ACCforum: for claimants under the 1982 ACC act - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

for claimants under the 1982 ACC act This is the stick in the mud.

#1 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 01 June 2010 - 03:45 PM

103 Corporation to determine incapacity of claimant who, at time of

incapacity, was earner

(1) The Corporation must determine under this section the incapacity of---

(a) a claimant who was an earner at the time he or she suffered the

personal injury:

(B) a claimant who was on unpaid parental leave at the time he or she

suffered the personal injury.

(2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant

is unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in

which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.

(3) If the answer under subsection (2) is that the claimant is unable to

engage in such employment, the claimant is incapacitated for employment.

Compare: 1998 No 114 s 85


If you can get a later report than ACC , claiming effects of injury are still there ... you must win..
Plenty of case law to back up this , so if you know anyone tricked out of their ERC.

section 117 was not around then Check if you have a copy of your ""Section 117 and section 103 sign off form""

Find the paperwork you can use it at review.
0

#2 User is offline   Compassion 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 23-July 09

Posted 01 June 2010 - 04:13 PM

View Postgreg, on Jun 1 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

103 Corporation to determine incapacity of claimant who, at time of

incapacity, was earner

(1) The Corporation must determine under this section the incapacity of---

(a) a claimant who was an earner at the time he or she suffered the

personal injury:

(B) a claimant who was on unpaid parental leave at the time he or she

suffered the personal injury.

(2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant

is unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in

which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.

(3) If the answer under subsection (2) is that the claimant is unable to

engage in such employment, the claimant is incapacitated for employment.

Compare: 1998 No 114 s 85
If you can get a later report than ACC , claiming effects of injury are still there ... you must win..
Plenty of case law to back up this , so if you know anyone tricked out of their ERC.

section 117 was not around then Check if you have a copy of your ""Section 117 and section 103 sign off form""

Find the paperwork you can use it at review.

0

#3 User is offline   Compassion 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 23-July 09

Posted 01 June 2010 - 04:16 PM

Sorry had premature reply as above!
So how do you know what act you are with? IE does it change every year. What happens when records are destoyed as acc bring to your attention outside the time employers and IRD must keep things?? then say no record? anyone had this??
0

#4 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 01 June 2010 - 06:36 PM

It depends on the date of your injury.
The 1982 Act was demolished by Bill Birch in July 1992.
Those whose accidents happened in that period 1982-1992 (July) are covered by the 82 Act.


Note Section 3) If the answer under subsection (2) is that the claimant is unable to

engage in such employment, the claimant is incapacitated for employment.
0

#5 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:16 PM

Under 82 act it is actually simple ; why do advocates complicate this ?.
If you can get a later report than ACC , claiming effects of injury are still there ... you must win..
Plenty of case law to back up this , so if you know anyone tricked out of their ERC.

section 117 was not around then Check if you have a copy of your ""Section 117 and section 103 sign off form""

Find the paperwork you can use it at review.
0

#6 User is offline   go joe 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 24-July 08

Posted 02 June 2010 - 02:28 PM

why do advocates complicate this ?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
the longer they muck you around the more they make
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
0

#7 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 02 June 2010 - 04:34 PM

Interesting thread this which appears to be becoming diverted. The diversion however is interesting too.

Can someone please explain how these so-called advocates:

1 ‘Complicate this’?

2 Make more money by taking longer?
0

#8 User is offline   gilbert 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 19-April 09

Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:17 PM

View Postkeentohelp, on Jun 2 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

Interesting thread this which appears to be becoming diverted. The diversion however is interesting too.

Can someone please explain how these so-called advocates:

1 ‘Complicate this’?

2 Make more money by taking longer?




Are you an advocate kth? if so are you any good?

For some reason, there seems to be a shortage of good representation.
0

#9 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 02 June 2010 - 07:19 PM

Gilbert, I post on accforum as a claimant with some degree (in my view fairly severe) of permanent impairment.

Whenever I do inadvertently refer to my work the poisonous posters on accforum go berserk - apparently on the grounds that success at Review and Appeal is not to be mentioned on accforum – this is after all a forum for bitter and disillusioned losers to exchange stories of how they ‘should have’ won and where they encourage others to, like them, lose.

Hence I am afraid you will have to ask others ‘how good’ I or (the organisation which cannot be named on accforum) where I work, may be.
0

#10 User is offline   gilbert 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 19-April 09

Posted 02 June 2010 - 07:53 PM

View Postkeentohelp, on Jun 2 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

Gilbert, I post on accforum as a claimant with some degree (in my view fairly severe) of permanent impairment.

Whenever I do inadvertently refer to my work the poisonous posters on accforum go berserk - apparently on the grounds that success at Review and Appeal is not to be mentioned on accforum – this is after all a forum for bitter and disillusioned losers to exchange stories of how they ‘should have’ won and where they encourage others to, like them, lose.

