ACCforum: FCe and Ombudsman letter - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

FCe and Ombudsman letter

#1 User is offline   pir8don 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 21-November 09

Posted 03 February 2010 - 09:31 AM

Hi all

Thanks to Denise at Acclaim Otago I am able to post a copy of the letter from the ombudsman to ACC with personal data removed. Please note that the quoted recommendations that appear many times on this site are not quite correct.

If claimants undergoing an FCE are required to sign a form that mentions possible injury or seeks to indemnify the provider and if a similar form is not required for other assessments then it seems to follow logically that harm is possible to the participant. In that case it could not be "reasonably required" under section 72 and I imagine that no court would find otherwise. I haven't yet seen a copy of the form that is apparently required so can't be certain.

Lets get rid of FCE's!

Don

Posted Image
http://www.dondun.co...e%20FCE%202.jpg
0

#2 User is offline   pir8don 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 21-November 09

Posted 03 February 2010 - 09:40 AM

Hi all

I have a better quality copy in pdf but don't know how to post it here

I have a link to it on my site www.dondun.com/Ombudsman re FCE Feb 2003.pdf

I will keep it there but it would be good if it could also be placed on this site if someone knows how to do that

again
Don
0

#3 User is offline   pir8don 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 21-November 09

Posted 03 February 2010 - 10:08 AM

View PostAnti Bureaucratic, on Feb 3 2010, 11:57 AM, said:

Does this also apply under the 2001 legislation?

Would this be a functional capacity evaluation when questions like this are being posed - "Can you quanify the extent to which the client is functionally incapacitated?"


With the letter dated 2003 and the recommendations made then and applying forward I would think that this is applicable to the 2001 act (if there is any question at all of it being only applicable under a specific act). IMHO


Don
0

#4 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 03 February 2010 - 02:02 PM

Be careful how you manage the issue of FCE's.

I know of a claimant who had a waiver form thrust under his nose, he refused to sign it. His charming case manager threatened to cancel his weekly comp if he continued to refuse to sign it so he signed the waiver by endorsing the form as being signed "under duress".

His charming case manager immediately cancelled his weekly comp. He sent a copy of the Ombudsman's letter to her and she responded by stating that the letter only applied to the 1998 AI Act and that particular claimant, it did not apply to the 2001 Act.

He took it to review and lost, the reviewer claiming that he acted unreasonably, he is appealing that decision and has been waiting for just over one year in total to have his weekly comp reinstated.

ACC and the reviewer both deserve knee-capping, the decision to cancel weekly comp was reprehensible, malicious, grossly unjust - the case manager's name is Janie Laing Northwood LTCU.
0

#5 User is offline   Nearlyshafted 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-December 09

Posted 03 February 2010 - 04:18 PM

FCE's have a very dubious reputation. Posted here through the attachments is the latest information that emanates from the one and only outfit of FCE Systems Ltd - our "friend" Bob Sellars. Alot of you have already had the misfortune of undergoing FCE's through this outfit.

Note how very intrusive these forms and questionaires are (sorry one of the pages is out of order)!! I have never seen anything like it in my life and whilst I was in a Government job - it sure as hell did not warrant an FCE. My job was sitting, walking, minimal driving, computer work, attending meetings etc. My injury occurred on the job,; slipped on water in the corridor - hip. contusion with sciatic nerve involvement. In being "told" to attend for an FCE by AON morons, they made the appointment and sent me a letter to attend the appointment with the "threat to suspend all entitlements" if I did not attend. As well as this dubious and unreasonable request to attend for an FCE, I was actually back at work - on a Graduated Return to Work Plan - at that time working between 6 - 71/2 hours per day, three days per week and this was increasing every week.

BUT, the AON Risky staff (ignorant of the ACC Legislation) did all this BEFORE the IRP was agreed to by all parties or them having decided to Deem the IRP anyway!! How dumb are they???

At another time, I will post the why's and wherefores of how I came to nearly being required to undergo an FCE - through Work AON and my Employer.

Work AON employs very "risky" staff - especially Barbara (fat) Smart (arse), Pat Embleton (another fat wombleton) and Sarah (Bowl her over) Morrison - just three of some of the staff that I have had the misfortune to have to deal with.

BUT anyway these are my "opinions" Mr David Wood (General Manager, Work AON - sitting in his Ivory Tower in Auckland) - and remember Mr David Wood as you have previously quoted to me through your letter in October 2009 - I am allowed to make "opinions". But how you might ask can the AON Risky Case Manager's make "opinions" not based on any evidence; or make "opinions" that are lies, slanderous, defamatory ..... and so it goes on.

BUT, I FORGOT Mr David Wood's view - a new slant on appalling Case Management and which 'flies in the face' of all other Health Codes including the Code of Claimants Rights Mr David Wood:-


"I do not expect you to agree with all the opinions that various parties, including our staff have expressed in relation to your file. We encourage our staff to form opinions based upon their experience and interactions with claimants and service providers, in drawing conclusions and making recommendations on interventions and rehabilitation. The right of freedom of thought, including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference, and to impart information is a right protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990."


Should be some "paperwork" come your way - to the AON Risky staff - and I look forward to seeing you all again VERY SOON.


But more on this later. - sorry - I have not been able to upload the attachments - the file was larger than the available space it says - any ideas how I can get this important information (most up to date through to Forum???
0

#6 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 03 February 2010 - 05:36 PM

Hmmmm the famous NZBORA ;)
0

#7 User is offline   cloudsurfing 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 13-December 04

Posted 14 February 2010 - 04:24 PM

am I reading this right, I could send a copy of this letter to my case manager who just last week told me she was quiet within her rights under section 70 or something to make me do a FCE!

