ACCforum: ACC & Informed Consent - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

ACC & Informed Consent What the Medical Protection Society tells Doctors about ACC consents

#1 User is offline   Brionia 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 20-November 07

Posted 20 October 2010 - 05:09 PM

From the Medical Protection Society (MPS)- see this link http://www.medicalpr...patient-records


Quote

Opening the door to patient records

Responding to an insurance company’s request for access to patient records is fraught with consent-related issues. MPS medicolegal consultant Dr Alan Doris advises on best practice

MPS is frequently asked by members for advice on how best to respond to requests from an insurance company or the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to supply them with a patient’s health information.

This area was reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner in the August 2009 issue of the Commission’s publication Private Word and in an article in the March 2010 issue of NZ Doctor. As well as providing guidance to doctors, these articles give very helpful advice to patients about how to manage their health information with insurance companies.

In deciding whether to offer cover, or accept a claim, insurers and the ACC must only gather information relevant to the decision that is to be made. Insurance companies risk being in breach of privacy legislation if they collect information that is not relevant to their purpose. In practice, however, requests received by doctors sometimes appear much broader than this and, with some complex cases, extensive background information may be requested.

The main pitfall for a health practitioner receiving a request for disclosure of a patient’s health information is in the area of consent. When in receipt of a request for information from an insurance company or the ACC, you should ensure that the patient is fully aware of what information has been requested and that they are validly consenting for this information to be disclosed. A signed consent form permitting disclosure of information may be supplied along with the request for information, though this may have been completed some time ago and without any particular issues in mind.

MPS recommends that, even where a signed consent form is supplied, contact is made with the patient to ensure that they are aware of what information is contained within the records that will be disclosed and that they are happy for this to happen. It may be necessary for the patient to make a specific appointment so that the records can be reviewed with the doctor and an agreement reached on what information should be released.

Requests for “full notes” should be particularly carefully considered, as it is rare that such extensive information will be relevant to a particular claim. It is better to ask for a more specific request to be made so that any irrelevant information is not included. If the insurance company or the ACC is unhappy with what is supplied, they can always make a request that additional information be provided, as long as it is relevant.

Recently MPS has become aware of situations where, rather than the insurer approaching the practitioner for a patient’s health information directly, the patient has been asked by the insurer to make the request. A patient has a general right to a copy of the health information that is held relating to them unless there is a good reason for withholding. This approach may expedite the access to information for the insurer, though it may put both the insurer and patient at risk by gathering irrelevant information. Patients are entitled to a copy of their records once per year without charge.

Further requests within one year and requests from insurance companies or the ACC can be charged for at an agreed rate. It is sometimes the case that a request for information relates to someone who has died. In this situation, the consent for release of the relevant health information must be given by the executor or administrator of the deceased’s estate. The doctor should still check that the information that is to be released is relevant and consider whether it contains information that the deceased person would not have wanted to be released.

Requests for release of health information to third parties can present challenges and MPS encourages members to call for advice if required.
.


My recommendation is that EVERY claimant print this off and give it to their GP, and any other medical practitioner/specialist that holds your medical records that ACC might wish to access. Advise any Medical Practitioner holding information about you, that in spite of signing the ACC45, or the very generic ACC167, or the ACC 18, that you want to be "fully informed" by your doctor BEFORE giving "informed consent" to release any information to ACC. This is your legal right, so do not be bullied by ACC with them oppressive your rights by saying this is "unreasonable" or "obstructive" to the management of your claim. It is a perfectly legitimate way to manage your personal, private, medical records from unauthorised disclosure without your knowledge, or being fully informed.

As the Medical Protection Society also says, any request from ACC may actually necessitate a visit to your GP/specialist to discuss what is disclosed to ACC to ensure that only information "relevant" to your claim is released, or collected by ACC.

Taking a proactive approach to your medical and other information, will help counteract the open, unbridled ACC 167 consent that ACC are making every claimant sign, mostly under duress, and in so doing ACC are attempting to oppress your rights to give ACC consent as "reasonably required", and on the basis of being "fully informed" as to what they specifically want to collect and from whom. ACC think the ACC 167 gives them the right to over-ride the legislation and collect information about you without having to inform you in each situation.

