<![CDATA[Acclaim Waikato

<![CDATA[Acclaim Waikato - All Forums]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/ Sun, 20 May 2012 10:49:08 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Inter Governmental Communication with ACC]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=875 Fri, 18 May 2012 02:15:31 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=875
Request for information - Privacy and Official Information Acts

Under the provisions of the Privacy and Official Information Acts, I urgently request copies of all correspondence, emails, memorandums, reports and all other records exchanged between ACC (all sections/departments/branches etc) and former ACC Minister Nick Smith concerning any matters or issues in respect of my ACC Claim, including information which is related to ACC's XXXXX (whatever the other issues maybe)

In this request, please ensure that all information is also made available to me as outlined above, between ACC and the current Minister of ACC, Ms Judith Collins.

Please ensure that in providing me with this information, that all computer generated information is converted into hard copies and provided to me.

In addition to my requests, please advise me if any information has been withheld, blacked out and or deleted and the reasons that this has occurred.

Please can you acknowledge receipt of this request by return Email only.

When the information is available to me, please advise me of that by Email only and I will then issue you with instructions re delivery of the information etc.

Please take this Email dated XXXXX 2012 as my formal written request.

I look forward to receiving this information urgently.
Yours XXXXXX

Send any such requests to:

Gabby Boag, Team Manager Government Services, ACC

gabby.boag@acc.co.nz

Tel 04 816 - 7640 / xtn 47640 / Fax 04 816 - 7352
ACC / Governance, Policy, and Research: 81 - 83 Molesworth Street
PO Box 242 / Wellington 6049 / New Zealand / http://www.acc.co.nz]]>
Request for information - Privacy and Official Information Acts

Under the provisions of the Privacy and Official Information Acts, I urgently request copies of all correspondence, emails, memorandums, reports and all other records exchanged between ACC (all sections/departments/branches etc) and former ACC Minister Nick Smith concerning any matters or issues in respect of my ACC Claim, including information which is related to ACC's XXXXX (whatever the other issues maybe)

In this request, please ensure that all information is also made available to me as outlined above, between ACC and the current Minister of ACC, Ms Judith Collins.

Please ensure that in providing me with this information, that all computer generated information is converted into hard copies and provided to me.

In addition to my requests, please advise me if any information has been withheld, blacked out and or deleted and the reasons that this has occurred.

Please can you acknowledge receipt of this request by return Email only.

When the information is available to me, please advise me of that by Email only and I will then issue you with instructions re delivery of the information etc.

Please take this Email dated XXXXX 2012 as my formal written request.

I look forward to receiving this information urgently.
Yours XXXXXX

Send any such requests to:

Gabby Boag, Team Manager Government Services, ACC

gabby.boag@acc.co.nz

Tel 04 816 - 7640 / xtn 47640 / Fax 04 816 - 7352
ACC / Governance, Policy, and Research: 81 - 83 Molesworth Street
PO Box 242 / Wellington 6049 / New Zealand / http://www.acc.co.nz]]> <![CDATA[How Internal Investigations Should Be Done]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=874 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:27:19 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=874
Five Common Mistakes in Internal Investigations
When investigating misconduct, watch out for these pitfalls.
September 1, 2009 by Tim Mohr and Nidhi Rao

It takes only one person to tarnish an organization’s reputation. Not only is the current turbulent economy affecting the corporate bottom line, but if past history is any indicator, businesses can anticipate it to lead to an increase in incidents of fraud. As a result of the SEC, regulators, stakeholders and the public paying closer attention to the way an organization functions, organizations and corporate directors need to be diligent when conducting internal investigations.

It is important that an organization have a mechanism in place to alert the company’s Board of Directors and management about incidents of suspected employee misconduct and the need to conduct an internal investigation.
To comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, many organizations have implemented a whistleblower hotline or an anonymous reporting mechanism; however, often the process implemented is ineffective in encouraging individuals to report instances of misconduct.
For example, one organization’s “anonymous” reporting process specifically stated that an individual could either write a confidential and detailed memo to the Audit Committee Chairman or leave an in-depth complaint message on his cell phone. This organization did not receive a single complaint since the mechanism was implemented.

An organization should evaluate its reporting method and confirm that it is designed effectively and communicated appropriately throughout the organization to promote its effective use. In addition, although not all complaints should be routed to the Board, the notification process for complaints received through hotlines should be structured so that the Board is aware of the number and types of complaints received and how these complaints were handled.

Once an issue has been identified and a decision has been made to conduct an internal investigation, the organization should make sure that it is managed appropriately and common pitfalls are avoided. An improperly managed investigation can lead investigators to calculate monetary loss inaccurately, fail to identify all the individuals involved in the perpetration of the scheme, inadvertently contaminate or destroy potential evidence, cause additional costs to be incurred due to violation of employee contracts and company policies and increase the possible reputational damage due to harsh public criticism from shareholders. In one such mismanaged internal investigation, an employee accused of misconduct was terminated before completion of the internal investigation and without being offered an opportunity to explain his actions as required by his employment contract.

As a result, in spite of the compelling evidence that this employee was negligent in his fiduciary duties and intended to use the company’s assets for his personal benefit, the company was held liable for breach of the employment contract, the ultimate findings against the employee were inadmissible in court and the company was required to pay severance costs to the individual.

An organization must be aware of—and make appropriate effort to avoid—certain potential missteps when conducting an internal investigation. The following are some of the most common mistakes made in internal investigations:

• improper selection of the investigative team
• inadequate triage of the potential evidence and target
• incorrect gathering, preservation and analysis of evidence
• limited scope of background checks
• inappropriately conducted interviews

The Board and Senior Management should establish policies and procedures to avoid these pitfalls when responding to allegations.
1. Improper Selection of the Investigative Team
After receiving a complaint, one of the first steps that an organization should take is to identify who is best suited to lead the investigation and who will be privy to the resulting information. During this process, one commonly overlooked factor is whether the investigative team is far enough removed from the situation to assure independence. The person(s) conducting the investigation should be qualified, properly trained in conducting investigations and independent of the allegations. When selecting the investigative team, the following should also be considered:

• The investigative team’s relationship with the suspect and/or the whistleblower. A long-standing or reporting relationship with either party can affect the objectivity of the team.
• The investigative team’s position within the organization. Are the individuals conducting the investigation “high” enough within the organization to obtain the required information?
• The role of the suspect’s supervisor in the investigative team. The suspect’s supervisor should not lead the investigation, as the supervisor may be too close to the allegation. Certain information uncovered during the investigation may indicate that the supervisor did not perform his/her duties completely and, therefore, failed to uncover the misconduct on a timely basis.

To ensure independence, the Board should also consider engaging external counsel, forensic accountants and other investigative consultants to conduct the internal investigation.

2. Inadequate Triage of the Potential Evidence and Target
Often, the target of the investigation is not isolated and restricted from accessing potential evidence on a timely basis. As a result, valuable information may be contaminated or lost due to the deletion or destruction of files. Triage of the situation should include placing the target on a leave of absence and restricting his/her access to the organization’s internal computer network and to its books and records during the course of the investigation. By doing so, the company will have protected the integrity of the potential evidence. As this is often a sensitive process, the organization should exercise caution and verify that these steps are taken in accordance with the company’s policies and procedures.

3. Incorrect Gathering, Preservation and Analysis of Evidence
Not surprisingly, some of the significant errors in an investigation occur during the collection and analysis of evidence. Prior to the commencement of the investigation, the investigative team should obtain and review the organization’s privacy policy to confirm that evidence collection is done in accordance with these policies. In addition, if all the documents and facts uncovered are not treated as if they will be subject to applicable rules of evidence, the evidence may be compromised and, therefore, inadmissible in future criminal or civil litigation.

Preservation Order
One of the first actions an organization should take is to determine which documents may be relevant during the investigation. Depending on the scope of the investigation, an organization may need to issue a document preservation order. If an organization neglects to issue a preservation order in a timely manner, a possibility exists that pertinent information and evidence may be destroyed.

Collection of Evidence
A crucial component of evidence gathering is ensuring that the chain of custody is documented. This documentation should include a description of how the information was obtained, when it was collected, who has handled it, where and how it was transported, and where it is stored and maintained. Improper documentation of the chain of custody during the collection process may result in information becoming inadmissible in court.

The individuals responsible for collecting electronic evidence should be aware of the following:
• Hard Drive Image: There are two ways an image of a hard drive can be created—a ghost image and a forensic image. A ghost image creates an exact copy of all files on the hard drive of the computer, excluding the free space. A forensic image, on the other hand, is an exact copy of the hard drive, including the free space. Deleted files, which sometimes can be retrieved using specialized tools and programs, are located in the free space of a hard drive. These files may hold valuable information that can assist in the investigation and may be missed if only a ghost image is obtained.
• Copying of Files: When copying selected files from a target’s hard drive, a common mistake can be to “click and drag” the files to another location. The use of this technique causes the metadata of the copied files to be altered. Metadata maintains and identifies the administrative properties of a file, such as the name of the person who created the file, creation and modification dates, number of revisions made to the file, and the most recent access date for the file. This is especially important because courts may deem evidence where the metadata was changed as inadmissible.
• Comprehensive Collection of Evidence: During the collection phase, some of the possible places from which electronic evidence can be gathered may inadvertently be overlooked. When retrieving electronic data, often only e-mail and documents from the hard drive of the target are collected. In reality, there are many other places where relevant data can be stored, such as flash drives, PDAs, backup files on network drives and servers, additional servers or other computers previously used by the target.

Analysis of Evidence Collected
A common mistake committed by investigators when conducting document review is the use of only a Windows search tool on the files of the target. This tool will not allow searches to be conducted on scanned PDF images and password-protected files. A scanned PDF is merely an image of a document. This file must undergo a process called Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for the file content to be searchable. The use of various computer forensic tools that can facilitate the review of evidence collected should also be considered.

Another common flaw when performing a document review is having an overly narrow focus when developing search terms or search parameters. For example, in one investigation which called for an e-mail review to identify collusion between two employees, the search was limited to e-mail communication between the two targeted employees. This search did not yield any results. After discussions with experienced investigators, the e-mail search was expanded to include all e-mail communication from the targets. This approach identified email that was sent by one of the targets to a third party and then routed from the third party to the second target. As a result of the expanded search, the company was able to prove the collusion between the two employees.

4. Limited Background Checks
Although a background check is often conducted on an alleged perpetrator, investigators often do not inquire about or know the exact parameters of the search. Inexperienced investigators may also limit a background check to an Internet search or to a compilation of raw data obtained from a search engine. A limited search may result in missing pertinent information about the target’s lifestyle or his/her criminal and civil litigation history and can be detrimental to the investigation.

An important consideration is whether a criminal background check is conducted on a local, state or federal level, as well as what specific jurisdictions are included in the search. A background check for civil court records should also be considered because these records can yield information about the criminal conduct of an individual. Criminal proceedings may not always be filed, and an individual who commits a criminal act may only be named as a party in a related civil suit.
In most cases, a background check requires the investigator to review large quantities of data obtained from various public records. This information should be analyzed in the context of the facts surrounding the fraud allegations being investigated so that the investigation stays focused on the allegations at hand.

5. Inappropriately Conducted Interviews
Interviews are one of the most valuable sources of information during an investigation, and interviewers must be experienced and skilled in eliciting information. Inexperienced investigators may act in a combative or unknowledgeable manner that ultimately may undermine the purpose of the interview.
At times, the target of the investigation is interviewed too early in the process. To the extent possible, the investigators should review applicable evidence and interview individuals who may have knowledge related to the allegation prior to interviewing the suspect. This will assist the investigators in asking pertinent questions when they interview the subject and allow them to refer to relevant and potentially incriminating documents during the interview.

It is recommended that two investigators be present during an interview so that one can act as a witness and be responsible for documenting the findings from the interview. The investigative team should also ensure that interview notes are documented in writing, are sufficiently detailed and capture the relevant content of the conversation.
In an era of increasing scrutiny of alleged corporate and employee misconduct, Directors should be aware of potential pitfalls when conducting an internal investigation. The investigative team should make certain that care is taken to avoid these missteps and develop a comprehensive and organized approach to the investigation.

To ensure that allegations are addressed appropriately and in a timely manner, the Board should develop an investigative policy and have a process in place to shorten the response time to a complaint and to mitigate problems encountered during the investigative process.

Tim Mohr is a principal in the New York office of BDO Consulting. He can be contacted at tmohr@bdo.com. Nidhi Rao is a director in the New York office of BDO Consulting. She can be contacted at nrao@bdo.com.

IMHO- ACC Internal Investigations fall well short of legal guidelines, whoever if you do not put in a complaint, then it never happened...

so keep writing folks!!!

keep sending those complaints in....

policy is NOT legislation

the law is the law...]]>
Five Common Mistakes in Internal Investigations
When investigating misconduct, watch out for these pitfalls.
September 1, 2009 by Tim Mohr and Nidhi Rao

It takes only one person to tarnish an organization’s reputation. Not only is the current turbulent economy affecting the corporate bottom line, but if past history is any indicator, businesses can anticipate it to lead to an increase in incidents of fraud. As a result of the SEC, regulators, stakeholders and the public paying closer attention to the way an organization functions, organizations and corporate directors need to be diligent when conducting internal investigations.

It is important that an organization have a mechanism in place to alert the company’s Board of Directors and management about incidents of suspected employee misconduct and the need to conduct an internal investigation.
To comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, many organizations have implemented a whistleblower hotline or an anonymous reporting mechanism; however, often the process implemented is ineffective in encouraging individuals to report instances of misconduct.
For example, one organization’s “anonymous” reporting process specifically stated that an individual could either write a confidential and detailed memo to the Audit Committee Chairman or leave an in-depth complaint message on his cell phone. This organization did not receive a single complaint since the mechanism was implemented.

An organization should evaluate its reporting method and confirm that it is designed effectively and communicated appropriately throughout the organization to promote its effective use. In addition, although not all complaints should be routed to the Board, the notification process for complaints received through hotlines should be structured so that the Board is aware of the number and types of complaints received and how these complaints were handled.

Once an issue has been identified and a decision has been made to conduct an internal investigation, the organization should make sure that it is managed appropriately and common pitfalls are avoided. An improperly managed investigation can lead investigators to calculate monetary loss inaccurately, fail to identify all the individuals involved in the perpetration of the scheme, inadvertently contaminate or destroy potential evidence, cause additional costs to be incurred due to violation of employee contracts and company policies and increase the possible reputational damage due to harsh public criticism from shareholders. In one such mismanaged internal investigation, an employee accused of misconduct was terminated before completion of the internal investigation and without being offered an opportunity to explain his actions as required by his employment contract.

As a result, in spite of the compelling evidence that this employee was negligent in his fiduciary duties and intended to use the company’s assets for his personal benefit, the company was held liable for breach of the employment contract, the ultimate findings against the employee were inadmissible in court and the company was required to pay severance costs to the individual.

An organization must be aware of—and make appropriate effort to avoid—certain potential missteps when conducting an internal investigation. The following are some of the most common mistakes made in internal investigations:

• improper selection of the investigative team
• inadequate triage of the potential evidence and target
• incorrect gathering, preservation and analysis of evidence
• limited scope of background checks
• inappropriately conducted interviews

The Board and Senior Management should establish policies and procedures to avoid these pitfalls when responding to allegations.
1. Improper Selection of the Investigative Team
After receiving a complaint, one of the first steps that an organization should take is to identify who is best suited to lead the investigation and who will be privy to the resulting information. During this process, one commonly overlooked factor is whether the investigative team is far enough removed from the situation to assure independence. The person(s) conducting the investigation should be qualified, properly trained in conducting investigations and independent of the allegations. When selecting the investigative team, the following should also be considered:

• The investigative team’s relationship with the suspect and/or the whistleblower. A long-standing or reporting relationship with either party can affect the objectivity of the team.
• The investigative team’s position within the organization. Are the individuals conducting the investigation “high” enough within the organization to obtain the required information?
• The role of the suspect’s supervisor in the investigative team. The suspect’s supervisor should not lead the investigation, as the supervisor may be too close to the allegation. Certain information uncovered during the investigation may indicate that the supervisor did not perform his/her duties completely and, therefore, failed to uncover the misconduct on a timely basis.

To ensure independence, the Board should also consider engaging external counsel, forensic accountants and other investigative consultants to conduct the internal investigation.

2. Inadequate Triage of the Potential Evidence and Target
Often, the target of the investigation is not isolated and restricted from accessing potential evidence on a timely basis. As a result, valuable information may be contaminated or lost due to the deletion or destruction of files. Triage of the situation should include placing the target on a leave of absence and restricting his/her access to the organization’s internal computer network and to its books and records during the course of the investigation. By doing so, the company will have protected the integrity of the potential evidence. As this is often a sensitive process, the organization should exercise caution and verify that these steps are taken in accordance with the company’s policies and procedures.

3. Incorrect Gathering, Preservation and Analysis of Evidence
Not surprisingly, some of the significant errors in an investigation occur during the collection and analysis of evidence. Prior to the commencement of the investigation, the investigative team should obtain and review the organization’s privacy policy to confirm that evidence collection is done in accordance with these policies. In addition, if all the documents and facts uncovered are not treated as if they will be subject to applicable rules of evidence, the evidence may be compromised and, therefore, inadmissible in future criminal or civil litigation.

Preservation Order
One of the first actions an organization should take is to determine which documents may be relevant during the investigation. Depending on the scope of the investigation, an organization may need to issue a document preservation order. If an organization neglects to issue a preservation order in a timely manner, a possibility exists that pertinent information and evidence may be destroyed.

Collection of Evidence
A crucial component of evidence gathering is ensuring that the chain of custody is documented. This documentation should include a description of how the information was obtained, when it was collected, who has handled it, where and how it was transported, and where it is stored and maintained. Improper documentation of the chain of custody during the collection process may result in information becoming inadmissible in court.

The individuals responsible for collecting electronic evidence should be aware of the following:
• Hard Drive Image: There are two ways an image of a hard drive can be created—a ghost image and a forensic image. A ghost image creates an exact copy of all files on the hard drive of the computer, excluding the free space. A forensic image, on the other hand, is an exact copy of the hard drive, including the free space. Deleted files, which sometimes can be retrieved using specialized tools and programs, are located in the free space of a hard drive. These files may hold valuable information that can assist in the investigation and may be missed if only a ghost image is obtained.
• Copying of Files: When copying selected files from a target’s hard drive, a common mistake can be to “click and drag” the files to another location. The use of this technique causes the metadata of the copied files to be altered. Metadata maintains and identifies the administrative properties of a file, such as the name of the person who created the file, creation and modification dates, number of revisions made to the file, and the most recent access date for the file. This is especially important because courts may deem evidence where the metadata was changed as inadmissible.
• Comprehensive Collection of Evidence: During the collection phase, some of the possible places from which electronic evidence can be gathered may inadvertently be overlooked. When retrieving electronic data, often only e-mail and documents from the hard drive of the target are collected. In reality, there are many other places where relevant data can be stored, such as flash drives, PDAs, backup files on network drives and servers, additional servers or other computers previously used by the target.

