[rod]

Ralf Schnabel any info or back ground on these guys please

[neddy]

rod, on Jun 23 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

Ralf Schnabel any info or back ground on these guys please

Rod , Go to the box rigt of the page that says Google search and type in Schnabel, there are about 2 paghes of posts to sift through.

I hope this may help.

[learner2]

anyone who has had a session at the hands of ralf schnabel are welcome to e- mail me at [email protected] please be aware that the the person who is the pyscological adviser for meetings meetings held at the concussion clinic at pt cheviliar for brain injured people is a good friend of his. when i questioned schanbels methods at a meeting i was told i didn't understand what he mean't by a mmpi2 test which i refused to do ( mmpi2 tests are a tick box test origanating in minasota u.s.a , and are notto be tested on anyone outside the u.s.a inveriably you will be told that the test is inteteprated differently in other parts of the world however this is far from the case i shall indevor to find ralevent information ) now my interregation by mr shanabel. i had a secondary chest infection and it was treated by antibiotics at the time of my meeting with this rather dishevelled individual. 8-10 minutes into the test my vision became blurred and i told him so i needed a brake . there was also another brake that i took that invovled me walking to my car , smoking a ciggarette and resting , another brake of drinking water , another brake of going to the toilet . throughtout the test i was couched in the testing by schnabel . i told shanbel towards the end of the interrogation/consultation that i could not go on , he just kept on saying not much not that much longer .well you can imagine my test results said i was above average i.q , nothing wrong with me etc ( anyone wanting a copy of the report are welcome to contact me) he wrote to acc suggesting a mmpi2 test . i was given advice by mr doppelanger on the test and also did my own research. i refused to partake as should anyone who is offered this test. i had a follow up consultation in which i viewd my concerns . my pyscologist at health partners told me to screw the report up and throw it in the bin . acc did not take his recommendations on board. peta livin is of the same ilf as is dr david black . these parasites must be prosocuted regards John Hughes

[learner2]

the reason i mentioned the breaks was because in his report apparently i , with a secondary chest infection had one brake of 5 minutes

[learner2]

 Picture_016.jpg (290.46K)
Number of downloads: 24 i did not take a tape recorder and far from agreeing i disputed everything the man is a liar and that was 2005

[learner2]

conclusions of the schnabel....  Picture_017.jpg (347.79K)
Number of downloads: 37

[photoman777]

this man schnabel is a liar i will email mr hughes details.. schnabel lies lies lies!!! go to whaleoils blog and see what he thinks of him... i have made complaint againt his report with the board of psychology and results still a month away so cant post too much just yet. i can state tho that my lawyer and my barrister gave me there opinions that he committed fraud and that is strong words from the legal fraternity

[greg]

Your file should have all internal reports from the Branch Medical Advisor [ BMA ]to
any other ACC staff. On of the latest is 'effort testing' [google it].

The other thread about how these assessments do not ask the correct questions when relating to head injuries,
but when the report is written , all are now only depressed .

I think some reviewers are on to this now .

[rod]

greg, on Jun 24 2010, 08:11 AM, said:

Your file should have all internal reports from the Branch Medical Advisor [ BMA ]to
any other ACC staff. On of the latest is 'effort testing' [google it].

The other thread about how these assessments do not ask the correct questions when relating to head injuries,
but when the report is written , all are now only depressed .

I think some reviewers are on to this now .

which other thread about assessments do not ask corret questions ?

[doppelganger]

here is a court decision

McCutcheon v Accident Compensation Corporation [2007] NZACC 255 (21 November 2007)

reason

[1] The Court is asked to determine the correctness of ACC's 14 March 2006 decision suspending
the appellant's ongoing entitlement to weekly compensation. That suspension was on the basis that
her symptoms are no longer related to the covered injury, namely, a brain injury.

[60] I need a good general psychiatric report before I can make a decision in this case. I feel that, despite
the medical evidence for ACC, on the balance of probability there may still be a connection between
the appellant's sufferings and the accident. I do not see how the medical experts for ACC can be so sure
of their findings about the functioning of the appellant's mind. The mind or the brain is a difficult area and
I could well accept that her brain injury has never fully healed.
[61] I accept that thoughts such as mine should not prevail over medical opinion. I appreciate that
Dr McCallum's views in support of the appellant are contrary to those who have been involved in treating
her, whereas he has not been so involved. However, he is an experienced and highly regarded specialist
and ACC must not be dismissive about his views. I agree with Ms Mechen that I must rely on the evidence
but, having done that, I am unconvinced. I seek more evidence from a psychiatrist known to me
or recommended to me.
[62] My current thinking, from analysing the evidence available to me to date, is that the appellant's
injuries from her fall from the horse have not healed; but before I make a determination, I require a
report from an independent psychiatrist in public practice who must be a person of whom I
approve. Accordingly, I direct the parties to confer and suggest to me the name or names of a psychiatrist
of the type to whom I refer so that I can approve that he or she be briefed of the evidence and issues in
this case and, of course, meet and assess the appellant as a patient in the usual way.