Good luck

This is
4

#2 User is offline   HakiNohi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 01-September 11

Posted 28 September 2011 - 09:09 AM

View PostBrionia, on 20 October 2010 - 05:09 PM, said:

From the Medical Protection Society (MPS)- see this link http://www.medicalpr...patient-records


My recommendation is that EVERY claimant print this off and give it to their GP, and any other medical practitioner/specialist that holds your medical records that ACC might wish to access. Advise any Medical Practitioner holding information about you, that in spite of signing the ACC45, or the very generic ACC167, or the ACC 18, that you want to be "fully informed" by your doctor BEFORE giving "informed consent" to release any information to ACC. This is your legal right, so do not be bullied by ACC with them oppressive your rights by saying this is "unreasonable" or "obstructive" to the management of your claim. It is a perfectly legitimate way to manage your personal, private, medical records from unauthorised disclosure without your knowledge, or being fully informed.

As the Medical Protection Society also says, any request from ACC may actually necessitate a visit to your GP/specialist to discuss what is disclosed to ACC to ensure that only information "relevant" to your claim is released, or collected by ACC.

Taking a proactive approach to your medical and other information, will help counteract the open, unbridled ACC 167 consent that ACC are making every claimant sign, mostly under duress, and in so doing ACC are attempting to oppress your rights to give ACC consent as "reasonably required", and on the basis of being "fully informed" as to what they specifically want to collect and from whom. ACC think the ACC 167 gives them the right to over-ride the legislation and collect information about you without having to inform you in each situation.

Good luck

This is

Is this post still valid today?

Would this be still be effective in the EMR system between the GP and ACC?
0

#3 User is offline   Moeroa 

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

Posted 28 September 2011 - 10:57 AM

ACC has a BAD habit of blanket "requesting" ALL medical information despite Privacy Legislation because they deem the ARC18 & 167 to be blanket "consent". When complained against & found guilty of Privacy breaches, they tell the Commissioner they'll comply only to use the very same so-called "returned" medical documents in subsequent IMAs!

AS WE ALL HAVE LEARNED BY BITTER EXPERIENCE WE CANNOT TRUST THE LYING ACC.
0

#4 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 28 September 2011 - 11:25 AM

Blanket consent is NOT INFORMED CONSENT

when you are admitted to hospital, you sign a consent to be in hospital...

if the doctors want to give you certain tests, blood, or operate on you, they have to tell you the reason they are doing it, what benefit it will be to you, the risk factors associated, and the outcome they hope they hope to achieve, you then sign that you understand what you have been told.
this is informed consent

acc also have to abide by informed consent, as in they must tell you the reason for the assessments/whatever, why they require the information and what they hope to achieve with it, and your rights if the outcome is not to your benefit....
someone can fill in the relevant legislation, but wherever there is doubt, it should go in the claimants favour.....

this is informed consent!

it is lawful to put a "limited to this injury only" on your "consent form" so that acc cannot access any of your other health details, especially in view of the fact that there are persistent privacy breaches, and complaints only get a "what are you complaining about???"

lets keep it all honest....you have to be informed, and you are eentitled to copies of all requests for information by acc....

make it happen every time....so that you remain fully informed at all times.

this is a Medico-legal aspect and can be upheld in court!!!!
1

#5 User is offline   Moeroa 

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

Posted 28 September 2011 - 11:43 AM

Greelane/Auckland hospital's PRIVACY officer passes the buck siting your ACC 167 etc - even after the Privacy Commission has found ACC GUILTY of privacy breaches. The bastards cop out BEWARE!

View Postnot their victim, on 28 September 2011 - 11:25 AM, said:

Blanket consent is NOT INFORMED CONSENT

when you are admitted to hospital, you sign a consent to be in hospital...

if the doctors want to give you certain tests, blood, or operate on you, they have to tell you the reason they are doing it, what benefit it will be to you, the risk factors associated, and the outcome they hope they hope to achieve, you then sign that you understand what you have been told.
this is informed consent

acc also have to abide by informed consent, as in they must tell you the reason for the assessments/whatever, why they require the information and what they hope to achieve with it, and your rights if the outcome is not to your benefit....
someone can fill in the relevant legislation, but wherever there is doubt, it should go in the claimants favour.....

this is informed consent!

it is lawful to put a "limited to this injury only" on your "consent form" so that acc cannot access any of your other health details, especially in view of the fact that there are persistent privacy breaches, and complaints only get a "what are you complaining about???"

lets keep it all honest....you have to be informed, and you are eentitled to copies of all requests for information by acc....

make it happen every time....so that you remain fully informed at all times.

this is a Medico-legal aspect and can be upheld in court!!!!