Analysis of Evidence Collected
A common mistake committed by investigators when conducting document review is the use of only a Windows search tool on the files of the target. This tool will not allow searches to be conducted on scanned PDF images and password-protected files. A scanned PDF is merely an image of a document. This file must undergo a process called Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for the file content to be searchable. The use of various computer forensic tools that can facilitate the review of evidence collected should also be considered.

Another common flaw when performing a document review is having an overly narrow focus when developing search terms or search parameters. For example, in one investigation which called for an e-mail review to identify collusion between two employees, the search was limited to e-mail communication between the two targeted employees. This search did not yield any results. After discussions with experienced investigators, the e-mail search was expanded to include all e-mail communication from the targets. This approach identified email that was sent by one of the targets to a third party and then routed from the third party to the second target. As a result of the expanded search, the company was able to prove the collusion between the two employees.

4. Limited Background Checks
Although a background check is often conducted on an alleged perpetrator, investigators often do not inquire about or know the exact parameters of the search. Inexperienced investigators may also limit a background check to an Internet search or to a compilation of raw data obtained from a search engine. A limited search may result in missing pertinent information about the target’s lifestyle or his/her criminal and civil litigation history and can be detrimental to the investigation.

An important consideration is whether a criminal background check is conducted on a local, state or federal level, as well as what specific jurisdictions are included in the search. A background check for civil court records should also be considered because these records can yield information about the criminal conduct of an individual. Criminal proceedings may not always be filed, and an individual who commits a criminal act may only be named as a party in a related civil suit.
In most cases, a background check requires the investigator to review large quantities of data obtained from various public records. This information should be analyzed in the context of the facts surrounding the fraud allegations being investigated so that the investigation stays focused on the allegations at hand.

5. Inappropriately Conducted Interviews
Interviews are one of the most valuable sources of information during an investigation, and interviewers must be experienced and skilled in eliciting information. Inexperienced investigators may act in a combative or unknowledgeable manner that ultimately may undermine the purpose of the interview.
At times, the target of the investigation is interviewed too early in the process. To the extent possible, the investigators should review applicable evidence and interview individuals who may have knowledge related to the allegation prior to interviewing the suspect. This will assist the investigators in asking pertinent questions when they interview the subject and allow them to refer to relevant and potentially incriminating documents during the interview.

It is recommended that two investigators be present during an interview so that one can act as a witness and be responsible for documenting the findings from the interview. The investigative team should also ensure that interview notes are documented in writing, are sufficiently detailed and capture the relevant content of the conversation.
In an era of increasing scrutiny of alleged corporate and employee misconduct, Directors should be aware of potential pitfalls when conducting an internal investigation. The investigative team should make certain that care is taken to avoid these missteps and develop a comprehensive and organized approach to the investigation.

To ensure that allegations are addressed appropriately and in a timely manner, the Board should develop an investigative policy and have a process in place to shorten the response time to a complaint and to mitigate problems encountered during the investigative process.

Tim Mohr is a principal in the New York office of BDO Consulting. He can be contacted at tmohr@bdo.com. Nidhi Rao is a director in the New York office of BDO Consulting. She can be contacted at nrao@bdo.com.

IMHO- ACC Internal Investigations fall well short of legal guidelines, whoever if you do not put in a complaint, then it never happened...

so keep writing folks!!!

keep sending those complaints in....

policy is NOT legislation

the law is the law...]]> <![CDATA[health & Disability Complaint Format, Acc Assesors]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=873 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:28:19 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=873
where... the meeting took place

why... you were sent there/they were sent to you

what... happened to you on that day,

how... you want the matter resolved.
0]]>
where... the meeting took place

why... you were sent there/they were sent to you

what... happened to you on that day,

how... you want the matter resolved.
0]]> <![CDATA[It Sweep File Request]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=872 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:24:59 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=872 Your addy
Your phone number
Your acc number

Request for Information – Official Information and Privacy Acts
PART A

• Request for Updated ‘IT’ Sweep.

1. Under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC undertake and complete an 'IT' Sweep of all communications between ACC and all parties whether internal or external, that ACC stores on all of my claims, or names, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise.

a) To reiterate, this request is irrespective of the type of injury, or non-injury or otherwise, whether the communication is injury related, non-injury related or otherwise, or the type/nature of the communication.

Please ensure that the ‘IT’ Sweep is conducted and completed with every possible variation/s of my name and the names that I have previously been known by, which ACC is aware of and is documented on my claim files.

c) There are no formal previous requests for an ‘IT’ Sweep. There have been other requests under the Privacy Act and Official information act for Claim File Download

d) Through this further and new request made today, please provide any additional information that was not included in my previous requests. I would ask that any additional information not previously supplied to me, be in the same manner as outlined in this letter – without exception.

2. In requesting that an 'IT' Sweep be completed, I specifically require the following information also be provided to me through the 'IT' Sweep:-
3.
e) That the 'IT' Sweep be undertaken and completed for the period from approximately ????? insert date here and as above, to a date that is within the time frame for ACC to action requests for information under the IOA and Privacy Acts. I would estimate that this ‘IT’ Sweep request be conducted/completed up to, or approximate to, the date of ???? insert date here

f) Please confirm with me the formal ‘end date’ of this ‘IT’ Sweep request as soon as possible and prior to completion/delivery to me.

4. In addition, I also request that ACC undertakes and completes the 'IT' Sweep (as above), whether internal or external (as above) that ACC stores in the following areas also:-

i. All physical claims.
ii. ACC Complaints Office.
iii. Office of the ACC Complaints Investigation Unit and ACC Complaints Line/Office/Call Centre.
iv. ACC Head Office, Office of the ACC CEO, ACC Corporate Services, ACC Clinical Directorate, and any other such section/unit/branch of ACC as identified in the opening paragraph of this letter.
v. ACC Debt Management Unit.
vi. ACC Intelligence and Support Services.
vii. ACC Contracted Third Party Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
viii. Non-ACC (Contracted) Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
ix. Sensitive Claim requests-whatever your issue is

g) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful reason that this has been done, and;

PART B

• ACC Employee and External Access to Claimant files, information etc.

5. In addition to PART A above, under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC also provides me with full details of the following from march 2002 up to an inclusive of this request being completed – estimated to be approximate to the date of ???? insert date here

h) Information as to who has specifically accessed my file/s for any reason/s, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise. Name, date and title details required of each person who has accessed my files, whether this be (ACC) internally or externally.

i) Please specify exactly for what purpose inclusive of any legislative requirements, any aspect of any part of my claim files (ACC) internally or externally – injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, has been accessed. Names, date and title details required of each person who has accessed any aspect of my files, with the purpose/s being specified precisely for each and every occasion that this has occurred and why this has occurred.

j) Please provide information, reasons, and purposes as specified, detailed, outlined and in the same manner as discussed in PART A, No.3 (i–x) of this letter and PART B.

k) Please provide me with information, and copies of, the authority that exists or existed for any aspect of any part of my claim files, injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, that were forwarded onto any other persons – (ACC) internally or externally, for what reason/s, purpose and under which legislative edict or otherwise, this was done. Names, date/s and title details required also.

l) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful and legal reason that this has been done, and why.

Please advise me by Email only when all information/documentation is available to me, at which time I will provide ACC with a physical address to courier the documents to me.

Please take this letter by Email/Attachment – PDF file, forwarded to you as the Case Manager of ACC, dated ????? as my formal written request to receive this information under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts.

If you wish to clarify any matters with me, please contact me by Email only and finally, I request that you acknowledge by return Email also, receipt of my formal written requests as outlined in this letter to you.

Thank you.

Your name here…………
0]]> Your addy
Your phone number
Your acc number

Request for Information – Official Information and Privacy Acts
PART A

• Request for Updated ‘IT’ Sweep.

1. Under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC undertake and complete an 'IT' Sweep of all communications between ACC and all parties whether internal or external, that ACC stores on all of my claims, or names, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise.

a) To reiterate, this request is irrespective of the type of injury, or non-injury or otherwise, whether the communication is injury related, non-injury related or otherwise, or the type/nature of the communication.

Please ensure that the ‘IT’ Sweep is conducted and completed with every possible variation/s of my name and the names that I have previously been known by, which ACC is aware of and is documented on my claim files.

c) There are no formal previous requests for an ‘IT’ Sweep. There have been other requests under the Privacy Act and Official information act for Claim File Download

d) Through this further and new request made today, please provide any additional information that was not included in my previous requests. I would ask that any additional information not previously supplied to me, be in the same manner as outlined in this letter – without exception.

2. In requesting that an 'IT' Sweep be completed, I specifically require the following information also be provided to me through the 'IT' Sweep:-
3.
e) That the 'IT' Sweep be undertaken and completed for the period from approximately ????? insert date here and as above, to a date that is within the time frame for ACC to action requests for information under the IOA and Privacy Acts. I would estimate that this ‘IT’ Sweep request be conducted/completed up to, or approximate to, the date of ???? insert date here

f) Please confirm with me the formal ‘end date’ of this ‘IT’ Sweep request as soon as possible and prior to completion/delivery to me.

4. In addition, I also request that ACC undertakes and completes the 'IT' Sweep (as above), whether internal or external (as above) that ACC stores in the following areas also:-

i. All physical claims.
ii. ACC Complaints Office.
iii. Office of the ACC Complaints Investigation Unit and ACC Complaints Line/Office/Call Centre.
iv. ACC Head Office, Office of the ACC CEO, ACC Corporate Services, ACC Clinical Directorate, and any other such section/unit/branch of ACC as identified in the opening paragraph of this letter.
v. ACC Debt Management Unit.
vi. ACC Intelligence and Support Services.
vii. ACC Contracted Third Party Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
viii. Non-ACC (Contracted) Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
ix. Sensitive Claim requests-whatever your issue is

g) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful reason that this has been done, and;

PART B

• ACC Employee and External Access to Claimant files, information etc.

5. In addition to PART A above, under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC also provides me with full details of the following from march 2002 up to an inclusive of this request being completed – estimated to be approximate to the date of ???? insert date here

h) Information as to who has specifically accessed my file/s for any reason/s, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise. Name, date and title details required of each person who has accessed my files, whether this be (ACC) internally or externally.

i) Please specify exactly for what purpose inclusive of any legislative requirements, any aspect of any part of my claim files (ACC) internally or externally – injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, has been accessed. Names, date and title details required of each person who has accessed any aspect of my files, with the purpose/s being specified precisely for each and every occasion that this has occurred and why this has occurred.

j) Please provide information, reasons, and purposes as specified, detailed, outlined and in the same manner as discussed in PART A, No.3 (i–x) of this letter and PART B.

k) Please provide me with information, and copies of, the authority that exists or existed for any aspect of any part of my claim files, injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, that were forwarded onto any other persons – (ACC) internally or externally, for what reason/s, purpose and under which legislative edict or otherwise, this was done. Names, date/s and title details required also.

l) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful and legal reason that this has been done, and why.

Please advise me by Email only when all information/documentation is available to me, at which time I will provide ACC with a physical address to courier the documents to me.

Please take this letter by Email/Attachment – PDF file, forwarded to you as the Case Manager of ACC, dated ????? as my formal written request to receive this information under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts.

If you wish to clarify any matters with me, please contact me by Email only and finally, I request that you acknowledge by return Email also, receipt of my formal written requests as outlined in this letter to you.

Thank you.

Your name here…………
0]]> <![CDATA[Advanced Medical Directive]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=871 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:19:45 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=871
address
suburb
city
zip code

Re: Hospital Number ***
Dob ***
Former married name: *** (or any other name you may be known by)

Dear Hospital Staff

ADVANCED DIRECTIVE…

The only health professionals that can have legal access to my Personal Health Information are

My General Practitioner: Dr ***

My Neurosurgeons: A: Mr *****, -and which city he is based

B: Mr ***** - and which city he is based

My pain Specialist Dr ***** – and which city he is based
and whatever other doctors you are under who treat you

Under no circumstances can ACC or any ACC representative have access to my Medical Records.

Under no circumstances can Dr *** (of the local ACC branch) have access to my Medical records.

This directive has been driven by continued Privacy Breaches within my ACC Claim File, which is under Investigation by the Privacy Commissioner.

I do not given permission for any “3rd party Doctor”, definition as defined by the Medical Council of New Zealand, access to my health information.

Any “Treating Physician,” as defined by the Medical Council of New Zealand, who is in the process of attending to my needs In an Emergency situation, can have access to my personal health information.

The legal reported diagnosis of my *** whatever your injury is:

write the date of your full diagnosis here

write you legal diagnosis here
copy the exact words from your speciialist
copy the exact wording from your scan/ mRI/Ultrasound

Diagnosed by Drs ** & ** & **
whichever doctors have written your legal, full reports

I thank you for your cooperation in protecting my health information under the:
Health and Disability Consumer Code of Rights.

Yours sincerely,

NTV]]>
address
suburb
city
zip code

Re: Hospital Number ***
Dob ***
Former married name: *** (or any other name you may be known by)

Dear Hospital Staff

ADVANCED DIRECTIVE…

The only health professionals that can have legal access to my Personal Health Information are

My General Practitioner: Dr ***

My Neurosurgeons: A: Mr *****, -and which city he is based

B: Mr ***** - and which city he is based

My pain Specialist Dr ***** – and which city he is based
and whatever other doctors you are under who treat you

Under no circumstances can ACC or any ACC representative have access to my Medical Records.

Under no circumstances can Dr *** (of the local ACC branch) have access to my Medical records.

This directive has been driven by continued Privacy Breaches within my ACC Claim File, which is under Investigation by the Privacy Commissioner.

I do not given permission for any “3rd party Doctor”, definition as defined by the Medical Council of New Zealand, access to my health information.

Any “Treating Physician,” as defined by the Medical Council of New Zealand, who is in the process of attending to my needs In an Emergency situation, can have access to my personal health information.

The legal reported diagnosis of my *** whatever your injury is:

write the date of your full diagnosis here

write you legal diagnosis here
copy the exact words from your speciialist
copy the exact wording from your scan/ mRI/Ultrasound

Diagnosed by Drs ** & ** & **
whichever doctors have written your legal, full reports

I thank you for your cooperation in protecting my health information under the:
Health and Disability Consumer Code of Rights.

Yours sincerely,

NTV]]> <![CDATA[Time to Make a Difference-the Time Is Now]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=870 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:15:06 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=870
6 complaints to the Health and Disability Commissioner,about Doctors writing false reports-under investigation

2 complaints to the Medical Council as to why the doctors reported continue to practise illegally, and outside of Scope of Practise

2 complaints to the Ombudsaman as this agency is supposed to hold acc accountable for upholding the LAW

4 complaints to the DRSL about the illegality of unqualified reviewers failing to uphold the Law of Natural Justice in NZ

1 Complaint to the law Commission as to why the illegality and need for Lawyers to interfere with the Social Contract

1 Complaint to the regional "return to independence service" manager who failed to sack case managers committing crime

1 complaint to the District Court, as to why they have not acknowledged correspondence

12 complaints to the privacy Commissioner as to the illegality of my claim, and misinformation through my file, that acc refuse to correct

2 complaints to the Office of the Auditor general, as I already am able to identify the illegality of the exit process based on policy, not legislation

1 complaint to the Serious Fraud Office,as to why Government Ministers have made no attempt to resolve this situation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

please bear with me, as you can see, I have been working my Butt off, over a substantial length of time, to overturn the crimes that have been committed by acc, especially in regard to my own case, but i have also quoted figures re other scenario.ie: Aon Catalyst etc...

14 separate letters have also gone to all the Government ministers, and so far 2 personal responses:

one from Minister Collins, who states State Servants cannot break the law and she will instigate a Labour Department Enquiry!

instead, at this point she is overseas, and instigating her own defamation of character charge against Andrew Little and Trevor mallard

the second response has been from Green Party Leader Kevin Hague, who responded to a "receipt request" while currently on vacation with his family.

My letters are intelligent, succinct, have evidence and proof attached to them...
these letter have taken hours of no sleep, screaming pain, blinding headaches, and misfunctioning hands (thank God for spell-check)

In amongst these, I have also baffled my case managers and branch manager with legislation and they have the privilege of a legal team on tap...I dont

so, despite all my own hard work...nothing will change unless each and every one of us:

pulls down the templates,
(45 point list, advanced directive, it sweep file, HDC, Privacy Commissioner)-all in forms and letters.
writes to all the agencies,
cc these to all the ministers,
so that rightful lawful legal entitlement, reimbursement and compensation for inhumane suffering at the hands of bureaucracy is given legal redress.

feel free to send these templates to anyone you know, whose injuries can be proven by any specialist who reads them...
lets keep it legal
lets make a change
and
lets get acc back to the Social Contract it is meant to be

Love peace and blessings

NTV

Wink

]]>
6 complaints to the Health and Disability Commissioner,about Doctors writing false reports-under investigation

2 complaints to the Medical Council as to why the doctors reported continue to practise illegally, and outside of Scope of Practise

2 complaints to the Ombudsaman as this agency is supposed to hold acc accountable for upholding the LAW

4 complaints to the DRSL about the illegality of unqualified reviewers failing to uphold the Law of Natural Justice in NZ

1 Complaint to the law Commission as to why the illegality and need for Lawyers to interfere with the Social Contract

1 Complaint to the regional "return to independence service" manager who failed to sack case managers committing crime

1 complaint to the District Court, as to why they have not acknowledged correspondence

12 complaints to the privacy Commissioner as to the illegality of my claim, and misinformation through my file, that acc refuse to correct

2 complaints to the Office of the Auditor general, as I already am able to identify the illegality of the exit process based on policy, not legislation

1 complaint to the Serious Fraud Office,as to why Government Ministers have made no attempt to resolve this situation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

please bear with me, as you can see, I have been working my Butt off, over a substantial length of time, to overturn the crimes that have been committed by acc, especially in regard to my own case, but i have also quoted figures re other scenario.ie: Aon Catalyst etc...

14 separate letters have also gone to all the Government ministers, and so far 2 personal responses:

one from Minister Collins, who states State Servants cannot break the law and she will instigate a Labour Department Enquiry!

instead, at this point she is overseas, and instigating her own defamation of character charge against Andrew Little and Trevor mallard

the second response has been from Green Party Leader Kevin Hague, who responded to a "receipt request" while currently on vacation with his family.