I like most people who have been to see Bob for the FCE, ended up with another injury claim number, yet ACC have put in my rehab plan that the FCE clearly shows I'm fit for work! My case manager ( who I believe is here reading) will not budge on this and after 3 days of our last contact on my rehab plan deemed hers and left me out cold.


very much looking forward to hearing back from some on on this matter, as it would be good to include in review notes and complaint lodgement
:)
0

#8 User is offline   Moeroa 

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

Posted 14 February 2010 - 07:28 PM

Nothing's changed then? http://accforum.org/...topic=195&st=20
0

#9 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 14 February 2010 - 07:44 PM

I bet that you have on your medical certificate unable to work.

The FCE will show that you could work in limited selected work.

The FCE is used to show that you are a liar. It is nothing to do with your ability to carry out any work, but for ACC to see if you can complete tasks that can be completed as work activities.

You are so interested in making sure that you are not been assessed for 35 hours per week that you forget that if you are not able to work for 35 hours per week there is no legal responsibility to work at anything. You should be attacking the problem differently and get the data that shows that you can not complete 35 hours per week or they will cut you off when they find that you can carry out some work.

Remember that the ACC are only interested to remove entitlements and not have you working at the maximum earning capacity.
0

#10 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 14 February 2010 - 10:07 PM

View Postcloudsurfing, on Feb 14 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

am I reading this right, I could send a copy of this letter to my case manager who just last week told me she was quiet within her rights under section 70 or something to make me do a FCE!

I like most people who have been to see Bob for the FCE, ended up with another injury claim number, yet ACC have put in my rehab plan that the FCE clearly shows I'm fit for work! My case manager ( who I believe is here reading) will not budge on this and after 3 days of our last contact on my rehab plan deemed hers and left me out cold.
very much looking forward to hearing back from some on on this matter, as it would be good to include in review notes and complaint lodgement
:)


Well...the legislation says Section 78 : The IRP must be updated from time to time to reflect the outcome of assessments done and progress made under the plan."

.....I would be inclined to have a private specialist assessment done and write an updated IRP reflecting the outcome of the new assessment and have it co signed by your gp.

After all, it sounds as though you think that particular assessmet nd IRP are already out of date do you not?

Gloria.
0

#11 User is offline   pir8don 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 21-November 09

Posted 19 March 2010 - 06:23 PM

Further information. I have asked the following questions of ACC regarding FCE and received no reply after a month:

Please indicate any substantive changes made to the FCE process after February 2003 that you consider invalidate the recommendations of the Ombudsman.

Please advise why ACC have not followed the recommendation of the Ombudsman beginning "refrain from requiring ...."

If your experience of pain can follow physical activity but not immediately then you may wish to ask:
Please advise if activities which can result in delayed pain are "reasonably required" by ACC under section 72 of the current act and
provide that reasoning if you deem such activities to be "reasonably required".

ACC appear to use the IRP as a means to bully claimants into undergoing an FCE. It is important to ask the above questions as soon as FCE is mentioned by your CM. You may find that the questions are not answered and that FCE disappears from your draft plan.

It seems that there is no longer a waiver to be signed as part of the FCE process (as has previously been reported).

Good luck

Don
0

#12 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:18 PM

View Postpir8don, on 03 February 2010 - 09:31 AM, said:

Hi all

Thanks to Denise at Acclaim Otago I am able to post a copy of the letter from the ombudsman to ACC with personal data removed. Please note that the quoted recommendations that appear many times on this site are not quite correct.

If claimants undergoing an FCE are required to sign a form that mentions possible injury or seeks to indemnify the provider and if a similar form is not required for other assessments then it seems to follow logically that harm is possible to the participant. In that case it could not be "reasonably required" under section 72 and I imagine that no court would find otherwise. I haven't yet seen a copy of the form that is apparently required so can't be certain.

Lets get rid of FCE's!

Don

Posted Image
http://www.dondun.co...e%20FCE%202.jpg



How many of those who were unwittingly sent under duress to any of Robert SELLARS, and his partner Maureen O'Neill businesses of FCE have http://acc.co.nz/ apologised to?

We would naturally expect both Robert(Bob) and his partner Maureen O'Neill and any practices that he sub-contracted to, along with http://www.acc.co.nz/ to contact all clients with an apology and inform them of their review rights.

Alternately http://www.acc.co.nz/ must have a legal obiligation to automatically reinstate ERC and entitlements where they were either suspended or ceased for alleged Non-compliance or declining to attend such programs.

Any comments??

http://www.nzherald....objectid=165789
0

#13 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:19 PM

[quote name='pir8don' timestamp='1268979802' post='100400']
Further information. I have asked the following questions of ACC regarding FCE and received no reply after a month:

Please indicate any substantive changes made to the FCE process after February 2003 that you consider invalidate the recommendations of the Ombudsman.

Please advise why ACC have not followed the recommendation of the Ombudsman beginning "refrain from requiring ...."

If your experience of pain can follow physical activity but not immediately then you may wish to ask:
Please advise if activities which can result in delayed pain are "reasonably required" by ACC under section 72 of the current act and
provide that reasoning if you deem such activities to be "reasonably required".

ACC appear to use the IRP as a means to bully claimants into undergoing an FCE. It is important to ask the above questions as soon as FCE is mentioned by your CM. You may find that the questions are not answered and that FCE disappears from your draft plan.

It seems that there is no longer a waiver to be signed as part of the FCE process (as has previously been reported).

Good luck

Don


Don, did you have a response to this?
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