2

#6 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 28 September 2011 - 02:10 PM

This very important thread (and good on you Brionia) is even more important for those whose ACC claim is managed by an accredited employer and/or that employer’s third party administrator (eg WellNZ, WorkAon etc).

Your employer can become privy to all sorts of previously private information on your medical file.

If you are employed by an employer who is an ‘accredited employer’ I would go even further than is suggested in the sensible posts above and advise your GP now – I mean BEFORE you even have an accident – that you do not agree to ANY medical information going to your employer or their third party administrator at any time and that if ever requested by them it be provided to you to forward as you see fit.
0

#7 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 28 September 2011 - 02:23 PM

I agree Brionia. If you have any concerns about the release of information then it is something to discuss with the holder of that information.

But it is also important to understand your responsibility as a claimant because failure to comply can lead to a suspension of entitlements.

Section 72 of the ACA 2001 requires the claimant to:
(B) give the Corporation any other relevant information that the Corporation requires:
© authorise the Corporation to obtain medical and other records that are or may be relevant to the claim:

Therefore, aACC can collect information that is not necessarily directly related to the injury as such, but may be relevant in manage=ing the claim. I suppose an example of this would be that someone suffering from a mental injury has been previously treated for depression or someone suffering a lower back injury has complained of lower back pain prior to an accident.

However, it is the holder of that information who has the responsibility to only provide the relevant information. ACC can ask, but at the end of the day it is the GOP who provides it, as set out in Principal 11
http://privacy.org.n...acy-principles/

Principle 11: Limits on disclosure of personal information
Personal information must not be disclosed unless the agency reasonably believes that:

the disclosure is in connection with, or directly related to, one of the purposes for which it was obtained; or
the agency got the information from a publicly available publication; or
disclosure is to the individual concerned; or
disclosure is authorised by the individual concerned; or
it is necessary for a public sector agency to disclose the information to uphold or enforce the law, protect the tax base, or assist court or tribunal proceedings; or
disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, or the life or health of any individual; or
disclosure is necessary to facilitate the sale of a business as a going concern; or
the information is to be used in a form in which the individual concerned is not identified; or
disclosure has been authorised by the Privacy Commissioner under section 54.
0

#8 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 28 September 2011 - 03:12 PM

ACC has in the past used a signed ACC167 to collect information from parties who have absolutely no involvement in your claim i.e. ACC provided a signed ACC167 to a computer supplier in order to get the supplier to release accounts of what has been purchased from them.

That is one of the reason why I refuse to have an ACC167 on file. I am more than happy to provide ACC consent on a case by case basis when they request such, as long as their request is seeking information that is lawful and relevant to the claim.

This post may be off topic a little but it is to inform that ACC do use the consent form as a blanket consent for whatever they want to use it.

As Briona has said it is important to inform your GP and even the public hospital that if a request comes from ACC that your GP or other organisations that store your medical information must contact you in the first instance before releasing anything.
0

#9 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 28 September 2011 - 03:45 PM

View PostHuggy, on 28 September 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

ACC has in the past used a signed ACC167 to collect information from parties who have absolutely no involvement in your claim i.e. ACC provided a signed ACC167 to a computer supplier in order to get the supplier to release accounts of what has been purchased from them.

That is one of the reason why I refuse to have an ACC167 on file. I am more than happy to provide ACC consent on a case by case basis when they request such, as long as their request is seeking information that is lawful and relevant to the claim.

This post may be off topic a little but it is to inform that ACC do use the consent form as a blanket consent for whatever they want to use it.

As Briona has said it is important to inform your GP and even the public hospital that if a request comes from ACC that your GP or other organisations that store your medical information must contact you in the first instance before releasing anything.


I know ACC has an issue with case by case consent and in the past suspended claimant's entitlements for non-compliance. But I think that case by case consent is about reasonableness.

If the claimant has concerns about ACC accessing information (there can be a number of reasons) and case by case consent is exercised responsibly ie not used to obstruct ACC is legitimate management of the claim, then it is complying, but stress it would be dependant upon on the circumstances of the individual case. On the other hand, I think it would be unreasonable for someone who strained a foot and was going to be off work for a couple of weeks to only give case by case consent.

There is a balancing act between ACC obligations and responsibilities to manage the claim and the claimants rights under the Code. I recall there was a Appeal decision on this matter but I do not have it to hand.
0

#10 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 28 September 2011 - 04:19 PM

It goes well beyond what you might expect.

For instance, the ACC 1172 form - seeking information to approve non-subsidised pharmaceuticals - asks your GP to list any non-subsidised pharmaceuticals to help them make their decision.