Hence I am afraid you will have to ask others ‘how good’ I or (the organisation which cannot be named on accforum) where I work, may be.



Kth, you are entitled to your opinion,

Imo, describing other forum members as poisonous posters and losers, could only be seen as detrimental to the organisation that cannot be named, and a bit on the nose, don"t you think ?
0

#11 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:04 PM

No, I am not referring to every member - only to those to whom the shoe fits.

Secondly, on the nose or not, the facts speak for themselves.

That is, read the posts of the most prominent members of accfroum - and follow their advice at your peril.
0

#12 User is offline   Ed Hunter 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 02 June 2010 - 10:19 PM

I have been watching the Forum for a long time as a guest/observer.
I now have decided to join up as I am incensed by ther attitude of some on here.
I came across the Forum quite by accident , as I was looking for some sort of help after I was injured and ACC were not being very co-operative.

I have found some good advice here and thru the advice of Sparrow and others to another member, I took their advice on board, bought my copy of the Act, got my file and met the Case Manager head on. It has been a battle but I am now on the winning side having been empowered by some of the advice on here.
It is a case of look at everything and work it out for yourself, read the Act and meet policy with legislation. Hard work, yes.

Keen to Help, is an Advocate and I think it is now timely for me to expose just what sort of person he is.
He is always being damn rude to other members and clearly there is a bit of a comprehension problem there.

However I want to tell all the forum members of an experience one of my former workmates had with him.
this former workmate is a Forum member, or was and they were approached through the Forum PM system by Keen to help or TOny as he said he was called, offering his services as an Advocate.
This person took up the offer as KTH said he was travelling to this person's town soon and would advocate for them at Review.

The Review went ahead, the person lost, or Keen to help lost the Review thru shonky advice AND the outcome was, Tony said " YOU WILL HAVE TO GET A JOB".
This person followed his advice, engaged him as an advocate and " to his peril" lost the case.

This workmate was devastated and they finally saw a lawyer at my insistence, took the case to Court, but before they did, they were told to approach another specialist who was simply marvellous and the case was won at Distirct Court.

Keen to help is throwing mud at certain forum members, praising his own ability and noone knows just what proportion of Reviews he is losing or winning.

I am sick and tired of reading the crap from this person. Nasty evil words, making statements about others and not providing any evidence.
It is time he was made to shut up. The guy is a fraud in my opinion.

There I have said my stuff, go ahead and abuse me now KTH.
0

#13 User is offline   Compassion 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 23-July 09

Posted 03 June 2010 - 09:55 AM

"Gilbert, I post on accforum as a claimant with some degree (in my view fairly severe) of permanent impairment" KTH

(Perhaps the 'on the nose' days KTH has, is like anyone on here you have moments when your injury/loss just totally gets to you... maybe those comments that offend people occur when he is having a bad day coping.. we all have them).

In defence of KTH who has given me great advice as you all have..... he always in my mind adopts a 'don't look at the snake bite' attitude but look to the 'anti dote'. Fight with legislation, not emotion.

It is very hard NOT to get resentful, feel betrayed, wronged, angry, abused etc... but I'm learning to look beyond that, put the emotion aside (and forgiving bloody hard)! realise these people that do horrid acts (blatant lieing reports etc) don't prescribe to the same level of morals, so we cannot condone what they do, but in their minds it is ok to treat someone like that, they don't believe in fairness and justice and don't value this like those that are hurt.
0

#14 User is offline   Compassion 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 23-July 09

Posted 03 June 2010 - 09:59 AM

"(a) a claimant who was an earner at the time he or she suffered the

personal injury:"

So does this mean to be covered as 'an earner' it had to occur at work?? to get weekly comp. Something else reads earner immediately before injury as well.

how is earner and 'immnediately' defined?? is this how claimants being tricked
0

#15 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 June 2010 - 10:21 AM

View PostCompassion, on Jun 3 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

"(a) a claimant who was an earner at the time he or she suffered the

personal injury:"


So does this mean to be covered as 'an earner' it had to occur at work?? to get weekly comp. Something else reads earner immediately before injury as well.

how is earner and 'immnediately' defined?? is this how claimants being tricked


Compassion

No, if you were an earner at the time of injury, it could have happened anywhere. I had mine at home. But I still get weekly compensation because I was living off earnings from my employment when I had the accident. That is well recorded.

I had 'cover' from the date I had the accident, but didnt go for weekly compo until nine years later. And as I say it was an accident at home that caused me to give up work, plus the way in which I was treated after operations, when I tried to go back to work. Thats the mental part. The physical part is what I had the operations for.

Hope that makes sence. Have tried to make it as simple as possible to understand it takes a while to understant that when they talk about entitlements., Cover is one and Weekly Compo is another. Thats only two of them, but two that you must be aware of when speaking ACC language.