My letters are intelligent, succinct, have evidence and proof attached to them...
these letter have taken hours of no sleep, screaming pain, blinding headaches, and misfunctioning hands (thank God for spell-check)

In amongst these, I have also baffled my case managers and branch manager with legislation and they have the privilege of a legal team on tap...I dont

so, despite all my own hard work...nothing will change unless each and every one of us:

pulls down the templates,
(45 point list, advanced directive, it sweep file, HDC, Privacy Commissioner)-all in forms and letters.
writes to all the agencies,
cc these to all the ministers,
so that rightful lawful legal entitlement, reimbursement and compensation for inhumane suffering at the hands of bureaucracy is given legal redress.

feel free to send these templates to anyone you know, whose injuries can be proven by any specialist who reads them...
lets keep it legal
lets make a change
and
lets get acc back to the Social Contract it is meant to be

Love peace and blessings

NTV

Wink

]]> <![CDATA[Time to Make a Change]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=869 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:51:17 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=869
6 complaints to the Health and Disability Commissioner,about Doctors writing false reports-under investigation

2 complaints to the Medical Council as to why the doctors reported continue to practise illegally, and outside of Scope of Practise

2 complaints to the Ombudsaman as this agency is supposed to hold acc accountable for upholding the LAW

4 complaints to the DRSL about the illegality of unqualified reviewers failing to uphold the Law of Natural Justice in NZ

1 Complaint to the law Commission as to why the illegality and need for Lawyers to interfere with the Social Contract

1 Complaint to the regional "return to independence service" manager who failed to sack case managers committing crime

1 complaint to the District Court, as to why they have not acknowledged correspondence

12 complaints to the privacy Commissioner as to the illegality of my claim, and misinformation through my file, that acc refuse to correct

2 complaints to the Office of the Auditor general, as I already am able to identify the illegality of the exit process based on policy, not legislation

1 complaint to the Serious Fraud Office,as to why Government Ministers have made no attempt to resolve this situation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

please bear with me, as you can see, I have been working my Butt off, over a substantial length of time, to overturn the crimes that have been committed by acc, especially in regard to my own case, but i have also quoted figures re other scenario.ie: Aon Catalyst etc...

14 separate letters have also gone to all the Government Ministers, and so far 2 personal responses:

one from Minister Collins, who states State Servants cannot break the law and she will instigate a Labour Department Enquiry!

instead, at this point she is overseas, and instigating her own defamation of character charge against Andrew Little and Trevor mallard

the second response has been from Green Party Leader Kevin Hague, who responded to a "receipt request" while currently on vacation with his family.

My letters are intelligent, succinct, have evidence and proof attached to them...
these letter have taken hours of no sleep, screaming pain, blinding headaches, and misfunctioning hands (thank God for spell-check)

In amongst these, I have also baffled my case managers and branch manager with legislation and they have the privilege of a legal team on tap...I dont

so, despite all my own hard work...nothing will change unless each and every one of us:

pulls down the templates,
(45 point list, advanced directive, it sweep file, HDC, Privacy Commissioner)-all in forms and letters.
writes to all the agencies,
cc these to all the ministers,
so that rightful lawful legal entitlement, reimbursement and compensation for inhumane suffering at the hands of bureaucracy is given legal redress.

feel free to send these templates to anyone you know, whose injuries can be proven by any specialist who reads them...
lets keep it legal
lets make a change
and
lets get acc back to the Social Contract it is meant to be

Love peace and blessings

NTV
Smile

]]>
6 complaints to the Health and Disability Commissioner,about Doctors writing false reports-under investigation

2 complaints to the Medical Council as to why the doctors reported continue to practise illegally, and outside of Scope of Practise

2 complaints to the Ombudsaman as this agency is supposed to hold acc accountable for upholding the LAW

4 complaints to the DRSL about the illegality of unqualified reviewers failing to uphold the Law of Natural Justice in NZ

1 Complaint to the law Commission as to why the illegality and need for Lawyers to interfere with the Social Contract

1 Complaint to the regional "return to independence service" manager who failed to sack case managers committing crime

1 complaint to the District Court, as to why they have not acknowledged correspondence

12 complaints to the privacy Commissioner as to the illegality of my claim, and misinformation through my file, that acc refuse to correct

2 complaints to the Office of the Auditor general, as I already am able to identify the illegality of the exit process based on policy, not legislation

1 complaint to the Serious Fraud Office,as to why Government Ministers have made no attempt to resolve this situation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

please bear with me, as you can see, I have been working my Butt off, over a substantial length of time, to overturn the crimes that have been committed by acc, especially in regard to my own case, but i have also quoted figures re other scenario.ie: Aon Catalyst etc...

14 separate letters have also gone to all the Government Ministers, and so far 2 personal responses:

one from Minister Collins, who states State Servants cannot break the law and she will instigate a Labour Department Enquiry!

instead, at this point she is overseas, and instigating her own defamation of character charge against Andrew Little and Trevor mallard

the second response has been from Green Party Leader Kevin Hague, who responded to a "receipt request" while currently on vacation with his family.

My letters are intelligent, succinct, have evidence and proof attached to them...
these letter have taken hours of no sleep, screaming pain, blinding headaches, and misfunctioning hands (thank God for spell-check)

In amongst these, I have also baffled my case managers and branch manager with legislation and they have the privilege of a legal team on tap...I dont

so, despite all my own hard work...nothing will change unless each and every one of us:

pulls down the templates,
(45 point list, advanced directive, it sweep file, HDC, Privacy Commissioner)-all in forms and letters.
writes to all the agencies,
cc these to all the ministers,
so that rightful lawful legal entitlement, reimbursement and compensation for inhumane suffering at the hands of bureaucracy is given legal redress.

feel free to send these templates to anyone you know, whose injuries can be proven by any specialist who reads them...
lets keep it legal
lets make a change
and
lets get acc back to the Social Contract it is meant to be

Love peace and blessings

NTV
Smile

]]> <![CDATA[ADVANCED DIRECTIVE]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=868 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:18:46 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=868
address
suburb
city
zip code

Re: Hospital Number ***
Dob ***
Former married name: *** (or any other name you may be known by)

Dear Hospital Staff

ADVANCED DIRECTIVE…

The only health professionals that can have legal access to my Personal Health Information are

My General Practitioner: Dr ***

My Neurosurgeons: A: Mr *****, -and which city he is based

B: Mr ***** - and which city he is based

My pain Specialist Dr ***** – and which city he is based
and whatever other doctors you are under who treat you

Under no circumstances can ACC or any ACC representative have access to my Medical Records.

Under no circumstances can Dr *** (of the local ACC branch) have access to my Medical records.

This directive has been driven by continued Privacy Breaches within my ACC Claim File, which is under Investigation by the Privacy Commissioner.

I do not given permission for any “3rd party Doctor”, definition as defined by the Medical Council of New Zealand, access to my health information.

Any “Treating Physician,” as defined by the Medical Council of New Zealand, who is in the process of attending to my needs In an Emergency situation, can have access to my personal health information.

The legal reported diagnosis of my *** whatever your injury is:

write the date of your full diagnosis here

write you legal diagnosis here
copy the exact words from your speciialist
copy the exact wording from your scan/ mRI/Ultrasound

Diagnosed by Drs ** & ** & **
whichever doctors have written your legal, full reports

I thank you for your cooperation in protecting my health information under the:
Health and Disability Consumer Code of Rights.

Yours sincerely,

NTV]]>
address
suburb
city
zip code

Re: Hospital Number ***
Dob ***
Former married name: *** (or any other name you may be known by)

Dear Hospital Staff

ADVANCED DIRECTIVE…

The only health professionals that can have legal access to my Personal Health Information are

My General Practitioner: Dr ***

My Neurosurgeons: A: Mr *****, -and which city he is based

B: Mr ***** - and which city he is based

My pain Specialist Dr ***** – and which city he is based
and whatever other doctors you are under who treat you

Under no circumstances can ACC or any ACC representative have access to my Medical Records.

Under no circumstances can Dr *** (of the local ACC branch) have access to my Medical records.

This directive has been driven by continued Privacy Breaches within my ACC Claim File, which is under Investigation by the Privacy Commissioner.

I do not given permission for any “3rd party Doctor”, definition as defined by the Medical Council of New Zealand, access to my health information.

Any “Treating Physician,” as defined by the Medical Council of New Zealand, who is in the process of attending to my needs In an Emergency situation, can have access to my personal health information.

The legal reported diagnosis of my *** whatever your injury is:

write the date of your full diagnosis here

write you legal diagnosis here
copy the exact words from your speciialist
copy the exact wording from your scan/ mRI/Ultrasound

Diagnosed by Drs ** & ** & **
whichever doctors have written your legal, full reports

I thank you for your cooperation in protecting my health information under the:
Health and Disability Consumer Code of Rights.

Yours sincerely,

NTV]]> <![CDATA[DRAFT OF PETITION TO GOVERNMENT]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=867 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:50:48 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=867

I would like an investigation into the process that is the dispute resolution Services, and the Current Mismanagement of ACC

Current Issues with ACC

I want ACC to return to The Social Contract as Parliament intended it to be.

I gave up my right to sue, and I expected that my serious irretrievable injuries would be taken care of.

As A Crown Entity, ACC staff are under the State sector And State servants are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity, discretion and ethical conduct when performing their duties or representing the Corporation.

Breaches of the Code of Conduct have allowed the staff at ACC to hide behind the directive of the Corporation, hoever as State servants, they have no right to break the law

This has been found to not be the case.
The policies and practices at ACC for managing risks relating to conflicts of interest, legal compliance and communications between board members and clients and staff, appears to favour the ACC instead fo protecting the health of the injured and disabled

An organization must be aware of—and make appropriate effort to avoid—certain potential missteps when conducting an internal investigation. The following are some of the most common mistakes made in internal investigations:
• improper selection of the investigative team
• inadequate triage of the potential evidence and target
• incorrect gathering, preservation and analysis of evidence
• limited scope of background checks
• inappropriately conducted interviews

The Board and Senior Management should establish policies and procedures to avoid these pitfalls when responding to allegations.

ACC uses endless tricks: lies and distortions: “losing” huge, long claim forms so you have to fill them out over and over, demanding ten year’s worth of bank, income, tax and even phone records that it’s nearly impossible to get, changing adjusters repeatedly, causing endless delays, making accusations, pulling dirty tricks, and even using terrorism to frighten claimants. (It’s called “rough surveillance.”). This involves the use of private Investigators, some of whom are not licenced, illegal photographs / video is taken, and i would consider this to be stalking.

Mis information has been perpetuated by ACC to the point that the Privacy Commissioner defines these breaches of information to be a breach of Human Rights

Fiduciary Interests have been escalated to priority, whereby Policy has overridden Legislation
The 2009 Riley report, that is now used as Policy, forgot to take into account, those with already irretrievable injuries, therefore there is fiscal neglect.

ACC Contracted assessors are not clinical experts, yet these reports are being favoured over Expert Specialists Examination reports.
the medical/surgical definition of chronic pain and the psychiatric version are so different!
if an injury isn't treated immediately and all remedies taken to get the injury back to as close to original pre -injury condition, then chronic pain develops due to the altered neuronal pathways.
acc definition, send you to a psychiatrist cos you are ''imagining the pain'', the imagined pain becomes an exit strategy.
acc will breach your privacy and have no right to release confidential deeply personal reports within the ACC system

Legislative definition: AC Act, section 6
“rehabilitation—
(1) means a process of active change and support with the goal of restoring, to the extent provided under section 70, a claimant's health, independence, and participation; and
(2) comprises treatment, social rehabilitation, and vocational rehabilitation”
Acc assesors are instructed by ACC to exit claiamnats by using a snapshot of time and key words, while ignoring pain and disability.

I would consider the Process of DRSL a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, a a breach of my Human rights with breaches of privacy, and a complete loss of Natural justice.

The duty to adopt an “investigative approach” requires the reviewer to conduct the review in an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial manner.

The inquisitorial approach involves an emphasis on fact-finding by the reviewer.
The reviewer 70% of the time finds in favour of the ACC despite heavy medical evidence, which they are not qualified to read.
I did not expect to require the services of a lawyer to obtain entitlement that my levies have already paid for.

Legislation always overrides Policy

you can ask the Ombudsman for an administrative review, before going to District Court.

Under extreme resistance the acc can issue a section 65. when they realise the corporation has made a decision in error.

65 Corporation may revise decisions-but they don’t/wont

more to come.....

please feel free to add your inpout, but you cannot use this information right now, as the evidence is being gathered, references need to be made, and this will be used as a petition to the government

love peace and blessings]]>

I would like an investigation into the process that is the dispute resolution Services, and the Current Mismanagement of ACC

Current Issues with ACC

I want ACC to return to The Social Contract as Parliament intended it to be.

I gave up my right to sue, and I expected that my serious irretrievable injuries would be taken care of.

As A Crown Entity, ACC staff are under the State sector And State servants are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity, discretion and ethical conduct when performing their duties or representing the Corporation.

Breaches of the Code of Conduct have allowed the staff at ACC to hide behind the directive of the Corporation, hoever as State servants, they have no right to break the law

This has been found to not be the case.
The policies and practices at ACC for managing risks relating to conflicts of interest, legal compliance and communications between board members and clients and staff, appears to favour the ACC instead fo protecting the health of the injured and disabled

An organization must be aware of—and make appropriate effort to avoid—certain potential missteps when conducting an internal investigation. The following are some of the most common mistakes made in internal investigations:
• improper selection of the investigative team
• inadequate triage of the potential evidence and target
• incorrect gathering, preservation and analysis of evidence
• limited scope of background checks
• inappropriately conducted interviews

The Board and Senior Management should establish policies and procedures to avoid these pitfalls when responding to allegations.

ACC uses endless tricks: lies and distortions: “losing” huge, long claim forms so you have to fill them out over and over, demanding ten year’s worth of bank, income, tax and even phone records that it’s nearly impossible to get, changing adjusters repeatedly, causing endless delays, making accusations, pulling dirty tricks, and even using terrorism to frighten claimants. (It’s called “rough surveillance.”). This involves the use of private Investigators, some of whom are not licenced, illegal photographs / video is taken, and i would consider this to be stalking.

Mis information has been perpetuated by ACC to the point that the Privacy Commissioner defines these breaches of information to be a breach of Human Rights

Fiduciary Interests have been escalated to priority, whereby Policy has overridden Legislation
The 2009 Riley report, that is now used as Policy, forgot to take into account, those with already irretrievable injuries, therefore there is fiscal neglect.

ACC Contracted assessors are not clinical experts, yet these reports are being favoured over Expert Specialists Examination reports.
the medical/surgical definition of chronic pain and the psychiatric version are so different!
if an injury isn't treated immediately and all remedies taken to get the injury back to as close to original pre -injury condition, then chronic pain develops due to the altered neuronal pathways.
acc definition, send you to a psychiatrist cos you are ''imagining the pain'', the imagined pain becomes an exit strategy.
acc will breach your privacy and have no right to release confidential deeply personal reports within the ACC system

Legislative definition: AC Act, section 6
“rehabilitation—
(1) means a process of active change and support with the goal of restoring, to the extent provided under section 70, a claimant's health, independence, and participation; and
(2) comprises treatment, social rehabilitation, and vocational rehabilitation”
Acc assesors are instructed by ACC to exit claiamnats by using a snapshot of time and key words, while ignoring pain and disability.

I would consider the Process of DRSL a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, a a breach of my Human rights with breaches of privacy, and a complete loss of Natural justice.

The duty to adopt an “investigative approach” requires the reviewer to conduct the review in an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial manner.

The inquisitorial approach involves an emphasis on fact-finding by the reviewer.
The reviewer 70% of the time finds in favour of the ACC despite heavy medical evidence, which they are not qualified to read.
I did not expect to require the services of a lawyer to obtain entitlement that my levies have already paid for.

Legislation always overrides Policy

you can ask the Ombudsman for an administrative review, before going to District Court.

Under extreme resistance the acc can issue a section 65. when they realise the corporation has made a decision in error.

65 Corporation may revise decisions-but they don’t/wont

more to come.....

please feel free to add your inpout, but you cannot use this information right now, as the evidence is being gathered, references need to be made, and this will be used as a petition to the government

love peace and blessings]]> <![CDATA[Open Letter to the Law Commission, Nov 2011]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=866 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:17:33 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=866

To: The Law Commission and Ministers of Finance, Ministers of Justice, Director General of Health, and he medical council of New Zealand.

I would like an investigation into the process that is the dispute resolution Services

Background Information:

Accident Compensation in New Zealand

The present Accident Compensation Act is called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 and is the 5th major Act in 28 years dealing with our "no fault" accident compensation scheme.

The scheme was introduced in 1974 based on the report of the 1967 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Woodhouse (subsequently the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse), commonly referred to as the “Woodhouse Report”.
That report proposed a “no fault” system based on five basic principles:
Community responsibility;
Comprehensive entitlement;
Complete rehabilitation;
Real compensation; and
Administrative efficiency.

The scheme involved a trade-off in the form of loss of the common law right to sue for damages for personal injury in a New Zealand Court (except in respect of punitive or exemplary damages) in return for delivery of the three main purposes under the first 1972 Act (in force 1974).

These were to:
Promote safety by preventing accidents;
Promote the rehabilitation of injured people; and
Provide compensation for the injured and for the dependants of certain people whose death resulted from injury.

A fundamental policy shift introduced by the National Government with the 1992 & 1998 Acts which abolished lump sum compensation and introduced work capacity assessments. Claims for nervous shock were also barred.
This period also saw private insurers permitted to administer the scheme in a “leaner, meaner” Act in line with National’s business policies.

The 2001 Act represented an attempt by the Labour Government to return to a public scheme and remove competition from workplace insurance.
Lump sum compensation was reintroduced for injuries occurring after 1 April 2002 but not to the same extent as under the earlier 1972 and 1982 Acts.
In a nutshell, the Labour Government returned the scheme to its founding principles but not as generously as it had before.

About DRSL
On 1 July 2011, DRSL became an independent Crown Company.
Because of disputes with ACC decisions the DRSL was set up:
“Under the 1972 and 1982 Acts claimants could appeal any of ACC's decisions.
ACC had to appoint an independent reviewer.
Claimants could then appeal that decision to the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority (an official Judicial Body).
References: John Miller Law Website

Reviewers are required to comply with section 138 of the act as well as any other relevant provisions of the act including Privacy and health information laws. Reviewers are also required to comply with the principles of natural justice; exercise due diligence in decision-making; and adopt an investigative approach with a view to conducting the review in an informal, timely, and practical manner
The Dispute Resolution Services website is intended to provide general information only. The company accepts no responsibility or liability for its material.