Trouble is that allows any knowledgeable person to become aware of quite a range of other medical matters and/or may simply, if they have prejudices in regards to this drug or that (I notice a fair number of accforum members share quite a range of ignorant drug prejudices themselves), lead to them simply forming unfounded negative opinions about the injured person.

Or just knowing a whole lot of non-accident related medical information about you that is none of their business.

Certainly much privacy invasion is assured.

ACC can be very invasive and, where it is necessary is a balancing act between reasoned decision making and privacy, this may be necessary but where it is not needed…
0

#11 User is offline   Brionia 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 20-November 07

Posted 28 September 2011 - 05:56 PM

From NZ Doctor - Advice to Doctors in relation to ACC from the Privacy Commissioner - Marie Shroff:

Quote

10 February 2010
Talking privacy
Marie Shroff

Privacy commissioner Marie Shroff seeks GP input on passing information to ACC
ACC45 then and now
Lawyers in the US do pretty well for themselves, by all accounts. Scalded by a coffee at McDonalds? Sue. Drop some olive oil in a supermarket, then bruise yourself falling over? Sue! Drink yourself to cirrhosis on Jack Daniels? SUE!

Whether true or not, these well-worn tales typify the US' litigation-happy culture. In 2004, costs associated with this kind of claim amounted to a quarter of a trillion dollars.

In New Zealand, by contrast, fall off a ladder and hit your head and ACC should pick up the tab. Since the scheme's inception in the 1970s there is no longer a right to sue for personal injury, in exchange for not needing to take a spin on the legal roulette wheel. In effect, we all have compulsory accident insurance, but with levies instead of premiums. Naturally there are a few wrinkles.

For instance, claimants must allow the treating clinician (generally either a GP or a physiotherapist) to give ACC any information relevant to the claim.

On one level, this requirement is a little unusual because it requires a claimant to give permission. You might wonder - if you have to give "permission", is it really permission? It makes more sense when you think of it as a compulsory insurance policy - if you sign up for a private insurance policy, it's accepted the insurance company will need some information.

However, with ACC, just as with a private insurance company, the information provided needs to be relevant to the claim. Also, claimants need to know they are allowing you to pass on information about them.

In the past, this has been done by way of the ubiquitous ACC45 form. Fill out the front, read the privacy statement on the back. But these days, electronic communication is the norm. Paper forms are used much less frequently than before - and information typed into a GP's practice management system doesn't have a "back" on which to put the privacy statement.

So, how are patients to know what they're agreeing to when they fill out the form? Do they understand they are authorising their GP to disclose relevant information about them to ACC?

There is a wider issue here, and it comes back to openness. GPs collecting patient information need to be open about how it's going to be used.

The number of possible uses for information is constantly on the rise - how to make sure people know about it? In the past, that openness has been conveyed by statements on forms, but there's a limit - call it "information bandwidth" to the amount of text people can meaningfully take in.

I'm talking with ACC about how to make sure people know what they're agreeing to.

I'd be interested in GP experiences in this area - contact my staff on [email protected] if you'd like to make a comment.


0

#12 User is offline   Brionia 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 20-November 07

Posted 28 September 2011 - 07:33 PM

You are 100% correct Bill.

The question of "relevance" is the joint decision between the claimant and the third party holding the information, not ACC. (Yet ACC, being the arrogant organisation that they are, like to think it is their right to decide relevance!)

If the claimant has provided consent (as most have been forced to provide ACC under duress), then they have complied with the requirements of the Act. It would be hard for ACC to argue otherwise. Disclosure then lies with the third party whom is being asked to disclose the information.

Yet in the very first instance ACC has to provide sufficient information (to the third party and the claimant), so that they can make decisions with regard to the legislative requirements of ACC Act, which stipulates the Corporations requests must be 'reasonably required'.

Futher, ACC must adhere to all other relevant inforamtion - namely the Privacy Act and Health Information Privacy Code, as demanded by the ACC Code of Claimants Rights - "we will comply with all relevant legislation relating to privacy".

This condition is also clearly spelt out clearly on your ACC167 consent form - "When collecting, using and storing information ACC will at all times comply with the Privacy Act 1993 and the Health Information Privacy Code 1994".

