ACCforum: mental caused by physical - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

mental caused by physical must earnings be based on wage from original injury?

#1 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 03 June 2009 - 05:20 PM

Hi all,

Have you heard this before.

A claimant just handed back to acc from Work Aon has only been given a very small percentage of her earnings as it is stated she was not in permanent employment at the time of her injury......2003. She has been treated very badly and now has been granted cover for mental caused by physical. They paid erc inititally 4 around three months...very little erc then cut her off.

This is a poisioning in the workplace...you know how hard that is to prove....well it was covered eventually. So it has cover but no notice taken of the later earnings she was later in permanent parttime at time of being diagnosed with the mental caused by physical. She wrote to the cm quoting legislation where it says they must pay her 80% of the earnings at the time of her injury or a later earnings...whichever is the greater of the two.

They are basing her erc on the original earnings. As the mental is proven caused by the physical the causal link is firmly in place. Have they changed the legislation that gives the % of eranings where it says they must pay the original rate of erc or the later whichever is the greater?

They now refuse to give her a decision on this matter. After stalling for nine weeks they decided to tell her she is wrong, they have looked at it and they don't have to pay any extra and they specifically will not be writing a decision letter on this matter.

This is a decision on entitlements, I think she can review the unreasonable delay in providing decision on entitlement. Is there any other way to bring them around to a point where she can take this further?

Gloria.
0

#2 User is offline   Fighter for Justice 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 23-August 08

Posted 03 June 2009 - 06:54 PM

Gloria, I have a very similar problem with ACC over the figure my ACC ERC was originally based on. (Excluding fact I have had my ERC cut today!). On a very recent Initial Occupational Assessment ACC put my "Pre-injury Earnings figure $$ - 100% Gross" . I believe this figure to be totally incorrect.

My reasons are: I had my accident, worked for further 13 months (physio, doctor etc). I then went off on ACC ERC for 6 months, then returned to work for approx 8 -9 months. Then I went off indefinately on ACC ERC.

I believe (going by IOA figure) that ACC have based my present ERC from my earnings when I FIRST went off on ACC.
ACC should have based my present ERC on my gross earnings figure at SECOND time I went off on ACC.

Fortunately, I still have my pay slips from 22 years ago + additional pay slip showing I received a backpay of 7% on top of those earnings.

I have pointed this out to ACC and their response was: "the figure on the IOA Referral was the figure which your ERC was based on". This is not an answer.
As my present ERC has been cut - I now have more time to fight ACC. I will be requesting that ACC re-check the figure originally used to calculate my ACC ERC (22 years ago!) and recalculate the correct figure (including 7% backpay).

ACC appear to be very reluctant to even look at this matter (raised by me over 1 - 2 months ago). If ACC are not willing to look at this matter, and then issue a Decision Letter (with review rights) - I too will be seeking further remedies. Possibly going to Review, MP, Ombudsman, ACC Minister - in fact anyone who will listen.

I believe I have been seriously shortchanged! If I am correct ACC will be paying me a significant amount of backpay.
0

#3 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 03 June 2009 - 08:55 PM

In both cases i would advise you to get help from a advocate who is up to play with the ACC act. And get them to handle asking for a decision letter.

In the matter of Mental caused by physcial, when did the assesser date the injury. That will have a major factor.
0

#4 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 04 June 2009 - 05:52 PM

Bump
0

#5 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 10:01 PM

Fight for Justice

Tomcat who used to be allowed to post on this site, who a similar case to yours you have written here. Not too long ago. The Judge had some interesting remarks when making his comments re: what had been done to Tomcat.

I am sure there are more people on site that remember this case and maybe able to supply a copy to you. You could do well to use it as case law. He also had been underpaid by ACC for many years.

I hope this titbit gets someone into positive drive to give you a copy of the case. My saved copies all got wipenot long ago.

Sad but true.

Mini
0

#6 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 05 June 2009 - 06:08 PM

Well, well well. Here we have an excerpt that will intrigue you LTC's.

This is an Aon trick.

Background is that of industrial poisioning.....entitlements granted briefly then ceased. Over the next few years the issue of the poisioning did not go away, this person lived with worsening effects as the mental caused by physical kicked in bigtime and was exacerbated by Aon refusal to reconsider cover for ongoing earnings. Earnings was won after mental caused by physical was established and fought for.....but they would only pay a small percentage of the earnings from the original job/injury as that job was not considered permanent....ever wondered by you get kept on part time with no permanent contract?.....it minimizes any erc that would need to be paid. There was a back pay over the interveneing years brought up to date at $60.00 odd dollars a week....being the much smaller percentage of the wage at the time of the original injury.