Please note that:
* the information is general, and is not intended to address your specific circumstances. Please evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance carefully for your purposes
* the information is not professional or legal advice. For this you should seek specific advice relevant to your circumstances from a qualified professional.
* Any links to external sites, organisations or people are provided for your convenience only. Dispute Resolution Services is not responsible for the contents or maintenance of any linked websites “and the fact that we provide a link to an external site does not mean we endorse that site. Dispute Resolution Services does not accept any responsibility for the way you use this information or the consequences of that use
* any views expressed in the information on this site are those of the author. Dispute Resolution Services does not necessarily endorse the views of any particular author or authenticate the accuracy of the information. How you use the information is your sole responsibility
* Dispute Resolution Services does not accept any responsibility or liability for any action taken as a result of reading, or reliance placed on Dispute Resolution Services as a result of having read any part, or all, of the information in this website. We also do not accept responsibility or liability for any error, inadequacy, deficiency, flaw in or omission from the information in this site

* if you have concerns about the information on this website, contact Dispute Resolution Services directly
Review services
DRSL’s skilled and experienced reviewers conduct independent and impartial reviews. They deliver binding decisions based on a thorough assessment of all the evidence presented. Reviews usually include an opportunity for the parties to meet and discuss the issue at a review hearing
Related legislation: Accident Compensation Act 2001
References: ACC Wesite

I have recently read the Crown law report from 2005, which was not to be released to the public
The JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER
A GUIDE to JUDICIAL REVIEW of ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
This paper has been prepared as general advice for CLIENT DEPARTMENTS and AGENCIES by CROWN COUNSEL in the CROWN LAW OFFICE.
It is not intended as advice to the GENERAL PUBLIC or as legal advice in relation to any specific circumstances.
Specific inquiries from GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS should be addressed, through their departmental legal advisors to:
Crown Law Office, PO Box 2858, WELLINGTON

To summarise the 36 page document
Law Commission report of Court processes and the right to challenge the law

The right to challenge

Has the decision maker acted properly and reasonably?
1. Illegality-acting outside scope of power
2. Unfairness-procedural impropriety
3. Unreasonableness

As at 2 August 2011 there have been 460 Appeals against review decisions lodged in the District Court so far this year.

Clearly, there are horrendous consequences for the claimant when reviewers do not get it right.

And yet the DRSL booklet provided to claimant's states "The reviewer is expert in accident compensation law and other relevant law"

There are questions of law involved in these appeals:

An error of law will arise where the Court has misinterpreted or misapplied a statutory provision;

where there is no evidence to support a decision;

where the evidence is inconsistent with, or contradictory to the decision, or the true and only reasonable conclusion on the evidence contradicts the decision;

where a decision is wrong in principle, or where a decisionmaker has failed to take into account some relevant matter, or has taken account of an irrelevant matter; and where the Court has rejected evidence without a clearly articulated and rational basis for doing so.

“What is a point of law?

[5] Whether or not a statutory provision has been properly construed or interpreted and applied to the facts is a question of law: Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Walker [1963] NZLR 339, 353-354 (CA); Edwards v Bairstow [1995] 3 All ER 48, 57; P & O Services (NZ) Ltd v ARCIC.

[6] Even where, as in this case, an appeal is limited to questions of law, a mixed question of law and fact is assailable as a matter of law: CIR v Walker, 354; P & O Services (NZ) Ltd v ARCIC, 6.

[7] It is well settled that a decision-maker’s treatment of facts can amount to an error of law. There will be an error of law where there is no evidence to support the decision, the evidence is inconsistent with, and contradictory of the decision, or the true and only reasonable conclusion on the evidence contradicts the decision: Edwards v Bairstow, 57.

[8] The Court of Appeal in Lang v Eagle Airways Ltd [1996] 1 ERNZ 574, 576, cited Edwards v Bairstow in support of the following statement:

If those conclusions were not reasonably open to the Judge then this Court can rule, as a matter of law, that they are unsustainable and should be set aside ...

[9] Whether or not particular evidence is relevant to a particular issue is a question of law: Ogilvy & Mather (New Zealand) Ltd v Turner [1996] 1 NZLR 641, 651-652.”

Acc is an Insurance Company and there are also various pieces of general consumer legislation designed to protect consumers' interests. These include:
• Fair Trading Act 1986
• Consumer Guarantees Act 1993
• Human Rights Act 1993
• Privacy Act 1993
• Disputes Tribunals Act 1998
This takes into account the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003
Public Act 2003 No 48 Date of assent 18 September 2003
This also includes the definition of Doctors and Practice from the medical Council of new Zealand Website

Peter Jansen is a general practitioner and Senior Medical Adviser for the Accident Compensation Corporation
Dr Peter Jansen, who has recently been under investigation for breach of Privacy and Harassment, releases this statement within the MCNZ site:
ACC also contracts for a range of services from elective surgery, to
psychological services and rehabilitation. In general these contracts are
intended to meet the full cost of the service and no co-payment can be
charged.
The legislation also supports good clinical practice – stating that ACC
should fund services that are necessary and of the quality required to achieve a return to independence. To ensure that the health services ACC purchases meet these legislative requirements, the Corporation monitors the delivery of health services.

Within this site is a comment from Dr David Rankin
Providing opinions about patients or other doctors
A clinical leader may be asked to provide an opinion on the adequacy or
appropriateness of another doctor’s report. This opinion is usually based
solely on information recorded in the patient’s file. The non-treating doctor must ensure they have access to all the necessary information and that theycan provide an opinion based on the information to hand. 116
Where additional information or a clinical examination is required, the
non-treating doctor should either refrain from providing an opinion or note
the need for further information in their report.

The non-treating doctor and patient relationship – the professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship

7. The basis of the relationship between the patient and assessing doctor is not the same as an established doctor-patient relationship, however the doctor is still required to maintain a professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship. The Council requires that non-treating doctors adhere to the principles in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.

8. As such, the patient should be treated with respect, be free from coercion, discrimination, harassment and exploitation. If there is a meeting with the patient, the non-treating doctor is required to respect the patient’s dignity and ensure that he or she communicates with the patient in a manner that enables the patient to understand the information provided and the role of the non-treating doctor.

And from the dictates of the Medical Council of New Zealand
Non-Treating Doctors Performing Medical Assessments of Patients for Third Parties
Doctors who are employed by a third party to perform medical assessments of patients are required to maintain a professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship and are expected to meet the standards of practice outlined in this statement.
Introduction
1. Medical assessments for third parties are a common feature in medical practice. The purpose of a medical assessment varies depending upon the role of the third party. Examples include assessment for employment suitability, and eligibility for health services or compensation. Medical assessments may be performed by the patient’s own doctor or by a non-treating doctor.
2. In some circumstances the patient’s own doctor will be asked to provide a medical assessment of the patient for a third party. Insurance companies and employers tend to use this form of assessment. Non-treating doctors may be employed or contracted when the third party requires an independent assessment or second opinion. Examples include expert advisors (used in legal proceedings), doctors employed by organisations like ACC, insurance companies or the patient’s employers.
3. An assessment by a doctor may take several forms that include a consultation with the patient, possibly a physical examination or a file review of the patient’s medical history.
Performing medical assessments
4. If a doctor who is asked to perform a medical assessment does not consider him or herself suitably qualified, or identifies that a conflict of interest exists, the doctor must decline the referral. An explanation does not have to be provided to the third party.
5. If the third party considers a physical examination is not required the assessing doctor must be satisfied (and be able to justify) that he or she has all the information necessary without performing a physical examination or speaking with the patient, before providing an accurate professional opinion or recommendation.

The role of the non-treating doctor
6. The role of the non-treating doctor is to perform a medical assessment and provide an impartial medical opinion. The recipient of the medical opinion is the third party who has employed or contracted the non-treating doctor. As the title indicates, the non-treating doctor does not provide any form of treatment to the patient.
The non-treating doctor and patient relationship – the professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship
7. The basis of the relationship between the patient and assessing doctor is not the same as an established doctor-patient relationship, however the doctor is still required to maintain a professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship. The Council requires that non-treating doctors adhere to the principles in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.
8. As such, the patient should be treated with respect, be free from coercion, discrimination, harassment and exploitation. If there is a meeting with the patient, the non-treating doctor is required to respect the patient’s dignity and ensure that he or she communicates with the patient in a manner that enables the patient to understand the information provided and the role of the non-treating doctor.

Effective communication and consent
9. The Council has identified some recurring problems in medical assessments performed by non-treating doctors. The common issue is poor communication with the patient. This leads to unmet expectations, misunderstandings and confusion about the non-treating doctor’s duty of care to the patient. The following information must be clearly communicated to the patient by the non-treating doctor:
If the non-treating doctor is required to consult the patient he or she must ensure the patient understands the purpose of the medical assessment and the non-treating doctor’s role. Although the patient will usually be informed of this by the third party before visiting the non-treating doctor, it is the responsibility of the non-treating doctor to confirm this and if necessary, provide any further explanation. This explanation should include discussion about the differences between the non-treating doctor’s role and the patient’s own doctor.
The non-treating doctor must explain what will happen during the assessment and also ensure that the patient is aware of what he or she is doing throughout the consultation. This includes explaining the scope of the consultation and any tests that the assessment may require.

As with any health service, informed consent must be obtained before any service is provided. The non-treating doctor should ensure the patient understands that any aspect of the medical assessment may be included in the report to the third party. If the patient does not consent to this the assessmentshall not proceed. The patient also has the right to withdraw from the assessment at any time. In either of these circumstances the non-treating doctor should record in his or her report to the third party at what point the assessment was terminated and why.
The non-treating doctor must explain and ensure that the patient understands what will happen after the consultation. Specifically, the non-treating doctor should ensure the patient understands that the report will be the property of the third party. A request for a copy of the report and any further communication should be directed through the third party.

Recording a consultation
10. A patient may want to record the consultation by video or audio tape. Arrangements should be made prior to the consultation and with the consent of the doctor. The Council recommends that third parties make the arrangements with the patient and doctor and if the doctor selected to perform the medical assessment does not consent to recording the consultation, an alternative doctor is located.i

Reports for the third party
11. Once the medical assessment has been completed it is standard practice for the doctor who performed the assessment to provide a written report to the third party with his or her medical opinion. The report must be accurate and objective. The doctor should not speculate or base recommendations on insufficient or flawed evidence and if he or she is not satisfied that a medical opinion can be accurate, based on the information provided in the file, he or she must clearly state this in the report. The doctor may choose to recommend further methods of investigation if appropriate (i.e. medical tests, x-rays etc).
12. If the non-treating doctor has been provided with any documentation or information from the third party this should be listed as part of the report. This ensures that all the information available to the non-treating doctor is recorded and can be referred to again if there are any issues or questions in the future.
13. If the third party has requested that the non-treating doctor make recommendations (e.g. suitability for an employment position) the recommendations must not compromise the patient’s safety. The non-treating doctor is contracted to make a medical judgement and the third party’s decision will be influenced by the medical opinion. The Council does not accept that making recommendations is a step back from implementing them. Therefore the non-treating doctor has some responsibility for the outcome by ensuring his or her professional opinion and recommendation are appropriate to protect or enhance the patient’s health.
14. It is inappropriate for the assessment report to include comments on any policy or legislation pertaining to the third party because it is not relevant to the non-treating doctor’s role.

15. If the non-treating doctor becomes aware of another medical condition as a result of the assessment the doctor should inform the patient and refer the patient back to his or her own doctor (the patient’s general practitioner/specialist) for further investigation.

Medical Assessments by the patient’s own doctor
16. In some circumstances the patient’s doctor will be requested to perform a medical assessment that would otherwise be performed by a non-treating doctor. This is usually because the patient lives in an isolated area where a non-treating doctor is unavailable. It is imperative that the doctor clearly explains the difference in his or her role in this circumstance, so that the patient understands that the usual dynamics of the doctor-patient relationship are different.
17. Doctors must ensure that any medical assessment of a current patient to a third party is based on objective and clinical findings.
18. When the patient’s own doctor is requested to perform a medical assessment for a third party on a current patient, the doctor has the same duty and requirements to report all of the relevant findings accurately to the third party.

File assessments by non-treating doctors
19. A non-treating doctor may be employed or contracted to perform a medical assessment based solely on information in the patient’s file. As with any other form of medical assessment the non-treating doctor must be satisfied that he or she has all the information necessary and a physical examination is not required before providing an accurate professional opinion or recommendation.

20. The Council reminds non-treating doctors in this role that the documented findings of another doctor have been based on physical examinations and direct communication with the patient. If a non-treating doctor performing a file medical assessment concludes that the documented cause of a medical condition or diagnosis is incorrect, the non-treating doctor needs to be confident that his or her conclusion can be supported with clinical evidence and is based on all the necessary information. It is not acceptable to include such conclusions in the report to the third party unless the non-treating doctor is confident that consulting with the patient or the patient’s own doctor is not necessary.
Financial influences for the non-treating doctors
21. A doctor must not allow the financial interests of either the patient or the third party to influence the medical assessment of the patient, the medical opinion or recommendations.
Review of medical assessment opinions
22. Any challenge by a patient or representative of the patient to an opinion in a medical assessment report should be done through the third party.
23. In past cases, the Health and Disability Commissioner has concluded that a non-treating doctor is not providing a health service to the patient. Instead, the service is provided to the third party. As a result the Commissioner is likely to refer any complaint to the third party in the first instance because the Commissioner’s jurisdiction is restricted to services provided directly to a patient by a health provider.
The Medical Council of New Zealand has released guidelines on medical certification that outline the general requirements and duties of a doctor when signing any form of certificate or medical report. This is available from the Council’s website (http://www.mcnz.org.nz), or the office.
A doctor who performs a medical assessment is not responsible for the actions of the third party. The only responsibility the doctor has is to competently perform a medical assessment within the scope identified by the third party, and provide a professional, ethical report based on his or her impartial medical assessment.
There are several publications available from the Internet and some occupational groups that may assist doctors to understand the role of the independent or third party assessment. Both the Australasian and the United Kingdom Faculties of Occupational Medicine have released guidelines on this issue - guidelines are available on http://www.racp.edu.au/afom/ or http://www.facoccmed.ac.uk

A doctor has the "privilege" to decide in what lawful way a medical examination will be conducted and the patient also has the "privilege" to ask for a tape-recorded consultation. It is then a question of balancing the reasonableness of the exercise of the mutual privileges. In this particular case the doctor had not put forward any worthy arguments to refuse to tape the consultation and given the patient's perception of her dealings with ACC and specialists appointed by it, her request to tape the examination was a reasonable exercise of her privilege to do so.
References:, http://www.mcnz.org.nz.

I would like to challenge all ministers to assess the efficiency and efficacy of the Dispute Resolution Service and the way the Accident Compensation Corporation places its claimants into 3rd party assessments, whereby the doctors are well outside their scope of practice.
These doctors are mainly used to disentitle clients from Earnings Relataed Compensation.

Following the headings of the judge over your shoulder report:
Illegality
A. Means the decision maker got the law wrong,
DRSL misuses the acc legislation to its own determination

B. Decision is ultra vires (beyond scope of power)
The reviewers are not always lawyers, and lawyers cannot make decisions about Medical Issues. The LAW has no place in a person’s injury, once the injury is accepted and proven

C. Decision fails to take into account all relevant matters
Important medical documents are deliberately withheld by case managers important documents concerning health are missing/destroyed, hidden within files. It takes regular file download to keep on top of this scenario

D. Decision takes into account irrelevant matters
ACC contracted assessors add in their own versions of events, without actually taking the claimants version as a true statement.
Reports based on false information are detrimental and dangerous to health

E. Decision maker applied rigid predetermined policy
Company policy is not law or legislation

You then get
a) Error of law & Error of fact
b) Ultra vires
c) & d) Relevant/irrelevant decisions
e) Acting under dictation, Invalid delegation, improper purpose

Unfairness
A Breach of natural justice
Oral hearings and phone conferences are a waste of time, as ACC do not listen to/ignore your concerns then sprout policy over the phone.
Very rarely are you given a legitimate reason for why your case has been placed before the DSRL.
ACC have a tendency to withhold relevant material until 24 hours before a hearing, which barely gives a claimant time to read case law used against them. We cannot all afford lawyers to represent us at this level, nor to be able to take these failed processes to District Court, High Court and more recently, Supreme Court
Hearings within the DRSL can be manipulated dependant on time factors; therefore your advocate does not have a voice, when the reviewer only wants to hear oral submission, which is usually presented in conjunction with written submission

B Bias
Acc own and operate the DRSL service, therefore they have a financial interest in any outcome, they employ the reviewers, lawyers, and the inexperienced GP’s.
Regardless of the submissions, there is almost a predetermined outcome, even when true and correct information is presented during the case.
Acc hold the assessors word as law, when other factual medical/surgical reports, along with MRI/CT, and other relevant tests by doctors who care for you under the scope of practise are ignored.
Up until recently, there has been a 70% chance of losing at review

C Legitimate expectation
The duty to act fairly cannot be seen to be upheld by a company that pays your wages, and shows bias as above.
previously expressed assurances, promises or statements of intent by the decision maker as broken, and this is despite recorded meetings with Branch Managers Team leaders and case managers.
The legislation is fixed, yet somehow becomes open to interpretation in the reviews of DRSL
Once you have “won” at DRSL, there is an expectation that ACC will uphold the reviewer’s decision, this is not the case.

D Substantiative unfairness
Very rarely does acc take into consideration the amount of time and effort by the GP who manages your health, nor does it allow the GP , whom you have handed partnership of your health, to have an active role in disputing 3rd party assessors reports
Failure to consult with the GP
Failure to consult with the specialists involved, or DRSL will ask an assessor to amend a report, of it does not have the predetermined outcome DRSL wants to achieve.
Consultation is not always considered

Unreasonableness
In administration LAW:
a decision maker must act in a reasonable fashion, and the decision must rely on some reasonable basis.
This cannot be possible when acc own and run DRSL
Decisions need to look objectively at what has occurred and be satisfied with a fair and reasonable process has resulted in a fair and reasonable outcome.
Disentitleing claimants is not a fair or reasonable expectation in proven and accepted injuries.
There is no equality when a dangerous long term injury is misdiagnosed by ACC, signed of by the Branch Medical Advisor and despite repeated requests, ACC refuse to correct information held on file.

Other relevant factors within the Judge over your shoulder report are:

Substantiative unfairness-this has now been recognised as a legitimate form for review.

Impacts of reviews will be: relevant legislation and principles.

Treaty and other international instruments of domestic legislation e.g.
U.N. Convention on Children’s Rights,
NZ Bill of rights act 1990
Human Rights Act 1993

The NZBOR is therefore less likely to impact on law in areas that are already governed by detailed statutory code.
NZBOR;
The right not to be deprived of life
Freedom of thought conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of peaceful assembly
Freedom of association
Freedom from discrimination on the grounds set out by the Human rights act 1993 s19
The right of a person belonging to minority to enjoy the culture, profess and practice religion, and use the language
The rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure
The right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained
The right to the observance of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority

There are no general rules as to what is justified or reasonable
A breach of the human rights act may result in an award for compensation
This is different from Judicial Review Cases where the decision is quashed or matter reheard in court.

Human Rights Act
Claims are taken to the human rights commission and if a mediated resolution is not possible then may proceed to human rights review
This tribunal has a variety of remedies, including a declaration that a breach has been committed, orders further breaches and damages
2001 act allows for members or public to CHALLENGE GOVERNMENT ACTION

Processes and Outcomes
Interim orders
No action is taken until the review is complete.
Orders can be ex -parte (without notice to defendant)

Relief
The court can decline relief if it is decided it is in the public interest to do so

Process
Lawful examination of documents and evidence of relevant decision makers as well as interpreting relevant statues and case law

Discovery
Comprehensive list of all evidence for both parties
Privileged information can be withheld due to public interest immunity, usually involving sensitive claims material
Should be fact not hearsay or cannot be explained to a judge

Affidavits
Evidence given by sworn statement without physical presence

Consultation
Recommendations: failure to give reasoning might be regarded as a breach of duty to act fairly.