Therefore, this requires ACC, by law, in EVERY instance, to:
* specify the information sought, and
* specify the specific purpose for which the information is required, which necessitates ACC's collection (eg., making a cover decision)

Only once this information is received, can the claimant and the third party consider if ACC's desired collection:
* is "relevant" to the claim
* is for a "lawful purpose" (Rule 1 - Health Information Privacy Code)
* is "necessary" to collect for that purpose. (Rule 1 - Health Information Privacy Code)

Then the question of whether, or not, ACC's collection is "reasonably required" can be addressed for the first time and the basis of being "fully informed" (Right 6 of the ACC Code of Claimants Rights)

That is:
* Is ACC's proposed collection lawful in relation to the ACC Act?
* Does ACC's request comply with ALL legislative requirements in terms of the ACC Act, the Privacy Act 1993 and the Health Information Privacy Code 1994?

It is important to be familiar with Rule 1 of the Health Information Privacy Code 1994:

Health information must not be collected by any health agency unless:
(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the health agency; and
(b ) the collection of the information is necessary for that purpose.

If ACC is collecting information:
* which is NOT related/relevant to the claim/the specific covered injuries - then this is NOT a lawful purpose.
* which is NOT 'necessary' to collect (e.g, when a cover decision has already been made or when ACC cannot specify a specific lawful purpose that necessitates such collection) - then the collection if NOT lawful.

If the third party releases information (which is not related/relevant/necessary/lawful purpose), and ACC subsequently collects such information, then I'd suggest that ACC have misused your consent by unlawfully collected information, where the collection does not adhere to the boundaries of the law.

There is more information about this here
http://privacy.org.n...-principle-one/
http://privacy.org.n...th-information/
0

#13 User is offline   Brionia 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 20-November 07

Posted 28 September 2011 - 07:34 PM

Here is what the Privacy Commissioner says about the regulation of collection:

Quote

Key concepts in the code
The two key concepts in the code are:

Purpose: Agencies must know why they are collecting health information and collect only the information they need. Once health information has been collected from a patient for a particular purpose, it can be used or disclosed for that purpose without additional consent.

Openness: Agencies need to let patients know how their information is going to be used and disclosed so the patients can make decisions about whether to provide it.

Regulating collection: Rules 1 to 4 deal with collection.

Health agencies must:

only collect information they need for a specific purpose (rule 1)
• collect information directly from the person concerned, where possible (rule 2)
tell the person concerned why the information is needed, who else will see it and where it will be stored (rule 3)
not be devious, misleading or unnecessarily intrusive in collecting that information (rule 4).

Rule 1: Only collect health information if you really need it

"Health information may only be collected ... for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the health agency where the collection is necessary for that purpose"

Rule 1 requires agencies to decide their purposes - in other words, how the information is going to be used - before they start collecting information. Once collected for a purpose the information can always be used for that purpose.

Another benefit of being clear about purpose before starting collection is that unnecessary information is not collected, saving time and money. More importantly, though, an agency that knows its purposes for collecting information can then be open about those purposes.

Although rule 1 does require a clear purpose for collection it puts few restrictions around what that purpose might be - as long as it is connected with a function or activity of the agency.

For instance, the main purpose for collection of health information is always likely to be care and treatment, but other purposes might include administration, training and education and monitoring of service quality.

0

#14 User is offline   HakiNohi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 01-September 11

Posted 28 September 2011 - 07:52 PM

How would this then effect when contact is made between CM and third parties when making inquiries over the phone?

If a parent is the claimant and requests entitlement to childcare and travel they ring the school ask how the children and who drops off the children without informing the claimant before contacting the school or the school contacting the parent is this a breach then?
0

#15 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 28 September 2011 - 08:04 PM

Attached File  Supplementary Sheet for the consent to collect.doc (22K)
Number of downloads: 7Attached File  Conditional Authority 5.doc (30K)
Number of downloads: 6 http://accforum.org/...nsent-refusal/]

ACC's response to the Cond. Consent . + Suppliment form... Claimants version.
I presented this.... with no problems.
Added this, which makes it ACCEPTABLE.
"This Is not to be interpreted as being difficult / obstructive or none compliant...
I am simply exercising my rights under the Privacy / Off. Info Acts..." and signed it.
2

#16 User is offline   Brionia 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 20-November 07

Posted 28 September 2011 - 08:06 PM

View PostHakiNohi, on 28 September 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

How would this then effect when contact is made between CM and third parties when making inquiries over the phone?

If a parent is the claimant and requests entitlement to childcare and travel they ring the school ask how the children and who drops off the children without informing the claimant before contacting the school or the school contacting the parent is this a breach then?