The subsequent claim for injury of mental caused by physical was made when the person was med certed incapacitated while claimant, being forced into penury, managed to get a permanent job 36 hours a week but was unable to sustain the capacity to hold down that job.

Herein lies their excuses for only paying the pittance from the original injury. The thing being that the time the claimant took the job they understood they had not entitlement. Now because it has been retrospectively granted that they did have entitlement over that time.....they are arguing the pittance is correct.

Upon a request to rework the Erc from the subsequent injury this is the reply.....excuse.....comments please...

[size="7"]"As you can see for the period you were working at ----------- your GP advised that you continued to be incapacitated by the original chemical sensitivity injury. This means that Work Aon were correct in determining that you were eligible for weekly compensation for the entire period from December 2004.

If your GP had advised that you had been fully fit to return to your pre injury work (assist. OT) sometime before you worked at ----------- then eligibility to weekly compensation would have ceased at that point. This means that when you were incapacitated from working at ---------- for your covered personal injury, Work Aon would need to treat this incapacity as a subsequent incapacity. As a subsequent incapacity you would have had fresh eligibility to weekly compensation and your entitlement level would have been based on your earnings at ---------.

I believe that this is what you are advising and thus, your weekly compensation level should be based on your earnings from ---------. However as I have illustrated, your incapacity from -------- is not a subsequent injury as you were already incapacitated from your pre-injury job.

I note that the issue of subsequent incapacity was not put forward by your representative (Nathan Ormsby my addition here take note folks) in his submissions for the weekly compensation review. Additionally we have no reason to doubt that your GP did not make a thorough consideration of your incapacity since 2004 when providing the medical ertificates dated 16.4.08.

I suggest you discuss this matter with your GP."
0

#7 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 05 June 2009 - 10:36 PM

That info should be on the ACC Focus site. Go to http://accfocus.org/ and ask for the case.
0

#8 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 06 June 2009 - 11:47 AM

View PostEasyrider, on Jun 5 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

That info should be on the ACC Focus site. Go to http://accfocus.org/ and ask for the case.



Easyrider, the above quote is taken from letter dated thurs two days ago and not from a judgement.

thanks Gloria
0

#9 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 06 June 2009 - 01:16 PM

View PostMINI, on Jun 4 2009, 10:01 PM, said:

Fight for Justice

Tomcat who used to be allowed to post on this site, who a similar case to yours you have written here. Not too long ago. The Judge had some interesting remarks when making his comments re: what had been done to Tomcat.

I am sure there are more people on site that remember this case and maybe able to supply a copy to you. You could do well to use it as case law. He also had been underpaid by ACC for many years.

I hope this titbit gets someone into positive drive to give you a copy of the case. My saved copies all got wipenot long ago.

Sad but true.

Mini



This is what i was referring to. Might be of some help.
0

#10 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 06 June 2009 - 04:25 PM

This should be the thread //


http://accforum.org/...?showtopic=4634

Covers some important issues...
Late application for review.
Wholley vs substancially
Claimants Med evidence Vs ACC's

Recent assessments/MRI(2006) now prove "Arthritis" has never been
an issue... and "degeneration" is on all injury sites only, 7 stuffed discs.
thus proving it injury related...
and that ACC knew this for many years, up to 1993, re ACC assessors report,
and continued to promote the "Dodgy" med reports,
right up to this court decision, in 2003.

Attached File(s)
K_P_R_Miller_1__1_..judgement..22_Oct_02.pdf ( 101.6K ) Number of downloads: 110
0

#11 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 06 June 2009 - 04:45 PM

Thanks Gregg

If I could do that I would!!

Also if I remember correctly that case had a 'topup' backdated payment in there. That is the part that is interesting. There is no yelling of 'out of time" etc.

That has been a mighty win for perseverance and persistance.

Mini
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 06 June 2009 - 04:46 PM

Thanks Gregg

If I could do that I would!!

Also if I remember correctly that case had a 'topup' backdated payment in there. That is the part that is interesting. There is no yelling of 'out of time" etc.

That has been a mighty win for perseverance and persistance.

Mini
0

#13 User is offline   Moeroa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 20-November 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 03 March 2010 - 12:57 PM

Worrying news indeed Gloria!