Good Luck
Mini
0

#16 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 June 2010 - 10:32 AM

View PostEd Hunter, on Jun 2 2010, 10:19 PM, said:

I have been watching the Forum for a long time as a guest/observer.
I now have decided to join up as I am incensed by ther attitude of some on here.
I came across the Forum quite by accident , as I was looking for some sort of help after I was injured and ACC were not being very co-operative.

I have found some good advice here and thru the advice of Sparrow and others to another member, I took their advice on board, bought my copy of the Act, got my file and met the Case Manager head on. It has been a battle but I am now on the winning side having been empowered by some of the advice on here.
It is a case of look at everything and work it out for yourself, read the Act and meet policy with legislation. Hard work, yes.

Keen to Help, is an Advocate and I think it is now timely for me to expose just what sort of person he is.
He is always being damn rude to other members and clearly there is a bit of a comprehension problem there.

However I want to tell all the forum members of an experience one of my former workmates had with him.
this former workmate is a Forum member, or was and they were approached through the Forum PM system by Keen to help or TOny as he said he was called, offering his services as an Advocate.
This person took up the offer as KTH said he was travelling to this person's town soon and would advocate for them at Review.

The Review went ahead, the person lost, or Keen to help lost the Review thru shonky advice AND the outcome was, Tony said " YOU WILL HAVE TO GET A JOB".
This person followed his advice, engaged him as an advocate and " to his peril" lost the case.

This workmate was devastated and they finally saw a lawyer at my insistence, took the case to Court, but before they did, they were told to approach another specialist who was simply marvellous and the case was won at Distirct Court.

Keen to help is throwing mud at certain forum members, praising his own ability and noone knows just what proportion of Reviews he is losing or winning.

I am sick and tired of reading the crap from this person. Nasty evil words, making statements about others and not providing any evidence.
It is time he was made to shut up. The guy is a fraud in my opinion.

There I have said my stuff, go ahead and abuse me now KTH.


Ed Hunter

It was only a matter of time when someone like yourself was going to come forward and have their say about the way in which a certain member treats others on the forum when it is supposed to be an advocate.

I believe the other half? of the partnership he works at is very helpful and more of him in documentation helping others that the one of which you speak. But very busy apparently.

I am so pleased you have been able to use the information put up here by regulars with some success. We cannot advocate for you, well most of us cant because we are too busy doing our own work. However we can assit in some instances through having gone through it ourselves.

As far as I am concerned I dont expect to do the work for anyone. They can just as readily access the information as I can, having been steered in the right direction, which you have done.

Good on you, you should be an inspiration to the others who come one. When visiting your case manager, take a volume of the Act with you and get them to point out under which section of the Act they are making any decisions. Then go home and read up on it. If you dont agreed, Review in a timely manner.

I think the mere sight of the Act, shows you are not going to take guesstamits as being lawful!!!!

Well done on both scores.

Mini
0

#17 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 03 June 2010 - 11:17 AM

I am happy to discuss whatever case Ed Hunter is referring to just as soon as he provides that person's permisson to do so.

Until then he can take such pot-shots at will as I cannot reply.

What I can say is that his post is simply wrong insofar as that I do not take cases from accforum.

That is, I not only do not 'approach' members to take on their cases but if any person making an unsolicited inquiry refers to being an accforum member I refer them elsewhere - most usually to KFM and Associates who I understand to share the values and mores so often expressed on accforum.

I have no idea of their success rate with that style but it is very different (how accforum memebers tend to recommend proceeding) than that which I favour.
0

#18 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 03 June 2010 - 11:48 AM

All of you take not that keen is destroying a very good topic. Whenever something of importance comes up this is what he does. Note he states himself it is so. So why doesn't he just fuck up? Wipe the shit off your chin keen.Welcome aboard Ed.
0

#19 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 03 June 2010 - 12:10 PM

Have been thinking about this.... I am under the 82 act but was found to have work capacity in 1999 in occupations that I was not in immediately prior to my injury. I did eventually overturn that decision in 2002 but it wasn't on the grounds of what act I came under it was on other evidence that showed I did not have work capacity. If what your saying is accurate then I should never have had to go through that process at all and given that I had a very savy lawyer I'm wondering about the significance of what has been posted in the first post

2) The question that the Corporation must determine is whether the claimant

is unable, because of his or her personal injury, to engage in employment in

which he or she was employed when he or she suffered the personal injury.

(3) If the answer under subsection (2) is that the claimant is unable to

engage in such employment, the claimant is incapacitated for employment.
0

#20 User is offline   greg 

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

Posted 03 June 2010 - 12:21 PM

Hi fairgo This is under the 2001 acc act . when my case was going to review and court it was in the ninties also.
I have recently reviewed again in 2010 and this clause now applies. section 103 applies not 117.
0

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