I would say it is a breach by the school and ACC. How does the school know who is on the end of the phone requesting the information? It could be a stalker, or an estranged partner trying to steal the children to secure custody. How was the written consent received by the school in order to divulge that information? When did ACC fully inform you of this?

The Privacy Commissioner has stated that people need to be advised in advance of collecting/disclosure except in exceptional circumstances where it is simply NOT possible. Therefore, at the time or after the fact is not good enough.
0

#17 User is offline   HakiNohi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 01-September 11

Posted 28 September 2011 - 08:29 PM

View PostBrionia, on 28 September 2011 - 08:06 PM, said:

I would say it is a breach by the school and ACC. How does the school know who is on the end of the phone requesting the information? It could be a stalker, or an estranged partner trying to steal the children to secure custody. How was the written consent received by the school in order to divulge that information? When did ACC fully inform you of this?

The Privacy Commissioner has stated that people need to be advised in advance of collecting/disclosure except in exceptional circumstances where it is simply NOT possible. Therefore, at the time or after the fact is not good enough.


The claimant only found out they contacted the school when the file arrived subsequently after the *phone call* entitlement for travel were declined.

Does the claimant then inform both ACC and the school of the breach then thats it? or where to from here to fix that thanks
0

#18 User is offline   HakiNohi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 01-September 11

Posted 28 September 2011 - 08:41 PM

View PostTomcat, on 28 September 2011 - 08:04 PM, said:

Attachment Supplementary Sheet for the consent to collect.docAttachment Conditional Authority 5.doc http://accforum.org/...nsent-refusal/]

ACC's response to the Cond. Consent . + Suppliment form... Claimants version.
I presented this.... with no problems.
Added this, which makes it ACCEPTABLE.
"This Is not to interpreted as being difficult / obstructive or none compliant...
I am simply exercising my rights under the Privacy / Off. Info Acts..." and signed it.


Nice TC does that mean then that the IPRC act you quote in one needs to be adapted to the act that is relevant to each claim? or will that cover them all up until the present time?
0

#19 User is offline   Mark 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 13-April 11
  • LocationHorowhenua

Posted 28 September 2011 - 09:02 PM

View PostBrionia, on 28 September 2011 - 08:06 PM, said:

I would say it is a breach by the school and ACC. How does the school know who is on the end of the phone requesting the information? It could be a stalker, or an estranged partner trying to steal the children to secure custody. How was the written consent received by the school in order to divulge that information? When did ACC fully inform you of this?

The Privacy Commissioner has stated that people need to be advised in advance of collecting/disclosure except in exceptional circumstances where it is simply NOT possible. Therefore, at the time or after the fact is not good enough.

Most definitely a breach of Privacy by the school.

A complaint to the privacy commissioner would most definitely be in order.

Apart from the fact the school was out of line releasing info about parents and or children's travel movements - possibly endangering children by releasing that info to a stalker or an estranged parent.

At the least the board should get a string warning from the PC and tighten their awareness of the privacy law.

What is apparent is that you can show in your complaint that the schools breach of privacy caused you loss! Reading the privacy commissioners site and findings you will discover that the PC only acts where complainants can prove loss.

The fact that ACC denied transport assistance to you is proof of loss.

The fact ACC denied transport assistance based upon the hearsay of some "part time?" "office lady" in the school office who may or may not be aware of your movements each day is also alarming if not frightening. How far is ACC going to check on every claimant and every claim.

Hopefully you have appealed ACC's decision to deny your claim for transport assistance. I imagine that a copy of the register showing your childrens attendance would be proof enough that you have indeed transported them on the day's claimed...

Seems that each day we are living in a more totalitarian state.
1

#20 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 28 September 2011 - 09:06 PM

TC ACC have refused those modified consent forms for some time. ACC is going through the system and where there is no ACC167 on file are demanding claimants to sign one, failure to return a signed ACC167 in an unedited form causes ACC to decline entitlements citing non compliance. Certainly the threat by ACC to sign the ACC167 is being pushed from both Timaru and Alexandra RIS units. I am also aware in the North Island ACC is doing the same to those claimants.

This has been going on for some time and many people are striking this issue that ACC no longer accepts modified consent.

Many have been to review and failed, I took mine to review and somehow managed to succeed. I know many that have failed at review have had an application to the DC lodged. It will take a success there to set the precedence that we can all send in the modified consent form.

Every case is different on its merits and luckily somehow the reviewer saw this in my case.
0

Share this topic:


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

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users