Conclusion.:
I would consider my injury to be life threatening, is currently inoperable, and I worked as a wage earer for over 24 years. I am a registered Nurse
I have 11 fully qualified doctors reports that substantiate my injury, another that mentions the neck injury even thought I didn’t, 1 CT scan, 5 MRI scans, that all prove my statement- My neck is severely injured.
Due to the process of DRSL, including a lawyer who was reprimanded by the law society, the law society would not give me a letter of support to re-hear my case, I am now struggling to meet daily needs, financial commitments and the right to live my life the best way I know how with an accepted injury.

I would consider the Process of DRSL a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, a a breach of my Human rights with several breaches of privacy, and a complete loss of Natural justice.

As my Government agents, I challenge you to fix the process, and enable injured claimants, to maintain their lawful entitlements.

Yours faithfully

NTV, (name withheld for personal reasons)]]>

To: The Law Commission and Ministers of Finance, Ministers of Justice, Director General of Health, and he medical council of New Zealand.

I would like an investigation into the process that is the dispute resolution Services

Background Information:

Accident Compensation in New Zealand

The present Accident Compensation Act is called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 and is the 5th major Act in 28 years dealing with our "no fault" accident compensation scheme.

The scheme was introduced in 1974 based on the report of the 1967 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Woodhouse (subsequently the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse), commonly referred to as the “Woodhouse Report”.
That report proposed a “no fault” system based on five basic principles:
Community responsibility;
Comprehensive entitlement;
Complete rehabilitation;
Real compensation; and
Administrative efficiency.

The scheme involved a trade-off in the form of loss of the common law right to sue for damages for personal injury in a New Zealand Court (except in respect of punitive or exemplary damages) in return for delivery of the three main purposes under the first 1972 Act (in force 1974).

These were to:
Promote safety by preventing accidents;
Promote the rehabilitation of injured people; and
Provide compensation for the injured and for the dependants of certain people whose death resulted from injury.

A fundamental policy shift introduced by the National Government with the 1992 & 1998 Acts which abolished lump sum compensation and introduced work capacity assessments. Claims for nervous shock were also barred.
This period also saw private insurers permitted to administer the scheme in a “leaner, meaner” Act in line with National’s business policies.

The 2001 Act represented an attempt by the Labour Government to return to a public scheme and remove competition from workplace insurance.
Lump sum compensation was reintroduced for injuries occurring after 1 April 2002 but not to the same extent as under the earlier 1972 and 1982 Acts.
In a nutshell, the Labour Government returned the scheme to its founding principles but not as generously as it had before.

About DRSL
On 1 July 2011, DRSL became an independent Crown Company.
Because of disputes with ACC decisions the DRSL was set up:
“Under the 1972 and 1982 Acts claimants could appeal any of ACC's decisions.
ACC had to appoint an independent reviewer.
Claimants could then appeal that decision to the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority (an official Judicial Body).
References: John Miller Law Website

Reviewers are required to comply with section 138 of the act as well as any other relevant provisions of the act including Privacy and health information laws. Reviewers are also required to comply with the principles of natural justice; exercise due diligence in decision-making; and adopt an investigative approach with a view to conducting the review in an informal, timely, and practical manner
The Dispute Resolution Services website is intended to provide general information only. The company accepts no responsibility or liability for its material.

Please note that:
* the information is general, and is not intended to address your specific circumstances. Please evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance carefully for your purposes
* the information is not professional or legal advice. For this you should seek specific advice relevant to your circumstances from a qualified professional.
* Any links to external sites, organisations or people are provided for your convenience only. Dispute Resolution Services is not responsible for the contents or maintenance of any linked websites “and the fact that we provide a link to an external site does not mean we endorse that site. Dispute Resolution Services does not accept any responsibility for the way you use this information or the consequences of that use
* any views expressed in the information on this site are those of the author. Dispute Resolution Services does not necessarily endorse the views of any particular author or authenticate the accuracy of the information. How you use the information is your sole responsibility
* Dispute Resolution Services does not accept any responsibility or liability for any action taken as a result of reading, or reliance placed on Dispute Resolution Services as a result of having read any part, or all, of the information in this website. We also do not accept responsibility or liability for any error, inadequacy, deficiency, flaw in or omission from the information in this site

* if you have concerns about the information on this website, contact Dispute Resolution Services directly
Review services
DRSL’s skilled and experienced reviewers conduct independent and impartial reviews. They deliver binding decisions based on a thorough assessment of all the evidence presented. Reviews usually include an opportunity for the parties to meet and discuss the issue at a review hearing
Related legislation: Accident Compensation Act 2001
References: ACC Wesite

I have recently read the Crown law report from 2005, which was not to be released to the public
The JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER
A GUIDE to JUDICIAL REVIEW of ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
This paper has been prepared as general advice for CLIENT DEPARTMENTS and AGENCIES by CROWN COUNSEL in the CROWN LAW OFFICE.
It is not intended as advice to the GENERAL PUBLIC or as legal advice in relation to any specific circumstances.
Specific inquiries from GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS should be addressed, through their departmental legal advisors to:
Crown Law Office, PO Box 2858, WELLINGTON

To summarise the 36 page document
Law Commission report of Court processes and the right to challenge the law

The right to challenge

Has the decision maker acted properly and reasonably?
1. Illegality-acting outside scope of power
2. Unfairness-procedural impropriety
3. Unreasonableness

As at 2 August 2011 there have been 460 Appeals against review decisions lodged in the District Court so far this year.

Clearly, there are horrendous consequences for the claimant when reviewers do not get it right.

And yet the DRSL booklet provided to claimant's states "The reviewer is expert in accident compensation law and other relevant law"

There are questions of law involved in these appeals:

An error of law will arise where the Court has misinterpreted or misapplied a statutory provision;

where there is no evidence to support a decision;

where the evidence is inconsistent with, or contradictory to the decision, or the true and only reasonable conclusion on the evidence contradicts the decision;

where a decision is wrong in principle, or where a decisionmaker has failed to take into account some relevant matter, or has taken account of an irrelevant matter; and where the Court has rejected evidence without a clearly articulated and rational basis for doing so.

“What is a point of law?

[5] Whether or not a statutory provision has been properly construed or interpreted and applied to the facts is a question of law: Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Walker [1963] NZLR 339, 353-354 (CA); Edwards v Bairstow [1995] 3 All ER 48, 57; P & O Services (NZ) Ltd v ARCIC.

[6] Even where, as in this case, an appeal is limited to questions of law, a mixed question of law and fact is assailable as a matter of law: CIR v Walker, 354; P & O Services (NZ) Ltd v ARCIC, 6.

[7] It is well settled that a decision-maker’s treatment of facts can amount to an error of law. There will be an error of law where there is no evidence to support the decision, the evidence is inconsistent with, and contradictory of the decision, or the true and only reasonable conclusion on the evidence contradicts the decision: Edwards v Bairstow, 57.

[8] The Court of Appeal in Lang v Eagle Airways Ltd [1996] 1 ERNZ 574, 576, cited Edwards v Bairstow in support of the following statement:

If those conclusions were not reasonably open to the Judge then this Court can rule, as a matter of law, that they are unsustainable and should be set aside ...

[9] Whether or not particular evidence is relevant to a particular issue is a question of law: Ogilvy & Mather (New Zealand) Ltd v Turner [1996] 1 NZLR 641, 651-652.”

Acc is an Insurance Company and there are also various pieces of general consumer legislation designed to protect consumers' interests. These include:
• Fair Trading Act 1986
• Consumer Guarantees Act 1993
• Human Rights Act 1993
• Privacy Act 1993
• Disputes Tribunals Act 1998
This takes into account the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003
Public Act 2003 No 48 Date of assent 18 September 2003
This also includes the definition of Doctors and Practice from the medical Council of new Zealand Website

Peter Jansen is a general practitioner and Senior Medical Adviser for the Accident Compensation Corporation
Dr Peter Jansen, who has recently been under investigation for breach of Privacy and Harassment, releases this statement within the MCNZ site:
ACC also contracts for a range of services from elective surgery, to
psychological services and rehabilitation. In general these contracts are
intended to meet the full cost of the service and no co-payment can be
charged.
The legislation also supports good clinical practice – stating that ACC
should fund services that are necessary and of the quality required to achieve a return to independence. To ensure that the health services ACC purchases meet these legislative requirements, the Corporation monitors the delivery of health services.

Within this site is a comment from Dr David Rankin
Providing opinions about patients or other doctors
A clinical leader may be asked to provide an opinion on the adequacy or
appropriateness of another doctor’s report. This opinion is usually based
solely on information recorded in the patient’s file. The non-treating doctor must ensure they have access to all the necessary information and that theycan provide an opinion based on the information to hand. 116
Where additional information or a clinical examination is required, the
non-treating doctor should either refrain from providing an opinion or note
the need for further information in their report.

The non-treating doctor and patient relationship – the professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship

7. The basis of the relationship between the patient and assessing doctor is not the same as an established doctor-patient relationship, however the doctor is still required to maintain a professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship. The Council requires that non-treating doctors adhere to the principles in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.

8. As such, the patient should be treated with respect, be free from coercion, discrimination, harassment and exploitation. If there is a meeting with the patient, the non-treating doctor is required to respect the patient’s dignity and ensure that he or she communicates with the patient in a manner that enables the patient to understand the information provided and the role of the non-treating doctor.

And from the dictates of the Medical Council of New Zealand
Non-Treating Doctors Performing Medical Assessments of Patients for Third Parties
Doctors who are employed by a third party to perform medical assessments of patients are required to maintain a professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship and are expected to meet the standards of practice outlined in this statement.
Introduction
1. Medical assessments for third parties are a common feature in medical practice. The purpose of a medical assessment varies depending upon the role of the third party. Examples include assessment for employment suitability, and eligibility for health services or compensation. Medical assessments may be performed by the patient’s own doctor or by a non-treating doctor.
2. In some circumstances the patient’s own doctor will be asked to provide a medical assessment of the patient for a third party. Insurance companies and employers tend to use this form of assessment. Non-treating doctors may be employed or contracted when the third party requires an independent assessment or second opinion. Examples include expert advisors (used in legal proceedings), doctors employed by organisations like ACC, insurance companies or the patient’s employers.
3. An assessment by a doctor may take several forms that include a consultation with the patient, possibly a physical examination or a file review of the patient’s medical history.
Performing medical assessments
4. If a doctor who is asked to perform a medical assessment does not consider him or herself suitably qualified, or identifies that a conflict of interest exists, the doctor must decline the referral. An explanation does not have to be provided to the third party.
5. If the third party considers a physical examination is not required the assessing doctor must be satisfied (and be able to justify) that he or she has all the information necessary without performing a physical examination or speaking with the patient, before providing an accurate professional opinion or recommendation.

The role of the non-treating doctor
6. The role of the non-treating doctor is to perform a medical assessment and provide an impartial medical opinion. The recipient of the medical opinion is the third party who has employed or contracted the non-treating doctor. As the title indicates, the non-treating doctor does not provide any form of treatment to the patient.
The non-treating doctor and patient relationship – the professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship
7. The basis of the relationship between the patient and assessing doctor is not the same as an established doctor-patient relationship, however the doctor is still required to maintain a professional standard of care within the framework of the assessing relationship. The Council requires that non-treating doctors adhere to the principles in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.
8. As such, the patient should be treated with respect, be free from coercion, discrimination, harassment and exploitation. If there is a meeting with the patient, the non-treating doctor is required to respect the patient’s dignity and ensure that he or she communicates with the patient in a manner that enables the patient to understand the information provided and the role of the non-treating doctor.

Effective communication and consent
9. The Council has identified some recurring problems in medical assessments performed by non-treating doctors. The common issue is poor communication with the patient. This leads to unmet expectations, misunderstandings and confusion about the non-treating doctor’s duty of care to the patient. The following information must be clearly communicated to the patient by the non-treating doctor:
If the non-treating doctor is required to consult the patient he or she must ensure the patient understands the purpose of the medical assessment and the non-treating doctor’s role. Although the patient will usually be informed of this by the third party before visiting the non-treating doctor, it is the responsibility of the non-treating doctor to confirm this and if necessary, provide any further explanation. This explanation should include discussion about the differences between the non-treating doctor’s role and the patient’s own doctor.
The non-treating doctor must explain what will happen during the assessment and also ensure that the patient is aware of what he or she is doing throughout the consultation. This includes explaining the scope of the consultation and any tests that the assessment may require.

As with any health service, informed consent must be obtained before any service is provided. The non-treating doctor should ensure the patient understands that any aspect of the medical assessment may be included in the report to the third party. If the patient does not consent to this the assessmentshall not proceed. The patient also has the right to withdraw from the assessment at any time. In either of these circumstances the non-treating doctor should record in his or her report to the third party at what point the assessment was terminated and why.
The non-treating doctor must explain and ensure that the patient understands what will happen after the consultation. Specifically, the non-treating doctor should ensure the patient understands that the report will be the property of the third party. A request for a copy of the report and any further communication should be directed through the third party.

Recording a consultation
10. A patient may want to record the consultation by video or audio tape. Arrangements should be made prior to the consultation and with the consent of the doctor. The Council recommends that third parties make the arrangements with the patient and doctor and if the doctor selected to perform the medical assessment does not consent to recording the consultation, an alternative doctor is located.i

Reports for the third party
11. Once the medical assessment has been completed it is standard practice for the doctor who performed the assessment to provide a written report to the third party with his or her medical opinion. The report must be accurate and objective. The doctor should not speculate or base recommendations on insufficient or flawed evidence and if he or she is not satisfied that a medical opinion can be accurate, based on the information provided in the file, he or she must clearly state this in the report. The doctor may choose to recommend further methods of investigation if appropriate (i.e. medical tests, x-rays etc).
12. If the non-treating doctor has been provided with any documentation or information from the third party this should be listed as part of the report. This ensures that all the information available to the non-treating doctor is recorded and can be referred to again if there are any issues or questions in the future.
13. If the third party has requested that the non-treating doctor make recommendations (e.g. suitability for an employment position) the recommendations must not compromise the patient’s safety. The non-treating doctor is contracted to make a medical judgement and the third party’s decision will be influenced by the medical opinion. The Council does not accept that making recommendations is a step back from implementing them. Therefore the non-treating doctor has some responsibility for the outcome by ensuring his or her professional opinion and recommendation are appropriate to protect or enhance the patient’s health.
14. It is inappropriate for the assessment report to include comments on any policy or legislation pertaining to the third party because it is not relevant to the non-treating doctor’s role.

15. If the non-treating doctor becomes aware of another medical condition as a result of the assessment the doctor should inform the patient and refer the patient back to his or her own doctor (the patient’s general practitioner/specialist) for further investigation.

Medical Assessments by the patient’s own doctor
16. In some circumstances the patient’s doctor will be requested to perform a medical assessment that would otherwise be performed by a non-treating doctor. This is usually because the patient lives in an isolated area where a non-treating doctor is unavailable. It is imperative that the doctor clearly explains the difference in his or her role in this circumstance, so that the patient understands that the usual dynamics of the doctor-patient relationship are different.
17. Doctors must ensure that any medical assessment of a current patient to a third party is based on objective and clinical findings.
18. When the patient’s own doctor is requested to perform a medical assessment for a third party on a current patient, the doctor has the same duty and requirements to report all of the relevant findings accurately to the third party.

File assessments by non-treating doctors
19. A non-treating doctor may be employed or contracted to perform a medical assessment based solely on information in the patient’s file. As with any other form of medical assessment the non-treating doctor must be satisfied that he or she has all the information necessary and a physical examination is not required before providing an accurate professional opinion or recommendation.

20. The Council reminds non-treating doctors in this role that the documented findings of another doctor have been based on physical examinations and direct communication with the patient. If a non-treating doctor performing a file medical assessment concludes that the documented cause of a medical condition or diagnosis is incorrect, the non-treating doctor needs to be confident that his or her conclusion can be supported with clinical evidence and is based on all the necessary information. It is not acceptable to include such conclusions in the report to the third party unless the non-treating doctor is confident that consulting with the patient or the patient’s own doctor is not necessary.
Financial influences for the non-treating doctors
21. A doctor must not allow the financial interests of either the patient or the third party to influence the medical assessment of the patient, the medical opinion or recommendations.
Review of medical assessment opinions
22. Any challenge by a patient or representative of the patient to an opinion in a medical assessment report should be done through the third party.
23. In past cases, the Health and Disability Commissioner has concluded that a non-treating doctor is not providing a health service to the patient. Instead, the service is provided to the third party. As a result the Commissioner is likely to refer any complaint to the third party in the first instance because the Commissioner’s jurisdiction is restricted to services provided directly to a patient by a health provider.
The Medical Council of New Zealand has released guidelines on medical certification that outline the general requirements and duties of a doctor when signing any form of certificate or medical report. This is available from the Council’s website (http://www.mcnz.org.nz), or the office.
A doctor who performs a medical assessment is not responsible for the actions of the third party. The only responsibility the doctor has is to competently perform a medical assessment within the scope identified by the third party, and provide a professional, ethical report based on his or her impartial medical assessment.
There are several publications available from the Internet and some occupational groups that may assist doctors to understand the role of the independent or third party assessment. Both the Australasian and the United Kingdom Faculties of Occupational Medicine have released guidelines on this issue - guidelines are available on http://www.racp.edu.au/afom/ or http://www.facoccmed.ac.uk

A doctor has the "privilege" to decide in what lawful way a medical examination will be conducted and the patient also has the "privilege" to ask for a tape-recorded consultation. It is then a question of balancing the reasonableness of the exercise of the mutual privileges. In this particular case the doctor had not put forward any worthy arguments to refuse to tape the consultation and given the patient's perception of her dealings with ACC and specialists appointed by it, her request to tape the examination was a reasonable exercise of her privilege to do so.
References:, http://www.mcnz.org.nz.

I would like to challenge all ministers to assess the efficiency and efficacy of the Dispute Resolution Service and the way the Accident Compensation Corporation places its claimants into 3rd party assessments, whereby the doctors are well outside their scope of practice.
These doctors are mainly used to disentitle clients from Earnings Relataed Compensation.