View PostGloria Mitchell, on Jun 3 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

A claimant just handed back to acc from Work Aon has only been given a very small percentage of her earnings as it is stated she was not in permanent employment at the time of her injury......2003. She has been treated very badly and now has been granted cover for mental caused by physical. They paid erc inititally 4 around three months...very little erc then cut her off.


How about physical caused by physical?

Been talking to a claimant on twitter, who's bankrupted herself on her own vocational rehab. To fund her retraining, she lived on student food bank fare of 2 minute noodles (etc) and gained weight - 60Kg to 120kg. Now ACC's assessors blame the weight gain for her mobility difficulties, rather than the original injuries which caused the inactivity and propensity for weight gain.

ACC's well-remunerated MCR assessors have put the cart before the horse in that instance, clearly.

BTW: Does anyone have a new link to this? K_P_R_Miller_1__1_..judgement..22_Oct_02.pdf ( 101.6K )
0

#14 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 March 2010 - 03:01 PM

Moe

That case will be in focus library as well as here I think.

Mini
0

#15 User is offline   Srgt.Shultz 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 03-July 09

Posted 03 March 2010 - 03:15 PM

Is this what you want ?

http://www.accfocus.org/knowledgebase/down...lculation..html

judges comments on para 56 / 57 / 58. ;)
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 March 2010 - 06:14 PM

K_P_R_Miller_1__1_..judgement..22_Oct_02.pdf Has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue described
0

#17 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 04 March 2010 - 07:27 AM

Thomo

Moe asked for it. Moe got it. Let her read it and decide for herself.

This is what the forum is for.

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   Jaffrah 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 10-August 11

Posted 12 August 2011 - 08:50 PM

404 - Component not foundYou may not be able to visit this page because of:

  • an out-of-date bookmark/favourite
  • a search engine that has an out-of-date listing for this site
  • a mistyped address
  • you have no access to this page
  • The requested resource was not found.
  • An error has occurred while processing your request.
Please try one of the following pages:





If difficulties persist, please contact the System Administrator of this site.

Component not found










Ok, so that like does not work. So how does one file a "mental injury caused by physical injury" claim please?


View PostSrgt.Shultz, on 03 March 2010 - 03:15 PM, said:

Is this what you want ?

http://www.accfocus.org/knowledgebase/down...lculation..html

judges comments on para 56 / 57 / 58. ;)




0

#19 User is offline   mimi 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 17-October 11

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:52 PM

The Corporation’s declining claims is because New Zealand is a guinepig country, the only country on earth where Torts Law is replaced by business called Accident Compensation Corporation. This national Corporation is an ideal business that lives on mandatory tax payer’s funds. As a business the corporation’s duty therefore is to protect grossly reckless doctors and award butchery. NZ doctor’s are fully aware of this fact and they are even told of this fact by the representative from the HDC office that they both ACC and HDC protect reckless doctors. I have attended a lecturing in which HDC representative said that they protect doctors NOT the people of NZ and was giving examples what they say when declining claim.

Weak up NZ.
0

#20 User is offline   jaffa 

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

Posted 23 October 2011 - 12:20 AM

How does a person apply for mental-injury-caused-by-physical injuries?

View PostGloria Mitchell, on 03 June 2009 - 05:20 PM, said:

Hi all,

Have you heard this before.

A claimant just handed back to acc from Work Aon has only been given a very small percentage of her earnings as it is stated she was not in permanent employment at the time of her injury......2003. She has been treated very badly and now has been granted cover for mental caused by physical. They paid erc inititally 4 around three months...very little erc then cut her off.

This is a poisioning in the workplace...you know how hard that is to prove....well it was covered eventually. So it has cover but no notice taken of the later earnings she was later in permanent parttime at time of being diagnosed with the mental caused by physical. She wrote to the cm quoting legislation where it says they must pay her 80% of the earnings at the time of her injury or a later earnings...whichever is the greater of the two.

They are basing her erc on the original earnings. As the mental is proven caused by the physical the causal link is firmly in place. Have they changed the legislation that gives the % of eranings where it says they must pay the original rate of erc or the later whichever is the greater?

They now refuse to give her a decision on this matter. After stalling for nine weeks they decided to tell her she is wrong, they have looked at it and they don't have to pay any extra and they specifically will not be writing a decision letter on this matter.

This is a decision on entitlements, I think she can review the unreasonable delay in providing decision on entitlement. Is there any other way to bring them around to a point where she can take this further?

Gloria.

2

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