D Heperi, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr A D Barnett, Counsel for Respondent.

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE

[1] The issue in this appeal relates to a consideration of whether a letter from the respondent, dated 21 July 2008, to the appellant's Advocate, was a decision within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act and thereby amenable to review pursuant to Section 134 of the Act.
[2] A further issue requiring determination is whether the Reviewer correctly exercised his discretion in declining to award the costs of review to the appellant. [3] The background facts relevant to the issues in this appeal may be stated as follows:
The appellant has cover under the Act for an injury to his left arm suffered in a work accident in April 1995.
The appellant's incapacity from his employment as a carpenter, as a consequence of his injury, enabled him to receive weekly compensation.
In May 2007 the respondent's Fraud Office laid an Information in the North Shore District Court alleging that the appellant had committed an offence under the Act by failing to advise the Corporation of income he had allegedly been receiving, whilst in receipt of weekly compensation.
This Court has been informed that the appellant has pleaded not guilty to that charge and a hearing of the Information has not yet taken place.
As part of the discovery process for that criminal proceeding, the Corporation provided the appellant with a copy of the Brief of Evidence of its principal witness in that proceeding.
One of the statements in that Brief of Evidence states:
As a result of the defendant working whilst in receipt of weekly compensation and not advising ACC, an overpayment has been calculated at $10,853.60."

By email dated 17 July 2008, the appellant's representative requested particulars of the respondent's assessment of weekly earnings and weekly compensation for the period in question.
By email dated 21 July 2008, the appellant's case manager, David Smith, emailed the appellant's representative stating, inter alia -
"I spoke with Martin Williscroft and he informed me that ACC is seeking full repayment of weekly compensation for the period Mr Cruickshank was working. I will post a copy of the weekly compensation that was paid from 18.8.05 to 1.12.05."

By email dated 21 July 2008, the appellant's representative requested Mr Smith to advise whether an actual decision letter had been issued.

By email response of 22 July 2008, Mr Smith stated:
"I have been informed that a decision letter has not been issued."

On receipt of that email the appellant lodged an application for a review of the respondent's letter of 21 July 2008.
A Review Hearing took place on 20 August 2008, at which the appellant was represented by Mr Heperi.
In his decision dated 3 September 2008, the Reviewer, Mr Woodhouse, determined that the letter of 21 July 2008 was not a decision letter but rather was correspondence of an administrative nature.
In a further decision the Reviewer determined the question of costs sought by the appellant as follows:
When I consider this matter in the round, I find it likely the intent of the review application was to seek information regarding ACC's case for prosecution, or to potentially influence the criminal prosecution. Given a review hearing is a civil matter, I must conclude such a request is an abuse of process and on that basis, was not reasonably brought."

[4] Mr Heperi, for the appellant, submitted that the respondent's letter of 21
July did amount to a reviewable decision in that it determined the amount of an alleged overpayment of weekly compensation and that full repayment would be sought.

[5] Mr Heperi went further and submitted that having made its mind up on that point, the respondent should then have complied with Section 64 of the Act which requires that the Corporation must give notice in writing of its decision, and the fact that it had not given such notice was a breach of that section.
[6] With regard to the question of review costs, Mr Heperi submitted that the appellant was simply seeking to obtain further information regarding the respondent's assessment of an overpayment , and that in those circumstances it could not be said that the application for review was an abuse of process.
[7] Mr Barnett, for the respondent, submitted that all correspondence between Mr Heperi and the appellant's case manager in and about July 2008, was in the context of the prosecution which the Corporation had commenced, rather than in relation to any action on any entitlement that the appellant may have been enjoying. Counsel submitted that the letter in issue must be looked at in its correct context.
[8] Mr Barnett went further to suggest that the Reviewer must have suspected that the appellant was engaged in a "fishing" expedition, and considered that because it was a "fishing" expedition this was the reason for declining costs.
[9] Counsel further submitted that the respondent's follow-up letter advising
that no decision within the meaning of the Act had been issued ought to have been the end of the matter, and that the appellant's continuation with the questioning of that letter indicated his true motives.

DECISION

[10] The appellant has appealed to this Court from the Review Decision which determined that the respondent's email of 21 July 2008 was not a reviewable decision within the meaning of Section 134 of the Act. A reviewable decision must be one that comes within the definition of "decision" in Section 6 of the Act.
[11] Section 6 sets out seven instances where decisions made by the Corporation are considered to be reviewable decisions, and although these definitions are not meant to be exhaustive, it is clear from the various definitions that it is only decisions which affect a claimant's entitlement or cover which come within the category or reviewable decisions.
[12] In this present case the advice contained in the respondent's letter that it was contending that it had made an overpayment to the appellant and that it was intending to recover that overpayment , was clearly made within the context of the fraud prosecution which it had commenced and where it was giving particulars of the amount of fraud which was alleged had been committed.
[13] In terms of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001, I find it to be the case that the letter from the respondent did not amount to a decision pursuant to Section 248 of the Act, that it was seeking to recover a debt by way of proceedings from the appellant, but rather that as part of any penalty that may be imposed in the event of conviction, that it would be seeking a sum by way of reparation.
[14] The actions by the appellant in questioning the respondent's advice to that effebt is premature insofar as assessment of any liability under the Act by the appellant is concerned, as any such overpayment would need to be considered in the context of the abatement formula, and if and when the respondent were to seek to recover all or any overpayment by proceedings taken under the Act, then that decision to do so would be one which was reviewable.
[15] The letter in question, I find, was simply advisory of the position which the respondent was taking in the context of the prosecution for fraudulent acts on the appellant's behalf in relation to his receipt of weekly compensation. Such information being provided wholly within the context of Court criminal proceedings, and in those circumstances it was not a matter which was capable of review within the framework of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
[16] The question of review costs is wholly a matter of discretion for the Reviewer to determine, and in circumstances where an applicant for review is unsuccessful, the Reviewer must take into account whether the applicant has acted reasonably in applying for the review.
[17] In the present case, the context of the communications which passed between the appellant's representative and his case manager were solely in the context of the criminal prosecution and the advice of 22 July, that no decision under the Act had been made, was indicative of that being the case, yet despite that advice the appellant elected to pursue the question of particulars by way of review proceedings.
[18] The position is that the appellant sought to use the review procedure as a means of obtaining further particulars in the context of a criminal prosecution and this was identified by the Reviewer and he concluded that in that context the application for review was an abuse of process and not reasonably brought.
[19] The Reviewer's decision was one of an exercise of a discretion which the Act vested in him, and I find there is nothing in the facts which would suggest that the finding, upon which the Reviewer based his decision, could not be had. In those circumstances, as a matter of law, it is not open to this Court to interfere
[20] with the exercise of that discretion. The Reviewer was acting within the statutory framework relating to the award of costs and I find that there are no grounds to disturb that exercise of a discretion.
[21] [20] Accordingly then, in relation to both issues, the appellant is unsuccessful and this appeal is dismissed.
DATED this 7th day of November 2008

M J Beattie

District Court Judge



take note that the ACC think that contesting the ACC matter is considered as a fishing to stop the fraud conviction.

The ACC had not made a decision there was an overpayment either they wanted all of the Compensation paid even if the amount earned was less than the level of abatement.

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