Following the headings of the judge over your shoulder report:
Illegality
A. Means the decision maker got the law wrong,
DRSL misuses the acc legislation to its own determination

B. Decision is ultra vires (beyond scope of power)
The reviewers are not always lawyers, and lawyers cannot make decisions about Medical Issues. The LAW has no place in a person’s injury, once the injury is accepted and proven

C. Decision fails to take into account all relevant matters
Important medical documents are deliberately withheld by case managers important documents concerning health are missing/destroyed, hidden within files. It takes regular file download to keep on top of this scenario

D. Decision takes into account irrelevant matters
ACC contracted assessors add in their own versions of events, without actually taking the claimants version as a true statement.
Reports based on false information are detrimental and dangerous to health

E. Decision maker applied rigid predetermined policy
Company policy is not law or legislation

You then get
a) Error of law & Error of fact
b) Ultra vires
c) & d) Relevant/irrelevant decisions
e) Acting under dictation, Invalid delegation, improper purpose

Unfairness
A Breach of natural justice
Oral hearings and phone conferences are a waste of time, as ACC do not listen to/ignore your concerns then sprout policy over the phone.
Very rarely are you given a legitimate reason for why your case has been placed before the DSRL.
ACC have a tendency to withhold relevant material until 24 hours before a hearing, which barely gives a claimant time to read case law used against them. We cannot all afford lawyers to represent us at this level, nor to be able to take these failed processes to District Court, High Court and more recently, Supreme Court
Hearings within the DRSL can be manipulated dependant on time factors; therefore your advocate does not have a voice, when the reviewer only wants to hear oral submission, which is usually presented in conjunction with written submission

B Bias
Acc own and operate the DRSL service, therefore they have a financial interest in any outcome, they employ the reviewers, lawyers, and the inexperienced GP’s.
Regardless of the submissions, there is almost a predetermined outcome, even when true and correct information is presented during the case.
Acc hold the assessors word as law, when other factual medical/surgical reports, along with MRI/CT, and other relevant tests by doctors who care for you under the scope of practise are ignored.
Up until recently, there has been a 70% chance of losing at review

C Legitimate expectation
The duty to act fairly cannot be seen to be upheld by a company that pays your wages, and shows bias as above.
previously expressed assurances, promises or statements of intent by the decision maker as broken, and this is despite recorded meetings with Branch Managers Team leaders and case managers.
The legislation is fixed, yet somehow becomes open to interpretation in the reviews of DRSL
Once you have “won” at DRSL, there is an expectation that ACC will uphold the reviewer’s decision, this is not the case.

D Substantiative unfairness
Very rarely does acc take into consideration the amount of time and effort by the GP who manages your health, nor does it allow the GP , whom you have handed partnership of your health, to have an active role in disputing 3rd party assessors reports
Failure to consult with the GP
Failure to consult with the specialists involved, or DRSL will ask an assessor to amend a report, of it does not have the predetermined outcome DRSL wants to achieve.
Consultation is not always considered

Unreasonableness
In administration LAW:
a decision maker must act in a reasonable fashion, and the decision must rely on some reasonable basis.
This cannot be possible when acc own and run DRSL
Decisions need to look objectively at what has occurred and be satisfied with a fair and reasonable process has resulted in a fair and reasonable outcome.
Disentitleing claimants is not a fair or reasonable expectation in proven and accepted injuries.
There is no equality when a dangerous long term injury is misdiagnosed by ACC, signed of by the Branch Medical Advisor and despite repeated requests, ACC refuse to correct information held on file.

Other relevant factors within the Judge over your shoulder report are:

Substantiative unfairness-this has now been recognised as a legitimate form for review.

Impacts of reviews will be: relevant legislation and principles.

Treaty and other international instruments of domestic legislation e.g.
U.N. Convention on Children’s Rights,
NZ Bill of rights act 1990
Human Rights Act 1993

The NZBOR is therefore less likely to impact on law in areas that are already governed by detailed statutory code.
NZBOR;
The right not to be deprived of life
Freedom of thought conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of peaceful assembly
Freedom of association
Freedom from discrimination on the grounds set out by the Human rights act 1993 s19
The right of a person belonging to minority to enjoy the culture, profess and practice religion, and use the language
The rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure
The right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained
The right to the observance of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority

There are no general rules as to what is justified or reasonable
A breach of the human rights act may result in an award for compensation
This is different from Judicial Review Cases where the decision is quashed or matter reheard in court.

Human Rights Act
Claims are taken to the human rights commission and if a mediated resolution is not possible then may proceed to human rights review
This tribunal has a variety of remedies, including a declaration that a breach has been committed, orders further breaches and damages
2001 act allows for members or public to CHALLENGE GOVERNMENT ACTION

Processes and Outcomes
Interim orders
No action is taken until the review is complete.
Orders can be ex -parte (without notice to defendant)

Relief
The court can decline relief if it is decided it is in the public interest to do so

Process
Lawful examination of documents and evidence of relevant decision makers as well as interpreting relevant statues and case law

Discovery
Comprehensive list of all evidence for both parties
Privileged information can be withheld due to public interest immunity, usually involving sensitive claims material
Should be fact not hearsay or cannot be explained to a judge

Affidavits
Evidence given by sworn statement without physical presence

Consultation
Recommendations: failure to give reasoning might be regarded as a breach of duty to act fairly.

Conclusion.:
I would consider my injury to be life threatening, is currently inoperable, and I worked as a wage earer for over 24 years. I am a registered Nurse
I have 11 fully qualified doctors reports that substantiate my injury, another that mentions the neck injury even thought I didn’t, 1 CT scan, 5 MRI scans, that all prove my statement- My neck is severely injured.
Due to the process of DRSL, including a lawyer who was reprimanded by the law society, the law society would not give me a letter of support to re-hear my case, I am now struggling to meet daily needs, financial commitments and the right to live my life the best way I know how with an accepted injury.

I would consider the Process of DRSL a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, a a breach of my Human rights with several breaches of privacy, and a complete loss of Natural justice.

As my Government agents, I challenge you to fix the process, and enable injured claimants, to maintain their lawful entitlements.

Yours faithfully

NTV, (name withheld for personal reasons)]]> <![CDATA[How to Write to HDC]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=865 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 04:34:20 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=865
where... the meeting took place

why... you were sent there/they were sent to you

what... happened to you on that day,

how... you want the matter resolved.

cc all matters to the Medical Council, if it involves a Doctor..]]>
where... the meeting took place

why... you were sent there/they were sent to you

what... happened to you on that day,

how... you want the matter resolved.

cc all matters to the Medical Council, if it involves a Doctor..]]> <![CDATA[Email tracking system]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=864 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:13:17 +0100 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=864
feel free to find what suits you on the internet...

http://www.getnotify.com/ free site

http://www.readnotify.com/readnotify/about.asp pay site

these take some time to set up, but once its done it is so worth it..]]>
feel free to find what suits you on the internet...

http://www.getnotify.com/ free site

http://www.readnotify.com/readnotify/about.asp pay site

these take some time to set up, but once its done it is so worth it..]]> <![CDATA[Privacy Breaches]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=863 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:26:27 +0000 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=863
each of the numbers....just add in the supporting piece of evidence ie: the paperwork from acc....

photocopy it all!!! you will end up with a book!

just add your name, address and whatever details you want to onto a cover sheet

staple it all together, ready as evidence for a royal inquiry....

and dont forget to put on the very firSt page

THIS INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL, AND BELONGS TO THE WRITER....

VIOLA.......ALL DONE.....SIMPLE.......

with thanks to Bronwyn Pullar, who is currently being ripped apart by the media, for being a whistleblower, she needs our support.]]>
each of the numbers....just add in the supporting piece of evidence ie: the paperwork from acc....

photocopy it all!!! you will end up with a book!

just add your name, address and whatever details you want to onto a cover sheet

staple it all together, ready as evidence for a royal inquiry....

and dont forget to put on the very firSt page

THIS INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL, AND BELONGS TO THE WRITER....

VIOLA.......ALL DONE.....SIMPLE.......

with thanks to Bronwyn Pullar, who is currently being ripped apart by the media, for being a whistleblower, she needs our support.]]> <![CDATA[PrePaid assessments]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=862 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:59:29 +0000 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=862
[attachment=121]]]>
[attachment=121]]]> <![CDATA[Media]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=861 Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:21:05 +0000 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=861 Quote:Dr Chew Occupational Assessment report dated 2 April 2002
And his amended report dated 22 April 2002.

Both of these reports were made non valid, due to interference by Dr Robert Percival, Aon�s Medical Advisor. This is mentioned in the ACC Review dated 20 November 2002.

The reviewer M.J.Dunn wrote
� �THE PRIMARY OBJECTION RELATES TO THE UNINATERAL CONTACT FROM DR PERCIVAL WITH DR CHEW WHO SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED HIS REPORT�.
THE REVEIWER WENT ON TO SAY
� �THAT IS AN INAPPROPIATE ACTION AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE�.
During June 2002

Leanne MacDonnell, (Aon case manager) wrote:

Quote:“Files will be returned to ACC from about mid June only. I however don't
foresee a need to contact you before we receive the report from Dr Sprott.
WorkAon's contract with ACC ends in June, at no time did I ever
"acknowledge the fact Aon have lost their contract due to poor
performance". I believe quite the opposite to be true”.

==

----- Original Message -----
From: Fran
To: linda.watling@acc.co.nz
Cc: Gabby Boag ; Jan White
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 4:11 PM
Subject: Medical Notes Thoracia spine

Dear Linda Watling

Re: Medical notes Thoracic spine Dr Toledo

Dear Ms Watling

When you were my case manager .... at CATALYST

Could you please forward all the medical notes that you received from Dr Toledo concerning my Thoracic to Joe Sio in Manukau.

To jog your tiny memory, these were the medical notes you asked him to fax to you in early 2003, soon after Lorraine Cooke became aware I was seeing Dr Toledo.

Thank you

Fran Van Helmond

==

Friday 16 April 2004 Fran Van Helmond
RD4 Waiuku
Franklin 1852

Mr. Neil Mookerjee
ACC (Takapuna)
PO Box 90-341 (FreePost 264)
Auckland ACC Injury File no: T1492078/005

Re: Communication from Mr. McSherry dated 9 January 2003

Dear Mr. Neil Mookerjee

On the 9 January 2003, the then Regional Manager of Catalyst Northern, Mr. Mark McSherry, who I believe is now is the Regional Manager of ACC Northern, wrote acknowledging receipt of the x-ray report concerning my shoulder strain that I had faxed to Catalyst on the 6th January 2003.

In the letter he stated �In response to your numerous phone calls ��

I am requesting that Mr. McSherry provide evidence of these alleged �numerous phone calls� or otherwise withdraw the allegation and forward an apology to me for intentionally distorting/overstating the true facts.

In the same letter, he also wrote �As Lorraine Cook discussed with you on the phone on the 7th January 2003 ��

I agree that Lorraine Cook verbally informed me that the x-ray report only indicated degenerative deterioration and that had nothing to do with my lower back.

Mr. Mookerjee, as Lorraine Cook has clearly made a decision, she should have followed the correct procedure and informed me of that decision in writing!

I am requesting that Lorraine Cook follow the correct procedure and officially inform me, in writing, of the decision she made on the 7 January 2003 regarding the x-ray report that I faxed to my previous case manager Linda Watling.

I am also requesting from Lorraine Cook and/or Linda Watling an acknowledgement and/or confirmation that they contacted Dr Juan Toledo in regards to the x-ray report.

As enquiries were made regarding the x-ray report, I request that a transcript of their conversation/s to Dr Toledo be forwarded to me as soon as possible.

I also request that you send me copies of all documents, including the fax cover page addressed to the attention of Linda Watling, which Dr. Toledo faxed to the Catalyst Takapuna office on the 6 or 7 January 2003.

I would at this time point out to the ACC that I am fully aware of contact being made with Dr Toledo so continuing to deny this fact will only but escalate the situation to my further advantage.

A response to all of the above would be appreciated within 7 days.

I believe this to be an adequate time frame for all concerned.

Yours sincerely

Signed:

Fran Van Helmond
Dated:

==

Monday 17th February 2003
RD4 Waiuku
Franklin Auckland

Dane Tui (Barrister)
danetuiqereqere
PO Box 7200
Wellesley Street Auckland.

Dear Dane Tui

I received your letter today, 17th February 2003.

If your two clients wish to proceed with legal proceedings against me, so then be it!

Ms MacDonnell destroyed any opportunity of myself ever getting back into employment while she was my case manager and working for WorkAon!

At the time, most of my complaints to ACC and to the Minister of ACC, Ruth Dyson, concerning the way she was treating me, I referred to her as a control freak so if she wishes to make an issue about that as well, do it!

Ms Watling is fully aware of what she said to me concerning the bankruptcy allegation during our meeting that was held at the Manukau Workbridge office in July of 2002! She can deny saying what she did say as much as she likes, but at the end of the day, both she and I know the truth! (and the rest of NZ will as well once its in court!)

I consider this as another attempt by Catalyst to get me off their backs so if these two ladies are prepared to take legal action against me, then please make them aware that I shall be seeking damages and costs from them for wasting more of my time once the truth is established!

A copy of your letter is being forwarded to the Sunday Star Times, Minister of ACC, Ms Ruth Dyson, and to Gary Wilson, the CEO of ACC!

Have a nice day. Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely

Signed:

==

Christmas day 2003

Quote:Hon. Ms. Ruth Dyson
Minister for ACC
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

To the Minister for ACC, Ms. Ruth Dyson

Ms Linda Watling in a fax to the complaints investigator, dated 27 February 2003 alleged that I left the following abusive message on her voicemail =

�I hope you break your f---ing neck, have a nice day�

Numerous requests were made to Linda Watling, Steve Wagner and others to provide evidence of that tape.

They have failed to come up with that tape!

If any such message were ever left on my voice mail, I for one would NOT have hesitated to make an official complaint with the Police!

If there was such a message, why then did Watling not go to the Police?

I consider this as yet another attempt by ACC/Catalyst to get me off their backs.

This sort of bullshit by ACC/Catalyst case managers would/does lead to some claimants ending their lives in sear frustration!

No doubt this will be discovered if an enquiry was ever held into the way ACC management were encouraging their case managers to treat long term clients!

At the end of the day, all this bullshit from certain ACC/Catalyst management and staff is certainly going to cost them a lot of money, and their jobs, if I have it my way!

A copy of this letter is being forwarded to Dr Paul Hutchison, MP for Port Waikato, and to the Sunday Star Times.

Yours sincerely

Signed:

Dated:

and then from a letter written by Gabby Boag.......

Quote:ACC has in place robust systems to support staff to deal with difficult situations. Each incident is considered on its own merits, and staff are consulted, as to the affect the unreasonable or personally abusive client behaviour may have on them. As I am sure you will appreciate, we all react to situations differently. What is personally offensive to one, may not be to another. Where the staff member reports feeling physically threatened by a client's unreasonable behaviour, ACC will provide support to lodge a complaint with the Police. In this instance, however, while your message was deemed offensive, it was not felt that staff were at risk of physical harm from you, and so the Police were not involved.
As an employer, ACC takes its Health and Safety responsibilities seriously. Where there is a pattern of unreasonable client behaviour (e.g. offensive language, personally abusive communications, and threatening behaviour against staff), action is taken to ensure staff feel safe in their roles. One of these strategies, as you are aware, is to manage communication to and from the client. ACC certainly expects its staff to behave in a profe..ssional and ethical manner at all times. Unfortunaately- we cannot guarantee the clients they deal with will respond in kind.
In closing Fran, ACC does not have a recording of your 2003 voice message to Ms Watling. Nor did we consider it necessary to lodge a complaint with the Police at the time. Had this call been received today, it is more than likely the same action would have been taken — ACC would not lodge a complaint with the Police. We would, however, contact you to advise this type of communication is unacceptable.
Moving forward Fran, I will also take this opportunity to re-iterate the following:
• Your emails to ACC are being diverted to a central email box, which will now be checked daily;
• We will only respond to new issues raised;
• Where the issues raised have previously been addressed fully by ACC, no response will be provided;
• Where your issue relates to a new case management or new entitlement issue, it
will be re-directed to the ACC Manukau Branch for consideration of a response;
• ACC will respond to you by normal post;
• ACC remains unconvinced that you can engage with staff in a meaningful manner over the telephone. Accordingly, the communication restriction that you can only contact ACC staff in "writing, remains. You can do this by email or post; and
• I note that Ms McMurdo mentioned these communication restrictions to you in her letter dated 30/09/08.
I trust this letter explains ACC's handling of your 2003 voice message, and clarifies our current approach to your claim.
Yours sincerely
`f
Gabby Boag
Chief Complaints Investigator
Cc: Ms S McMurdo, Branch Manager, ACC Manukau

==

Thursday 20th May 2004

Fran Van Helmond
RD4
Waiuku 1852

Dr. Ian Anderson
Waiuku Medical Centre
Waiuku

Dear Dr. Ian Anderson

During June and/or July 2003, did you contact the ACC/Catalyst requesting permission to give me a referral to see a specialist in regards to my ongoing lower back pain and cramps in my left leg?

If so, whom did you speak to and what was their response?

I would appreciate that you kindly respond within 7 days.

Thank you.

Fran Van Helmond

=============== No Response received

Wednesday 1st September 2004.

Fran Van Helmond
RD4
Waiuku 1852

Dr. Ian Anderson
Waiuku Medical Centre
92 Queen Street
Waiuku

Dear Dr. Anderson

For your information:

Dr Chew Occupational Assessment report dated 2 April 2002
And his amended report dated 22 April 2002.

Both of these reports were made non-valid, due to interference by Dr Robert Percival, Aon�s Medical Advisor. This is mentioned in the ACC Review dated 20 November 2002. The reviewer M.J.Dunn writes

THE PRIMARY OBJECTION RELATES TO THE UNINATERAL CONTACT FROM DR PERCIVAL WITH DR CHEW WHO SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED HIS REPORT.

THE REVEIWER WENT ON TO SAY �THAT IS AN INAPPROPIATE ACTION AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE�.

In March of this year, Dr. Howie reported that it was his opinion I would be �Unlikely to be able to work for more than 20 hours per week�!

For the record, I found Dr. Toledo to be an excellent doctor who went out of his way to try and find the cause of why my hand was cramping up. It was he that alerted me to the ACC contacting him.

I found Dr. Brown to be an excellent doctor as well; even thou I only had the privilege of seeing him once.

It is not you who has to suffer each and everyday from the cramps, pain and everything else that comes with my injuries Dr. Anderson.

I understand you contacted my ACC case manager during June or July of 2003. Please forward to me within 7 days details/nature of this telephone call and what the ACC case managers instructions to you were.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Fran Van Helmond

=============== No Response received

Friday 3rd September 2004.

Fran Van Helmond
RD4
Waiuku 1852

Dr. Ian Anderson
Waiuku Medical Centre
92 Queen Street
Waiuku

Dear Dr. Anderson

I was contacted by one of your reception staff members this morning (Friday 3 September 2004) at approximately 9.30am regarding my Medical File and could I collect it as it appeared that I no longer was a client because I had not been there since last August.

The reason why I have not been to your Medical Surgery since last August is because I was informed by one of your staff, when I tried to make an appointment to have my WINZ Cert updated at that time, that you (or Dr Brown) no-longer wanted to be my Doctor!

This is the reason I now have to endure much increased pain, discomfort and financial strain by having to travel some 54k one way to consult with my new GP in Papakura.

