Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search

 

Scoop Feedback: All About ACC

In This Edition: ACC Claimant’s Rights - ACC - ACC Articles - Feedback - Catalyst And Still No Rehab Plan

Scoop welcomes reader feedback. Please mail your news and views to editor@scoop.co.nz

*****************

ACC Claimant’s Rights

Congratulations to you and your staff on the excellent articles on the deplorable actions of ACC case managers and that Wilson head. They are giving hope to so many of us that have been harassed, intimidated and bullied into accepting unjust decisions.

Thank You

BW

*****************

ACC

Dear Scoop,

I have just read Dave Crampton`s latest article on ACC, and once again offer my thanks to Scoop, for their expose.

The % of claimants, who have their decisions go against them, at Review, and/or Appeal, is of some concern, and more than likely, it is because they have been ill-advised or ill-equipped to handle these cases.

Most are already run down through poor finances, ill health, and then the additional stress of disbelief, when they read the latest Pet Specialist Report about them. Quite frankly they are ripe for the plundering.

Add to that, all the bullshit heaped upon them over time, as they are made to think they are the only ones having problems, causes self doubt.

I personally have found the Occupational Specialists to be the most creative.

Some of them have Specialised in areas that are relatively useless when it comes to Medicine and good income. For example underwater medicine. Realistically this must be of fairly limited use to anyone, so they have to find A Cash Cow (ACC).

I have been told by an ACC Specialist Lawyer, that he wins 50% at Review, even though he admits review can be a "lucky dip".

But his average at Appeal is 80% success, which tells me, that if you can afford professional help, then this is the way to go.

I doubt that many Claimants who go to Review, by themselves are prepared for the distortion of facts, presented to the Reviewer by the ACC.

Distortion of reports and the facts presented in them, seem to be a big player, when ACC present their argument at Review.

If a Claimant had any respect for their Case Manager, and thought he/she was ok, as he/she’s always been at least friendly. They may well go away with a different opinion of them after Review.

Any favourable claimant Specialist reports previously done by ACC in the past, are largely ignored. A specialist ACC Lawyer knows what to expect, and can generally counter the argument.

My advice to anyone being harrassed by ACC`s constant Vendetta against them, is to get Specialist help.

Regards

Jim

*****************

ACC Articles

Hi all,

I love your articles on "ACC" and the swell it has created in other areas specially the "Sunday Times".

I have been involved with ACC - AON RISK MANAGEMENT - and now CATALYST.

It has been a nightmare over the last three years trying to get some justice from these people.

I have now employed a lawyer @ $200.00 an hour to get these bastards off my back and let me live a life of some quality, (what life I have got left).

This is of no concern to them - it is work at all costs even if the problem has not been corrected. I have no injury that relates to the injury of 1998 and it is all in my mind - this is what their clones say.

There has been no social rehab for myself and my wife we have both required counselling because of the trauma they have caused. (Not through ACC)

The above is but a very short outline of what ACC has done to me and my wife since Nov 1998.

Your articles are a breath of fresh air and hopefully will provide the necessary push for others to get involved who can have a bit of clout. Oh have I tried, but I am only a small person trying to get some justice and have been pushed around.

Keep up the push for us,

Regards,

KO

*****************

Feedback

Thankyou for the time and effort you have put in to the worthy cause of the dishonesty within the ACC and how they circumnavigate law.

I am one that they circumnavigated....they now say I never had an injury only an aggravation for a pre-existing condition.

One of the unfortunate things is that for so many years we (claimants) never knew we had the right to view assessment documents or anything else, in fact they took care to make sure you could never read anything in the file they had before them in the past.

This meant there were many mistakes in the documents that were never corrected or challenged. These mistakes have meant many claimants have lost entitlement through no fault of their own as case managers used nonsense against you.

I just perused the first two pages of my latest district court appeal....these are a "litany of lies" and mistakes. So the Court has been misled about simple things like which Dr commissioned which report/assessment.....what I saw the said specialist for, and that is just two pages of misinformation and never mind that the pet specialist in Hamilton actually contradicts in 1998 an assessment he made in 1988, ten years earlier.