[PaulF]

This post hasn't been added to for years but just so you know ralf Schnabel is still up to his old tricks. He is now working for Sovereign and he has been working on my case. I have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. He has lied in several places in his reports and I will early next year take my case to the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman. I'm starting to realise Des Gorman is also like that. They are both hired guns. They make up stuff or exaggerate things to give insurance companies just what they want. I had a neurological test (actually a series of 14 different tests) and Ralf reported I was fine but I am suffering from memory and concentration problems as a result of my CFS.
Ralf also got me to do a work trial for six weeks and I performed badly and they just ignored the results and told the insurance company I was fit for work. When asked about why I performed badly in the test he basically said I sabotaged the test by having late night unscheduled activities. The activity was a movie at the cinema.
I am seeing different psychologist, psychiatrist to get all the lies reversed. Ralf Schnabel is a scum bag. He kicks people when they are down (unwell) and does it for money. I'm not only not fit for work but unfit for so many of life's nornal activities. I'm not well enough to fight for my rights but I have no choice but to do this. This makes ralf Schnabel scum.

[not their victim]

its called proforma....


the 3rd party acc assessor....(not to be confused with doctors who work under the Hippocratic oath...)...are bought and paid for by acc......

write to OCI...and if they say not their jurisdiction, they are WRONG...

also sent complaint to medical council, law commission, and health and disability commission....


Sir G Palmer....former PM who worked very closely on the acc legislation with the late Sir Owen Woodhouse, who is president of the Law Commission, would be greatly interested in hearing how the Social Contract is being run exactly like Unum Provident in the USA...he would be dead against hearing that this nonsense continues...

[Aurora]

Content removed as may be defamatory

[unit1of2]

Aurora, on 29 November 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

Trouble is if you go to the Medical Council, Law Commission then you get this response from the OCI to every matter your try to raise.....
"As you have taken this matter to the HDC, it falls outside the scope of the Code, and I am unable to investigate or assist you further."

The I get a letter back from one of the organisations saying "the Board does not have the mandate or jurisdiction to investigate such ACC policy matters" when ACC staff have made decisions based on the policy wrongly.

So the claimant has nowhere to go to get matters sorted?!?!?! How fair is this??

Totally hear you and totally understand ... I have the same problems to....

[not their victim]

http://accforum.org/...ts/page__st__20


PROVE WHAT THEY WROTE IS A LIE

PROVE WHAT THEY WROTE IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH / INJURY /REHABILITATION


SEND IT TO OCI....THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.....

THE REASON HDC / MED COUNCIL STATE ITS OUTSIDE THEIR JURISDICTION IS A CORRECT STATEMENT......BUT THIS AGAIN IS LEGAL OBFUSCATION.......



ACC ASSESSORS ARE """"""PROFORMA"""".....................AS IN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY ACC....THEY ARE UNDER THE ACC LEGISLATION.......
'

SO PROVE IT......SEND IT TO OCI.........KEEP YOUR EVIDENCE FOR COURT....JUST KEEP ASSERTING THE EVIDENCE....AND REVEAL ALL IN THE COURTROOM.......

[Aurora]

Content removed as may be defamatory

[not their victim]

they are feeding you a line of crap.....

a bit like the case manager.....who is supposed to manage your case...then writing the submissions against you....to be used at review...its a "conflict of interest"


this is highly relevant, and utterly do-able.....

in fact....its THE LAW!!!!

[Rosey]

not their victim, on 07 December 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

http://accforum.org/...ts/page__st__20


PROVE WHAT THEY WROTE IS A LIE

PROVE WHAT THEY WROTE IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH / INJURY /REHABILITATION


SEND IT TO OCI....THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.....

THE REASON HDC / MED COUNCIL STATE ITS OUTSIDE THEIR JURISDICTION IS A CORRECT STATEMENT......BUT THIS AGAIN IS LEGAL OBFUSCATION.......



ACC ASSESSORS ARE """"""PROFORMA"""".....................AS IN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY ACC....THEY ARE UNDER THE ACC LEGISLATION.......
'

SO PROVE IT......SEND IT TO OCI.........KEEP YOUR EVIDENCE FOR COURT....JUST KEEP ASSERTING THE EVIDENCE....AND REVEAL ALL IN THE COURTROOM.......

Good job too!