If I am unable to personally call in to your Surgery within the next week or two because of my health, I will ask my representative to call in to collect the file.

I informed your staff member that I still had an outstanding account of $25.00 of which I would settle on collection of the file.

She informed me that the outstanding balance was $90.00!

Doctor, I have a letter from you stating that you adjusted the outstanding balance down to $25.00 and the rest was ACC!

I must say that ever since my first consultation with you, when you informed me that you had spent your entire lunch break reading my Medical File, which Dr Campbell sent you, your attitude toward me has been of much suspicion.

Your comment �I won�t be looking at your lower back until after the ACC appeal is known� during one consultation confirmed my suspicions!

At the end of the day, the only people who are frightened of me are those who have something to hide! And it seems that whenever I get close to the truth, they are the first to lay on the crap/slander/lies to try and frighten me away! And I am not only referring to people at the ACC!

Have a nice day. Yours faithfully

Fran Van Helmond

=============== No Response received

Friday 21 April 2006.

For the attention of:

The Practice Manager
Waiuku Medical Centre
92 Queen Street
Waiuku

I would like to advise you that the outstanding account debt of $25.00 that I had owed to your medical centre for consultations with Dr. Ian Anderson was paid in full on the 19-4-06.

Please accept my apologies for the delay. It was both unintentional and unavoidable.

I had intended to uplift my Medical History File when making the payment but on seeing the thickness of the envelope (which presumably contained the alleged complete Medical History file) that was offered to me, I chose not to at that time as I considered what I was being offered fell far short of being the complete file.

My file contained thirteen years of Medical Information and when last seen lying on the floor of Dr Anderson�s consultation room, was three (3) to four (4) times thicker again than what was presumed to be the complete file by your staff when they offered it to me.

Please ensure that the complete file, not just a part of, is prepared for uplifting.

Please do not post the file to me as the number of pages within the file being uplifted will need to be noted, and enclosed, before the envelope is sealed.

Please ensure that the file also contains Dr Campbell�s letter to Dr Anderson that was sent with the file when it was transferred between the two practices and any other notation that Dr�s Anderson and Campbell may have placed into the file.

Please thank your staff for their efforts to try and locate all the missing parts of my file.

Thank you

Fran Van Helmond
RD4
Waiuku

=============== No Response received

Gets interesting ... watch this space. I hope Gabby has kept copies of all these emails that she's on about! Did she send a CC to Warren? No! Did Mr Sio inform these ACC doctors in Wellington that my medical file was incomplete? Yeah right!

==

Monday 16 January 2006
Ms. Toni Izzard
ACC Chief Complaints Investigator
PO Box 242
Wellington T1492073/005

Dear Ms Toni Izzard

I quite clearly wrote in my letter to Ms Dearsley (dated 29 December 2005, of which a copy was also forwarded to the Minister for ACC), the following

Dear Ms. Judy Dearsley

�The Minister for ACC appears not to have received my letter �Disputing� the accuracy of the information contained in report issued by Susan Carlyle (ACC Complaints Investigator). I specifically requested that a copy of my (dispute) letter be attached to Susan Carlyle�s report and placed into my Injury File so third parties, like the Hon Ruth Dyson, Judge Cadenhead, and ACC�s Internal Auditors, who see and make reference to her report, are aware of the �Dispute� that exists. This unprofessional practice (correspondence from ACC clients being �lost� or �never received�) first came to light when you were Ruth Dyson�s Private ACC Secretary in 2001! Is it correct that you as the Complaints Administrator solely manage all the complaints regarding AON�s Case Management practices? When you were in contact with the DRSL regarding my last (2nd) Review Hearing, what advise did you give to the Reviewer? The Minister for ACC wrote that she was �confident� nothing illegal took place with the managing of my Injury File, are you therefore prepared to be called by the Court where you will be �Under Oath� when being questioned on the level of your involvement? I am surprised that the Minister for ACC Ruth Dyson has not encouraged the ACC to allow this to happen at an earlier stage considering the huge number of complaints having been or are being made to her office concerning ACC, AON, CATALYST and/or LTCU clients, past or present, between 1999 and 2005! I can�t think of a better way for the ACC to show the Minister that her �Confidence� is appreciated, and will/may not ultimately lead to the Minister resigning in disgrace from Parliament!

Ms Dearsley, I expect a written reply within 7 days.�

In your letter dated 5 January 2006, you (Toni Izzard) responded by writing

Dear Mr Van Helmond

1. �Thank you for your letter received in the Office of the Complaints Investigator on 4 January 2006 addressed to Mrs Judy Dearsley. You have raised a number of issues that I will attempt to respond to.�

2. �1) You have referred to a letter which you sent to the Minister for ACC �disputing� the accuracy of the information contained in a report issued by Susan Carlyle. You requested that your letter be attached to Ms Carlyle�s report and placed on your injury file. The Minister does not appear to have a copy of that letter. Therefore, I am unable to clarify whether this has request has been actioned.�

3. �2) As Complaints Administrator, Mrs Dearsley is not, nor ever has been solely responsible for the complaints regarding AON�s Case Management practices. Any complaint that comes into this Office is allocated to a Complaints Investigator who then carries out an investigation into the concerns raised.�

4. �3) Mrs Dearsley did not give any advice to the Reviewer regarding your 2nd Review Hearing, nor would any member of the Office of the Complaints Investigator do so. If an Investigator is involved in a Review of a complaints decision, submissions are made before the Review takes place. Any information provided is referred to in the Review decision provided by the Reviewer. For your information, Mrs Dearsley does not undertake investigation decisions which are Reviewable.�

5. �I am unable to comment on the remaining issues you raised in your letter as this Office is not/has not ever been involved in the management of your claim.�

Ms Izzard, did I miss something or are you trying to distort the issues I raised in my letter dated 29 December 2005 by piling on more bullshit?

I can understand why my dispute letter was not attached to Susan Carlyle�s �report/review� as specifically requested and I can understand why that same dispute letter was not forwarded to the Minister for ACC by the ACC at the same time the Minister was advised, or made aware of, the report written by Susan Carlyle.

Fran Van Helmond
RD4 Waiuku
Franklin 1852

==

28 June 2007

Dear Mr Van Helmond

Emails to ACC Chief Executive

I refer to your recent emails addressed to Dr Jan White, Chief Executive, regarding ACC's decission to decline cover of your thoractic injury. These have been referred to me for response, in my capacity as Chief Complaints Investigator.

ACC acknowledges that you are frustrated and disappointed with this decission. However, it is also our view that the decision was final. I understand that it is based on the medical information you provided to ACC, which was subsequently reviewed by Dr Monigatti and Dr Kevin Morris. The conclusion was that this information did not present evidence of a thoracic injury in 1992. I also understand that the rational for ACC's decission was relayed to you in person by staff at our Manukau Branch, and that your advocate Warren Forster was in attendance. Should you disagree with that decission, I can only reiterate the advice that you have already been given, regarding the review process.

If you have additional information which you do not believe was included in ACC's considerations, please provide this to your Case Manager, Joe Sio. He will arrange for this to be evaluated by Dr Monigatti and Dr Morris, to determine if it changes ACC's decission.

I have read the emails that you have sent Dr White. Again, I acknowledge the frustration and disappointment you have expressed about your personal circumstances. However, ACC is otherwise satisfied that it has made a reasonable decision.

In future, contact from you will be evaluated to determine the following:

1) Whether the issues raised are valid and reasonable, and
2) Whether there is any need for those issues to be addressed by ACC (the Branch or Corporate Office).

Where your email comments only on ACC's decission and notes your personal objections to it (as the emails in recent weeks have done), it will be acknowledged, but no further action taken. Communicating your personal objections to ACC in this manner will not result in a different outcome. I reiterate that you have the option of testing our decision at Review, or providing additional information which was not available to ACC prior to this decision. If there are new issues raised, that have not previously been assessed, ACC will provide an appropiate response.

Whilse I acknowledge your legal right to protest about what you perceive to be an injustice, I also believe that as an organisation we have an obligation to set clear expectations for our dealings with you.

If you require financial assistance, you may be intitled to claim this from Work and Income. ACC can assist you in approaching them about this. You can contact Mr Sio at 915-1751, should you decide to pursue this option. Mr Sio will do everything he can to assist you in this regard.

Yours sincerely,

[signed by Ms Boag]

Gabby Boag
Chief Complaints Investigator

Cc: J Sio, Case Manager, Manukau Branch
J. Ollington, Acting Branch Manager]]> Quote:Dr Chew Occupational Assessment report dated 2 April 2002
And his amended report dated 22 April 2002.

Both of these reports were made non valid, due to interference by Dr Robert Percival, Aon�s Medical Advisor. This is mentioned in the ACC Review dated 20 November 2002.

The reviewer M.J.Dunn wrote
� �THE PRIMARY OBJECTION RELATES TO THE UNINATERAL CONTACT FROM DR PERCIVAL WITH DR CHEW WHO SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED HIS REPORT�.
THE REVEIWER WENT ON TO SAY
� �THAT IS AN INAPPROPIATE ACTION AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE�.
During June 2002

Leanne MacDonnell, (Aon case manager) wrote:

Quote:“Files will be returned to ACC from about mid June only. I however don't
foresee a need to contact you before we receive the report from Dr Sprott.
WorkAon's contract with ACC ends in June, at no time did I ever
"acknowledge the fact Aon have lost their contract due to poor
performance". I believe quite the opposite to be true”.

Quote:Hon. Ms. Ruth Dyson
Minister for ACC
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

To the Minister for ACC, Ms. Ruth Dyson

Ms Linda Watling in a fax to the complaints investigator, dated 27 February 2003 alleged that I left the following abusive message on her voicemail =

�I hope you break your f---ing neck, have a nice day�

Numerous requests were made to Linda Watling, Steve Wagner and others to provide evidence of that tape.

They have failed to come up with that tape!

If any such message were ever left on my voice mail, I for one would NOT have hesitated to make an official complaint with the Police!

If there was such a message, why then did Watling not go to the Police?

I consider this as yet another attempt by ACC/Catalyst to get me off their backs.

This sort of bullshit by ACC/Catalyst case managers would/does lead to some claimants ending their lives in sear frustration!

No doubt this will be discovered if an enquiry was ever held into the way ACC management were encouraging their case managers to treat long term clients!

At the end of the day, all this bullshit from certain ACC/Catalyst management and staff is certainly going to cost them a lot of money, and their jobs, if I have it my way!

A copy of this letter is being forwarded to Dr Paul Hutchison, MP for Port Waikato, and to the Sunday Star Times.

Yours sincerely

Signed:

Dated:

and then from a letter written by Gabby Boag.......

Quote:ACC has in place robust systems to support staff to deal with difficult situations. Each incident is considered on its own merits, and staff are consulted, as to the affect the unreasonable or personally abusive client behaviour may have on them. As I am sure you will appreciate, we all react to situations differently. What is personally offensive to one, may not be to another. Where the staff member reports feeling physically threatened by a client's unreasonable behaviour, ACC will provide support to lodge a complaint with the Police. In this instance, however, while your message was deemed offensive, it was not felt that staff were at risk of physical harm from you, and so the Police were not involved.
As an employer, ACC takes its Health and Safety responsibilities seriously. Where there is a pattern of unreasonable client behaviour (e.g. offensive language, personally abusive communications, and threatening behaviour against staff), action is taken to ensure staff feel safe in their roles. One of these strategies, as you are aware, is to manage communication to and from the client. ACC certainly expects its staff to behave in a profe..ssional and ethical manner at all times. Unfortunaately- we cannot guarantee the clients they deal with will respond in kind.
In closing Fran, ACC does not have a recording of your 2003 voice message to Ms Watling. Nor did we consider it necessary to lodge a complaint with the Police at the time. Had this call been received today, it is more than likely the same action would have been taken — ACC would not lodge a complaint with the Police. We would, however, contact you to advise this type of communication is unacceptable.
Moving forward Fran, I will also take this opportunity to re-iterate the following:
• Your emails to ACC are being diverted to a central email box, which will now be checked daily;
• We will only respond to new issues raised;
• Where the issues raised have previously been addressed fully by ACC, no response will be provided;
• Where your issue relates to a new case management or new entitlement issue, it
will be re-directed to the ACC Manukau Branch for consideration of a response;
• ACC will respond to you by normal post;
• ACC remains unconvinced that you can engage with staff in a meaningful manner over the telephone. Accordingly, the communication restriction that you can only contact ACC staff in "writing, remains. You can do this by email or post; and
• I note that Ms McMurdo mentioned these communication restrictions to you in her letter dated 30/09/08.
I trust this letter explains ACC's handling of your 2003 voice message, and clarifies our current approach to your claim.
Yours sincerely
`f
Gabby Boag
Chief Complaints Investigator
Cc: Ms S McMurdo, Branch Manager, ACC Manukau

==

Thursday 20th May 2004

Fran Van Helmond
RD4
Waiuku 1852

Dr. Ian Anderson
Waiuku Medical Centre
Waiuku

Dear Dr. Ian Anderson

During June and/or July 2003, did you contact the ACC/Catalyst requesting permission to give me a referral to see a specialist in regards to my ongoing lower back pain and cramps in my left leg?

If so, whom did you speak to and what was their response?

I would appreciate that you kindly respond within 7 days.

Thank you.

Fran Van Helmond

=============== No Response received

Wednesday 1st September 2004.

Fran Van Helmond
RD4
Waiuku 1852

Dr. Ian Anderson
Waiuku Medical Centre
92 Queen Street
Waiuku

Dear Dr. Anderson

For your information:

Dr Chew Occupational Assessment report dated 2 April 2002
And his amended report dated 22 April 2002.

Both of these reports were made non-valid, due to interference by Dr Robert Percival, Aon�s Medical Advisor. This is mentioned in the ACC Review dated 20 November 2002. The reviewer M.J.Dunn writes

THE PRIMARY OBJECTION RELATES TO THE UNINATERAL CONTACT FROM DR PERCIVAL WITH DR CHEW WHO SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED HIS REPORT.

THE REVEIWER WENT ON TO SAY �THAT IS AN INAPPROPIATE ACTION AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE�.

In March of this year, Dr. Howie reported that it was his opinion I would be �Unlikely to be able to work for more than 20 hours per week�!

For the record, I found Dr. Toledo to be an excellent doctor who went out of his way to try and find the cause of why my hand was cramping up. It was he that alerted me to the ACC contacting him.

I found Dr. Brown to be an excellent doctor as well; even thou I only had the privilege of seeing him once.

It is not you who has to suffer each and everyday from the cramps, pain and everything else that comes with my injuries Dr. Anderson.

I understand you contacted my ACC case manager during June or July of 2003. Please forward to me within 7 days details/nature of this telephone call and what the ACC case managers instructions to you were.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Fran Van Helmond

=============== No Response received

Friday 3rd September 2004.

Fran Van Helmond
RD4
Waiuku 1852

Dr. Ian Anderson
Waiuku Medical Centre
92 Queen Street
Waiuku

Dear Dr. Anderson

I was contacted by one of your reception staff members this morning (Friday 3 September 2004) at approximately 9.30am regarding my Medical File and could I collect it as it appeared that I no longer was a client because I had not been there since last August.

The reason why I have not been to your Medical Surgery since last August is because I was informed by one of your staff, when I tried to make an appointment to have my WINZ Cert updated at that time, that you (or Dr Brown) no-longer wanted to be my Doctor!

This is the reason I now have to endure much increased pain, discomfort and financial strain by having to travel some 54k one way to consult with my new GP in Papakura.

If I am unable to personally call in to your Surgery within the next week or two because of my health, I will ask my representative to call in to collect the file.

I informed your staff member that I still had an outstanding account of $25.00 of which I would settle on collection of the file.

She informed me that the outstanding balance was $90.00!

Doctor, I have a letter from you stating that you adjusted the outstanding balance down to $25.00 and the rest was ACC!

I must say that ever since my first consultation with you, when you informed me that you had spent your entire lunch break reading my Medical File, which Dr Campbell sent you, your attitude toward me has been of much suspicion.

Your comment �I won�t be looking at your lower back until after the ACC appeal is known� during one consultation confirmed my suspicions!

At the end of the day, the only people who are frightened of me are those who have something to hide! And it seems that whenever I get close to the truth, they are the first to lay on the crap/slander/lies to try and frighten me away! And I am not only referring to people at the ACC!

Have a nice day. Yours faithfully

Fran Van Helmond

=============== No Response received

Friday 21 April 2006.

For the attention of:

The Practice Manager
Waiuku Medical Centre
92 Queen Street
Waiuku

I would like to advise you that the outstanding account debt of $25.00 that I had owed to your medical centre for consultations with Dr. Ian Anderson was paid in full on the 19-4-06.

Please accept my apologies for the delay. It was both unintentional and unavoidable.

I had intended to uplift my Medical History File when making the payment but on seeing the thickness of the envelope (which presumably contained the alleged complete Medical History file) that was offered to me, I chose not to at that time as I considered what I was being offered fell far short of being the complete file.

My file contained thirteen years of Medical Information and when last seen lying on the floor of Dr Anderson�s consultation room, was three (3) to four (4) times thicker again than what was presumed to be the complete file by your staff when they offered it to me.

Please ensure that the complete file, not just a part of, is prepared for uplifting.

Please do not post the file to me as the number of pages within the file being uplifted will need to be noted, and enclosed, before the envelope is sealed.

Please ensure that the file also contains Dr Campbell�s letter to Dr Anderson that was sent with the file when it was transferred between the two practices and any other notation that Dr�s Anderson and Campbell may have placed into the file.

Please thank your staff for their efforts to try and locate all the missing parts of my file.

Thank you

Fran Van Helmond
RD4
Waiuku

=============== No Response received

Gets interesting ... watch this space. I hope Gabby has kept copies of all these emails that she's on about! Did she send a CC to Warren? No! Did Mr Sio inform these ACC doctors in Wellington that my medical file was incomplete? Yeah right!

==

Monday 16 January 2006
Ms. Toni Izzard
ACC Chief Complaints Investigator
PO Box 242
Wellington T1492073/005

Dear Ms Toni Izzard

I quite clearly wrote in my letter to Ms Dearsley (dated 29 December 2005, of which a copy was also forwarded to the Minister for ACC), the following

Dear Ms. Judy Dearsley

�The Minister for ACC appears not to have received my letter �Disputing� the accuracy of the information contained in report issued by Susan Carlyle (ACC Complaints Investigator). I specifically requested that a copy of my (dispute) letter be attached to Susan Carlyle�s report and placed into my Injury File so third parties, like the Hon Ruth Dyson, Judge Cadenhead, and ACC�s Internal Auditors, who see and make reference to her report, are aware of the �Dispute� that exists. This unprofessional practice (correspondence from ACC clients being �lost� or �never received�) first came to light when you were Ruth Dyson�s Private ACC Secretary in 2001! Is it correct that you as the Complaints Administrator solely manage all the complaints regarding AON�s Case Management practices? When you were in contact with the DRSL regarding my last (2nd) Review Hearing, what advise did you give to the Reviewer? The Minister for ACC wrote that she was �confident� nothing illegal took place with the managing of my Injury File, are you therefore prepared to be called by the Court where you will be �Under Oath� when being questioned on the level of your involvement? I am surprised that the Minister for ACC Ruth Dyson has not encouraged the ACC to allow this to happen at an earlier stage considering the huge number of complaints having been or are being made to her office concerning ACC, AON, CATALYST and/or LTCU clients, past or present, between 1999 and 2005! I can�t think of a better way for the ACC to show the Minister that her �Confidence� is appreciated, and will/may not ultimately lead to the Minister resigning in disgrace from Parliament!

