ACCforum: doppelganger - Viewing Profile - ACCforum

Jump to content

User Rating: *----

Group:
Members
Active Posts:
8557 (1.49 per day)
Most Active In:
General Lounge (4448 posts)
Joined:
19-September 03
Profile Views:
31436
Last Active:
User is offline Private
Currently:
Offline

My Information

Member Title:
Advanced Member
Age:
Age Unknown
Birthday:
Birthday Unknown
Gender:
Not Telling Not Telling

Contact Information

E-mail:
Private

Topics I've Started

  1. Duty of Care Crimes Act ACC Responsibility.

    24 July 2018 - 10:24 PM

    this was started a while ago but due to the bickering, some people wanting to include a different direction. Due to the infighting the increase in the number of ACC staff registered as members for their own gain it was not possible to continue to show that ACC policy is in it self a tool and guide to remove entitlements and not a guide to set the level of entitlements.

    The threads Information and the "Crimes act" Property rights of information and Breach of Duty of Care and Negligence case are just two threads on the specific subject.

    as to get one claimant claim and then argue a breach it would be non effective as the ACC staff think that breaching the duty of care is alright and accepted

    Section 240 of the Crimes Act.

    240 Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception
    (1) Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—
    (a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration,
    directly or indirectly; or
    (b) in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or
    © induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or
    (d) causes loss to any other person.
    (1A) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, without reasonable excuse, sells, transfers, or otherwise makes available any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage knowing that, by deception and without claim of right, the document or thing was, or was caused to be, delivered, executed, made, accepted, endorsed, or altered.
    (2) In this section, deception means—
    (a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—
    (i) knows that it is false in a material particular; or
    (ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
    (b) an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or
    © a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.

    here I will start with Sub Section (1) ©
    © induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or

    This puts the onus on to the top ACC Executive to make sure that the Policy is correct and that it applies to the legislation.

    The longest Top Executive is 8 years were for the company of ACC one would think that there would be a few 20 year serving persons.
    I do know that having high turnover in the ACC is a problem and any organisation that has a good work ethic they promote from with in when possible.

    one has to go no further than the treatment provider hand book to see that the book is there to deny claims. One specific section is the degeneration of covered injuries which has cover is told to be excluded. When looking at section 117 (1) the policy says to check that the injury was correctly accepted but if the injury has deteriorated it does not have cover. This is deliberate and one can only accept that this is to reduce the amount that is claimed.To show that The ACC staff are not prepaid to correct the policies as shown in the OIA reply.
  2. Making decisions as punishments.

    10 July 2018 - 09:29 PM

    This is part of a decision in which ACC are using a decision as a form of punishment because he did not supply some information.

    Quote

    28. Outside that calculation, I find that there is no basis, on the evidence that I have heard or read, that would entitle any greater sum to be considered an overpayment. The appellant was at all times incapacitated and thereby had an entitlement to weekly compensation. That entitlement could only be withdrawn if there was medical certification that the appellant was no longer incapacitated, or if the appellant found alternative employment which provided an income which was greater than or equal to the amount of his pre-accident employment income or thirdly, if it be determined that the appellant had a capacity for work. I know of no statutory provision in the Act which says that entitlements can be withdrawn as some form of punishment for breaching the provisions of the Act in the manner contended for by the respondent.


    So if ACC are making decisions because claimants are not applying to there policy then they make decisions to stop entitlements.

    If this has been going on for a long time then ACC will have to revise a number of decision.