So it goes over and over for the claimants who have begun to gather together.....expect revolution.

Enough from me, thanks again

GM

*****************

Catalyst And Still No Rehab Plan

Hi there

My file was transferred to Catalyst last year. During my first and only interview with my case manager, he told me that it was his job to get me off ACC.

In September I was sent to a specialist, which I was told by my case manager was to establish what sort of rehabilitation would be appropriate.

But this was untrue, it was in fact a specialist case review to look at eliminating me. Catalyst did not have access to any other of my files as they were only contracted to the one file, but I suffer from injuries from more than one accident and the later accident from which I claim weekly compensation is an aggravation of an old injury covered by ACC.

The specialist I saw didn't have any of the information regarding my other injuries and used the word "alleged" to describe the injuries and stated he doubted I had cover under the Act, but I did.

He also overturned two orthopaedic surgeons opinions and claimed I did not have an injury.

Consequently I lost my compensation, but I won it back in April this year after a review hearing in which I represented myself. The decision was overturned because a claimant can not be assessed for work capacity without taking all injuries into account.

I also complained that I didn't have a rehab plan and had not received any rehabilitation. I still don't have a rehab plan in place despite my case manager now sending me through a computer course (despite my back, OOS, head and neck injuries).

My medical assessment I have just undergone was only 40 minutes long, the doctor talks about a finding even though he didn't do any examination to determine it.

He claims I am able to work 35 or more hours a week in the identified jobs, yet I have lost 5 jobs because of my injuries and the last two were only part time.

So far my case manager since I won back my entitlement, has sent me straight onto assessments, sent me onto a course yet there is still no rehab plan made up and no discussions with me or my doctor as to what my rehab should involve.

Also after the review decision, my file should have been handed back to ACC, so that all information on all my injuries can be considered in my rehabilitation. This latest medical assessment I have just undergone would have been the same, done without sufficient information about my injuries forwarded to the doctor because Catalyst have already stated they don't have access to it.

Kind Regards

AR

******** ENDS *******

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 


Ian Powell: Are we happy living in Handy's Age of Unreason?

On 19 June the Sunday Star Times published my column on the relationship between the Labour government’s stewardship of Aotearoa New Zealand’s health system and the outcome of the next general election expected to be around September-October 2023: Is the health system an electoral sword of Damocles for Labour... More>>


The First Attack On The Independents: Albanese Hobbles The Crossbench
It did not take long for the new Australian Labor government to flex its muscle foolishly in response to the large crossbench of independents and small party members of Parliament. Despite promising a new age of transparency and accountability after the election of May 21, one of the first notable acts of the Albanese government was to attack the very people who gave voice to that movement. Dangerously, old party rule, however slim, is again found boneheaded and wanting... More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Predictable Monstrosities: Priti Patel Approves Assange’s Extradition
The only shock about the UK Home Secretary’s decision regarding Julian Assange was that it did not come sooner. In April, Chief Magistrate Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring expressed the view that he was “duty-bound” to send the case to Priti Patel to decide on whether to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 grafted from the US Espionage Act of 1917... More>>


Dunne Speaks: Roe V. Wade Blindsides National

Momentum is everything in politics, but it is very fragile. There are times when unexpected actions can produce big shifts and changes in the political landscape. In 2017, for example, the Labour Party appeared headed for another hefty defeat in that year’s election until the abrupt decision of its then leader to step aside just weeks before the election. That decision changed the political landscape and set in train the events which led to Labour being anointed by New Zealand First to form a coalition government just a few weeks later... More>>

Digitl: Infrastructure Commission wants digital strategy
Earlier this month Te Waihanga, New Zealand’s infrastructure commission, tabled its first Infrastructure Strategy: Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa. Te Waihanga describes its document as a road map for a thriving New Zealand... More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Leaking For Roe V Wade
The US Supreme Court Chief Justice was furious. For the first time in history, the raw judicial process of one of the most powerful, and opaque arms of government, had been exposed via media – at least in preliminary form. It resembled, in no negligible way, the publication by WikiLeaks of various drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership... More>>