ACCforum: From: P Wong (MIN) - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

From: P Wong (MIN) Subject: Your correspondence of October and November 2009

#1 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 28 January 2010 - 08:31 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: P Wong (MIN)
To: blurb
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:04 AM
Subject: Your correspondence of October and November 2009


Attached is the response from the Associate Minister for ACC to your correspondence of October and November 2009.

Attached File  Slevel4_won10012009210.pdf (54.14K)
Number of downloads: 40

==============

On receipt of that email/pdf, for quite clear obvious reasons, I requested the following from Pansy

----- Original Message -----
From: blurb
To: P Wong (MIN)
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Your correspondence of October and November 2009


20 January 2010

Dear Minister Pansy Wong

Please forward to me copies of all correspondence you have received from ACC in regards to my many issues I have with them.

I expect these to be in my position within 21 days as from date of this email.

Thank you

Fran Van Helmond

RD3
Cambridge
0

#2 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 29 January 2010 - 06:54 AM

I've tried to copy it but can't.

The reason why I posted it is because some arsehole at ACC has been mis-informing Pansy and others. The mri scan was not of my neck but for the lower back. The mri scan was also not part of the review that was mentioned.

Just like they are telling everyone my claim was revoked. It has not been revoked. It never has been.

The only reason why acc won't pay for the scan is because it shows more damage. This damage is causing issues with my lower back and left leg. The same issues that were down-played in 2001 and 2002. This is why they used mri scans from 1997 for my assesments and not fresh ones.

ACC are a pack of arseholes. But then, we all know that. At least having these new scans and the damage they show have got the attention of media.
0

#3 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

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

  Posted 29 January 2010 - 08:02 AM

View PostBLURB, on Jan 28 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

----- Original Message -----
From: P Wong (MIN)
To: blurb
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:04 AM
Subject: Your correspondence of October and November 2009
Attached is the response from the Associate Minister for ACC to your correspondence of October and November 2009.

Attachment Slevel4_...12009210.pdf

==============

On receipt of that email/pdf, for quite clear obvious reasons, I requested the following from Pansy

----- Original Message -----
From: blurb
To: P Wong (MIN)
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Your correspondence of October and November 2009
20 January 2010

Dear Minister Pansy Wong

Please forward to me copies of all correspondence you have received from ACC in regards to my many issues I have with them.

I expect these to be in my position within 21 days as from date of this email.

Thank you

Fran Van Helmond

RD3
Cambridge

Hi Blurb it is Darrell here mate. Any idea who the reviewer was. I do know of 2 cases where these drsl reviewers have been overruled by the district court. Have you heard of Graeme Bull decision number 168/1999 & also Richard Jenkins decision number 215/2006 get your hands on these 2 decisions & use them against acc because the acc are a pack wankers & yet we all know that. Anyway if you don't have them send me a personal message with your address & i will post them to you.
All the best mate.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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