ACCforum: Alan Thomas - Viewing Profile - ACCforum

Jump to content

User Rating: ***--

Group:
Members
Active Posts:
22075 (4.1 per day)
Most Active In:
Personal Stories (6263 posts)
Joined:
10-June 06
Profile Views:
38939
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:
Click here to e-mail me

Topics I've Started

  1. ACC and practice of witness coaching

    15 January 2021 - 03:17 PM

    When reading the postings on this site we see a consistent pattern whereby claimants are asserting that information providers for the purposes of ACC decisions and acquiring information for judicial purposes being acquired by the ACC has involved the ACC unduly influencing that information provider / witness in order to achieve an outcome in their favour.

    Examples would include:
    ACC acquiring a medical report from a medical profession whereby the ACC has provided effectively a performer report with the expectation that the medical profession produces such a report in that mode.
    ACC acquiring medical reports based on a succession of questions that lead towards the answer that would be preferable to the ACC as opposed to letting the medical professional reaching their own conclusions.
    ACC directly schooling witnesses for purposes of judicial proceedings to deliver a viewpoint in its favour. For example persuading a witness to give an opinion that a cardboard box lifted by the claimant was a heavy box without any knowledge as to whether or not anything was in the box at all, for example saying that the claimant had the capacity to carry out a certain task with one hand tied behind their back prior to being injured and so therefore could still carry out that task after they were injured.
    ACC asking witnesses to give what effectively is a medical conclusion despite the fact that the witness has no medical qualifications stop

    The medical Council usually has control over its member medical professionals with regards to the delivery of treatment but does not seem to claim any authority over medical conclusions delivered to the courts. As this actually consistent with the relevant legal duties?

    So we find in countries such as the USA that it is illegal to communicate with a potential witness for fear that it might cause the witness to give out preferential testimony and that if any witnesses were going to be communicating in such a way the trial would be terminated. Do we have laws such as this of this country?