ACCforum: District Court Saul v ACC 5/2009 - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

District Court Saul v ACC 5/2009

#1 User is offline   Warren Forster 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 20 February 2009 - 09:52 AM

This case is about Medical Assessment and departure of the Vocational Independence Asessor from the previous assessments...

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 February 2009 - 11:07 AM

The advice given to medical assessors is to avoid providing information and reasoning so as to reduce the possibility of challenge. It is all very well medical professionals having different points of view regarding the same facts but when an opposing viewpoint is made out without identifying facts at worst the doctor can only be accused of stupidity. However if the medical report work to detailed facts to a significant level whereby it could be identified he was producing a false report he exposes himself to to the incarceration. The medical Council have expressed no interest in report writing that is not directly related to treatment.

In this case Mr Saul was basically accused of being a liar (ever so politely) regarding the extent of his pain causing incapacity to work by the ACC medical reporter in complete contradiction to all other medical reports. Giggling with their rubber stamps in hand used the non-referenced opposing medical report that they paid for to cancel the entitlements.

ACCs position was that medical report has do not necessarily need to give reasons for their opinions. However Judge Ongley disagrees in circumstances where a very contradictory report is produced that addresses a central question which equates to a flawed report.

The finding was in the claimant's favour with the judge suggesting the ACC obtain another report after a new assessment.
0

#3 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 20 February 2009 - 11:30 AM

W.E.D.Turner raises his ugly head and yet again has his opinion overturned.
It is time there was an indepth inquiry into many of these so called EXPERTS>
DuPlesis and Turner and others should be removed permanently. However they are good for ACC and also for the pockets of these guys and to remove them would be their entire income. GOOD go ahead and remove them.

It also shows how the psych side raises it ugly head as well
Of course you have fear avoindance.
If you have had chronic pain for 20 yrs, it is absolutley probable that you would understand your body and know what to avoid.
It is all gobblydegook nonsence and anything goes to exit a claimant.
I hope Mr Saul gets reinstated and ACC leave well alone. HUH?
They will start it all over again. The man has my sympathy.
When will it ever end up as being fair to a claimant?
NEVER.
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 February 2009 - 12:37 PM

This case clearly shows the differential between treatment providers who diagnose structural damage by way of clinical examination in order to receive the relevance of perceived pain and the driving forces of a contrary view derived from any medicolegal report writer when interpreting the same facts without regard for treatment or the injured person's interests as he is not the injured person's treatment provider.

In New Zealand we have not been accustomed to treatment providers against medicolegal advises and tend to be overly polite. In New Zealand both treatment providers and medicolegal report writers are insured by the same insurer and as such I discouraged from criticising each other.

In proper countries with the rule of law is applied the medicolegal report writer would be placed on the stand and rigorously examined. If he is found to be falsifying documents at the very least he would have us practising licence removed. The New Zealand we have the medical Council was functionally defective
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:17 PM

Doppelganger I quite understand that you have posted ACC policy but what you have posted does not seem to have any relevance whatsoever to legislation.

When the medical specialist says that the person has a damaged back and is not to carry out certain activities or it will do further damage and the person feels the pain of that additional damage how does this relate to what you have posted?
0

#6 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 20 February 2009 - 05:18 PM

Tomo I agree with you.
A good thread blogged and clogged with stuff that is not relevant to this amazing Ongley decision.
Can you put this stuff elsewhere Dopel. It is irrelevant to the decision that should be quickly accesible to any viewers.
0

#7 User is offline   KStaniland 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-July 04

Posted 20 February 2009 - 09:03 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on Feb 20 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

Alan this case is the case manager following the policy of obtaining the information as described in the policies to obtain the specific out come to remove entitlements while the case manager gains an increase in there earning capacity.

one of the ACC assessor even gets the occupation wrong and claims that the injured is a caretaker at the time of the accident. there is a difference between a stone mason and caretaker.

The pain assessment was nothing to do with rehabilitation except to follow policy and gain a report claiming that it is the claimants attitude is the problem and not there policy. what it comes down to is the policy and how the policy is managed.

Why does the assessor not look at the injury (probably not listed the injury or the incapacity) but done a assessment on what the ACC case manager instructed.

I'll remove the posts for you but I don't really think that anyone will relate the whole process by posting the policies so that every one does not fall into the traps

and since when do acc case managers casre about revelvance to an injury, if their policies state something they will twist it to suit their current needs as much as they can, they are not interested in rehabilitation or further injury prevention, they would rather bury us in paper work pull the wool over our eyes and line their own nests, I agree in posting the policies as it will assist those ppl who are getting the run around to read the actual documented policy as it is written not as interpretted by their case managers and branch manager
0

#8 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 20 February 2009 - 10:55 PM

can you please shift this policy stuff to its own thread and not clog up this important decision Lets keep the thread to the subject of the ist post please!!
0

#9 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 21 February 2009 - 03:38 PM

View PostSparrow, on Feb 20 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

can you please shift this policy stuff to its own thread and not clog up this important decision Lets keep the thread to the subject of the ist post please!!

Sparrow,
For once just think a bit about what and who may benefit from Dopples posting.

Let Freedom have it's voice and let people have a chance to read, digest and copy if they want instead of bleating about protocols of where stuff should be posted.
0

#10 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 21 February 2009 - 04:44 PM

Neddy. you will notice that this thread is labelled ACC Law processes, judgements etc.

This is the right place for Warren's posting. To be clogged up and take over 5 mins to scroll to the starting post is not helpful.

This thread is NOT about policies and as I said put it in a more appropriate place and Dopel should know that only the postee can remove a posting.

Dopel as usual is writing absolute total and utter crap.

This is how good threads of which you are always bleating on about Neddy, get overtaken in other stuff.
Let us stick to the point on the forum and keep all things in context.....
Course not all that many understand these things and can only bleat on about their own cases time after time.....

Also. this original DECISION by the good judge is NOT about ACC POLICY, It is a critique of the assessing GP and his reports. It is a good decision that many will be able to use in the future. Therefore in my opinion and that of others, it must not be lost in a huge post of ACC policy etc.

We all know how they work and how th eToady assessors handle things with their lies.
We should be debating this, not whether I am getting some sort of kind of beneft by denying Dopel to post his looooong policy stuff here.
Get real
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users