Ms Dearsley, I expect a written reply within 7 days.�

In your letter dated 5 January 2006, you (Toni Izzard) responded by writing

Dear Mr Van Helmond

1. �Thank you for your letter received in the Office of the Complaints Investigator on 4 January 2006 addressed to Mrs Judy Dearsley. You have raised a number of issues that I will attempt to respond to.�

2. �1) You have referred to a letter which you sent to the Minister for ACC �disputing� the accuracy of the information contained in a report issued by Susan Carlyle. You requested that your letter be attached to Ms Carlyle�s report and placed on your injury file. The Minister does not appear to have a copy of that letter. Therefore, I am unable to clarify whether this has request has been actioned.�

3. �2) As Complaints Administrator, Mrs Dearsley is not, nor ever has been solely responsible for the complaints regarding AON�s Case Management practices. Any complaint that comes into this Office is allocated to a Complaints Investigator who then carries out an investigation into the concerns raised.�

4. �3) Mrs Dearsley did not give any advice to the Reviewer regarding your 2nd Review Hearing, nor would any member of the Office of the Complaints Investigator do so. If an Investigator is involved in a Review of a complaints decision, submissions are made before the Review takes place. Any information provided is referred to in the Review decision provided by the Reviewer. For your information, Mrs Dearsley does not undertake investigation decisions which are Reviewable.�

5. �I am unable to comment on the remaining issues you raised in your letter as this Office is not/has not ever been involved in the management of your claim.�

Ms Izzard, did I miss something or are you trying to distort the issues I raised in my letter dated 29 December 2005 by piling on more bullshit?

I can understand why my dispute letter was not attached to Susan Carlyle�s �report/review� as specifically requested and I can understand why that same dispute letter was not forwarded to the Minister for ACC by the ACC at the same time the Minister was advised, or made aware of, the report written by Susan Carlyle.

Fran Van Helmond
RD4 Waiuku
Franklin 1852

==

28 June 2007

Dear Mr Van Helmond

Emails to ACC Chief Executive

I refer to your recent emails addressed to Dr Jan White, Chief Executive, regarding ACC's decission to decline cover of your thoractic injury. These have been referred to me for response, in my capacity as Chief Complaints Investigator.

ACC acknowledges that you are frustrated and disappointed with this decission. However, it is also our view that the decision was final. I understand that it is based on the medical information you provided to ACC, which was subsequently reviewed by Dr Monigatti and Dr Kevin Morris. The conclusion was that this information did not present evidence of a thoracic injury in 1992. I also understand that the rational for ACC's decission was relayed to you in person by staff at our Manukau Branch, and that your advocate Warren Forster was in attendance. Should you disagree with that decission, I can only reiterate the advice that you have already been given, regarding the review process.

If you have additional information which you do not believe was included in ACC's considerations, please provide this to your Case Manager, Joe Sio. He will arrange for this to be evaluated by Dr Monigatti and Dr Morris, to determine if it changes ACC's decission.

I have read the emails that you have sent Dr White. Again, I acknowledge the frustration and disappointment you have expressed about your personal circumstances. However, ACC is otherwise satisfied that it has made a reasonable decision.

In future, contact from you will be evaluated to determine the following:

1) Whether the issues raised are valid and reasonable, and
2) Whether there is any need for those issues to be addressed by ACC (the Branch or Corporate Office).

Where your email comments only on ACC's decission and notes your personal objections to it (as the emails in recent weeks have done), it will be acknowledged, but no further action taken. Communicating your personal objections to ACC in this manner will not result in a different outcome. I reiterate that you have the option of testing our decision at Review, or providing additional information which was not available to ACC prior to this decision. If there are new issues raised, that have not previously been assessed, ACC will provide an appropiate response.

Whilse I acknowledge your legal right to protest about what you perceive to be an injustice, I also believe that as an organisation we have an obligation to set clear expectations for our dealings with you.

If you require financial assistance, you may be intitled to claim this from Work and Income. ACC can assist you in approaching them about this. You can contact Mr Sio at 915-1751, should you decide to pursue this option. Mr Sio will do everything he can to assist you in this regard.

Yours sincerely,

[signed by Ms Boag]

Gabby Boag
Chief Complaints Investigator

Cc: J Sio, Case Manager, Manukau Branch
J. Ollington, Acting Branch Manager]]> <![CDATA[Linda Watling aka KSG]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=860 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:05:59 +0000 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=860 http://www.myspace.com/kiwisoupgirl

[Image: p.jpg]

Details

Status: Divorced
Here for: Friends
Hometown: currently, Devonport (Auckland, NZ)
Orientation: Straight
Body type: Average
Ethnicity: Other
Zodiac Sign: Libra
Children: Proud parent
Smoke / Drink: No / Yes
Occupation: general dogsbody

Schools

Whakatane High School - 1974 to 1974
Graduated: N/A
Student status: Alumni
Degree: Other

Waitaki Girls' High School - 1974 to 1974
Graduated: N/A
Student status: Alumni
Degree: Other

New Plymouth Girls' High School - 1972 to 1974
Graduated: N/A
Student status: Alumni
Degree: Other

Companies

KiwiMusic Services Online
North Shore, Auckland NZ
KSG Ltd]]> <![CDATA[Template to Use when requesting all your Information from acc]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=859 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:36:31 +0000 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=859 your address
you claimant number

to:case manager
cc: branch manager

Request for Information – Official Information and Privacy Acts
PART A

• Request for Updated ‘IT’ Sweep.

1. Under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC undertake and complete an 'IT' Sweep of all communications between ACC and all parties whether internal or external, that ACC stores on all of my claims, or names, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise.

a) To reiterate, this request is irrespective of the type of injury, or non-injury or otherwise, whether the communication is injury related, non-injury related or otherwise, or the type/nature of the communication.

b) Please ensure that the ‘IT’ Sweep is conducted and completed with every possible variation/s of my name and the names that I have previously been known by, which ACC is aware of and is documented on my claim files.

c) There are no formal previous requests for an ‘IT’ Sweep. There have been other requests under the Privacy Act and Official information act for Claim File Download

d) Through this further and new request made today, please provide any additional information that was not included in my previous requests. I would ask that any additional information not previously supplied to me, be in the same manner as outlined in this letter – without exception.

2. In requesting that an 'IT' Sweep be completed, I specifically require the following information also be provided to me through the 'IT' Sweep:-

e) That the 'IT' Sweep be undertaken and completed for the period from approximately March 2002 and as above, to a date that is within the time frame for ACC to action requests for information under the IOA and Privacy Acts. I would estimate that this ‘IT’ Sweep request be conducted/completed up to, or approximate to, the date of 14 September 2011.

f) Please confirm with me the formal ‘end date’ of this ‘IT’ Sweep request as soon as possible and prior to completion/delivery to me.

3. In addition, I also request that ACC undertakes and completes the 'IT' Sweep (as above), whether internal or external (as above) that ACC stores in the following areas also:-

i. All physical claims.
ii. ACC Complaints Office.
iii. Office of the ACC Complaints Investigation Unit and ACC Complaints Line/Office/Call Centre.
iv. ACC Head Office, Office of the ACC CEO, ACC Corporate Services, ACC Clinical Directorate, and any other such section/unit/branch of ACC as identified in the opening paragraph of this letter.
v. ACC Debt Management Unit.
vi. ACC Intelligence and Support Services.
vii. ACC Contracted Third Party Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
viii. Non-ACC (Contracted) Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.

g) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful reason that this has been done, and;

PART B

• ACC Employee and External Access to Claimant files, information etc.

4. In addition to PART A above, under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC also provides me with full details of the following from march 2002 up to an inclusive of this request being completed – estimated to be approximate to the date of 14/9/2011

h) Information as to who has specifically accessed my file/s for any reason/s, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise. Name, date and title details required of each person who has accessed my files, whether this be (ACC) internally or externally.

i) Please specify exactly for what purpose inclusive of any legislative requirements, any aspect of any part of my claim files (ACC) internally or externally – injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, has been accessed. Names, date and title details required of each person who has accessed any aspect of my files, with the purpose/s being specified precisely for each and every occasion that this has occurred and why this has occurred.

j) Please provide information, reasons, and purposes as specified, detailed, outlined and in the same manner as discussed in PART A, No.3 (i–x) of this letter and PART B.

k) Please provide me with information, and copies of, the authority that exists or existed for any aspect of any part of my claim files, injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, that were forwarded onto any other persons – (ACC) internally or externally, for what reason/s, purpose and under which legislative edict or otherwise, this was done. Names, date/s and title details required also.

l) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful and legal reason that this has been done, and why.

Please advise me by Email only when all information/documentation is available to me, at which time I will provide ACC with a physical address to courier the documents to me.

Please take this letter by Email/Attachment – PDF file, forwarded to you as the Case Manager of ACC, dated 14/9/2011, as my formal written request to receive this information under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts.

If you wish to clarify any matters with me, please contact me by Email only and finally, I request that you acknowledge by return Email also, receipt of my formal written requests as outlined in this letter to you.

Thank you.

your sincerely

Your name]]> your address
you claimant number

to:case manager
cc: branch manager

Request for Information – Official Information and Privacy Acts
PART A

• Request for Updated ‘IT’ Sweep.

1. Under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC undertake and complete an 'IT' Sweep of all communications between ACC and all parties whether internal or external, that ACC stores on all of my claims, or names, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise.

a) To reiterate, this request is irrespective of the type of injury, or non-injury or otherwise, whether the communication is injury related, non-injury related or otherwise, or the type/nature of the communication.

b) Please ensure that the ‘IT’ Sweep is conducted and completed with every possible variation/s of my name and the names that I have previously been known by, which ACC is aware of and is documented on my claim files.

c) There are no formal previous requests for an ‘IT’ Sweep. There have been other requests under the Privacy Act and Official information act for Claim File Download

d) Through this further and new request made today, please provide any additional information that was not included in my previous requests. I would ask that any additional information not previously supplied to me, be in the same manner as outlined in this letter – without exception.

2. In requesting that an 'IT' Sweep be completed, I specifically require the following information also be provided to me through the 'IT' Sweep:-

e) That the 'IT' Sweep be undertaken and completed for the period from approximately March 2002 and as above, to a date that is within the time frame for ACC to action requests for information under the IOA and Privacy Acts. I would estimate that this ‘IT’ Sweep request be conducted/completed up to, or approximate to, the date of 14 September 2011.

f) Please confirm with me the formal ‘end date’ of this ‘IT’ Sweep request as soon as possible and prior to completion/delivery to me.

3. In addition, I also request that ACC undertakes and completes the 'IT' Sweep (as above), whether internal or external (as above) that ACC stores in the following areas also:-

i. All physical claims.
ii. ACC Complaints Office.
iii. Office of the ACC Complaints Investigation Unit and ACC Complaints Line/Office/Call Centre.
iv. ACC Head Office, Office of the ACC CEO, ACC Corporate Services, ACC Clinical Directorate, and any other such section/unit/branch of ACC as identified in the opening paragraph of this letter.
v. ACC Debt Management Unit.
vi. ACC Intelligence and Support Services.
vii. ACC Contracted Third Party Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.
viii. Non-ACC (Contracted) Providers/Assessors and Treatment Providers.

g) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful reason that this has been done, and;

PART B

• ACC Employee and External Access to Claimant files, information etc.

4. In addition to PART A above, under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts, I request that ACC also provides me with full details of the following from march 2002 up to an inclusive of this request being completed – estimated to be approximate to the date of 14/9/2011

h) Information as to who has specifically accessed my file/s for any reason/s, injury related, non-injury related or otherwise. Name, date and title details required of each person who has accessed my files, whether this be (ACC) internally or externally.

i) Please specify exactly for what purpose inclusive of any legislative requirements, any aspect of any part of my claim files (ACC) internally or externally – injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, has been accessed. Names, date and title details required of each person who has accessed any aspect of my files, with the purpose/s being specified precisely for each and every occasion that this has occurred and why this has occurred.

j) Please provide information, reasons, and purposes as specified, detailed, outlined and in the same manner as discussed in PART A, No.3 (i–x) of this letter and PART B.

k) Please provide me with information, and copies of, the authority that exists or existed for any aspect of any part of my claim files, injury related, or non-injury related or otherwise, that were forwarded onto any other persons – (ACC) internally or externally, for what reason/s, purpose and under which legislative edict or otherwise, this was done. Names, date/s and title details required also.

l) I request that ACC informs me if any information has been withheld, deleted, or blacked out in any way and if so, for what lawful and legal reason that this has been done, and why.

Please advise me by Email only when all information/documentation is available to me, at which time I will provide ACC with a physical address to courier the documents to me.

Please take this letter by Email/Attachment – PDF file, forwarded to you as the Case Manager of ACC, dated 14/9/2011, as my formal written request to receive this information under the provisions of the Official Information and Privacy Acts.

If you wish to clarify any matters with me, please contact me by Email only and finally, I request that you acknowledge by return Email also, receipt of my formal written requests as outlined in this letter to you.

Thank you.

your sincerely

Your name]]> <![CDATA[NZ Council of Trade Unions]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=858 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:16:18 +0000 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=858 1.Privatisation of ACC
2.ACC Stocktake review
3.ACC law changes

1. Privatisation of ACC

The NZCTU is a member of the ACC Futures Coalition which is a group of organisations committed to retaining ACC as a publicly owned single provider of social insurance. For details of government plans to privatise ACC see: http://issues.co.nz/accfutures/

2.ACC Stocktake Review

Review all of the Stocktake of ACC Work Accounts reports here.

3. ACC law changes 2010

The main changes include:
• a hearing loss threshold is imposed that excludes people from cover with less than 6% hearing loss
• a three part test for cover for work related gradual process injuries is reinstated – this places the onus on the worker to show the injury occurred at work
• people who intentionally cause injury to themselves or commit suicide are disentitled to compensation – unless their injury was a result of mental injury
• ACC is no longer required to apply to the District Court for a determination as to whether an imprisoned offender is disentitled to compensation – instead ACC is forced to disentitle them
• the Bill enables regulations to introduce experience rating and risk sharing to the work account
• weekly compensation for non-permanent employees will be calculated by dividing the last year’s earnings over 52 weeks, regardless of the actual number of weeks worked
• the amount of weekly compensation for potential earners is decreased
• holiday pay will be counted as earnings and will abate weekly compensation
• the definition of vocational independence is to include a person who has the capacity to work for 30 hours per week (this has been decreased from 35 hours per week)
• when assessing vocational independence a occupational assessor is no longer required to take into account the claimant’s level of pre-injury earnings

In 2010 the government introduced an Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. The Bill reduces some ACC entitlements, extends the date for fully funding the ACC accounts, and paves the way for experience rating and risk sharing.

All changes are aimed at the most vulnerable workers including seasonal and non-permanent workers. The hearing loss changes will affect aging workers who helped to build New Zealand’s infrastructure. It will lead to significant deterioration in a world-leading scheme, at the expense of workers and affecting some of the most vulnerable workers disproportionately.

AEP booklet final Sep 09.pdf

934.08 KB

WorkplaceInjuryDisclosureofMedicalInfo.doc

http://union.org.nz/ACCPartnershipProgramme]]> 1.Privatisation of ACC
2.ACC Stocktake review
3.ACC law changes

1. Privatisation of ACC

The NZCTU is a member of the ACC Futures Coalition which is a group of organisations committed to retaining ACC as a publicly owned single provider of social insurance. For details of government plans to privatise ACC see: http://issues.co.nz/accfutures/

2.ACC Stocktake Review

Review all of the Stocktake of ACC Work Accounts reports here.

3. ACC law changes 2010

The main changes include:
• a hearing loss threshold is imposed that excludes people from cover with less than 6% hearing loss
• a three part test for cover for work related gradual process injuries is reinstated – this places the onus on the worker to show the injury occurred at work
• people who intentionally cause injury to themselves or commit suicide are disentitled to compensation – unless their injury was a result of mental injury
• ACC is no longer required to apply to the District Court for a determination as to whether an imprisoned offender is disentitled to compensation – instead ACC is forced to disentitle them
• the Bill enables regulations to introduce experience rating and risk sharing to the work account
• weekly compensation for non-permanent employees will be calculated by dividing the last year’s earnings over 52 weeks, regardless of the actual number of weeks worked
• the amount of weekly compensation for potential earners is decreased
• holiday pay will be counted as earnings and will abate weekly compensation
• the definition of vocational independence is to include a person who has the capacity to work for 30 hours per week (this has been decreased from 35 hours per week)
• when assessing vocational independence a occupational assessor is no longer required to take into account the claimant’s level of pre-injury earnings

In 2010 the government introduced an Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. The Bill reduces some ACC entitlements, extends the date for fully funding the ACC accounts, and paves the way for experience rating and risk sharing.

All changes are aimed at the most vulnerable workers including seasonal and non-permanent workers. The hearing loss changes will affect aging workers who helped to build New Zealand’s infrastructure. It will lead to significant deterioration in a world-leading scheme, at the expense of workers and affecting some of the most vulnerable workers disproportionately.

AEP booklet final Sep 09.pdf

934.08 KB

WorkplaceInjuryDisclosureofMedicalInfo.doc

http://union.org.nz/ACCPartnershipProgramme]]> <![CDATA[COMPLAINT BY ACC AGAINST THE SUNDAY STAR-TIMES]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=856 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:40:20 +0000 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=856 Quote:[quote name='hukildaspida' timestamp='1329221291' post='123075']
COMPLAINT BY ACC AGAINST THE SUNDAY STAR-TIMES

http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_r...number=556

Case Number: 556 COMPLAINT BY ACC AGAINST THE SUNDAY STAR-TIMES

Council Meeting OCTOBER 1994

A complaint by the ACC against the Sunday Star-Times for a report published on August 21, has not been upheld by the New Zealand Press Council, but the Council expressed some reservations about the way the corporation's complaint to the newspaper had been handled by both parties.

Client services manager for the ACC, Fred Cockram complained that the heading on the report "ACC in secret meeting" left the reader with the impression that :
* the ACC had attempted to interfere with the appeal rights of claimants;
* this attempt was covert;
* District Court judges had agreed to measures designed to iimpede judicial procedures.

He said the report was set on misrepresentation; that the use of the word "secret" implied improper actions by the ACC, and that the presentation of the ACC's responses were aimed at making them unbelievable and reinforced a belief that something underhand had occurred.

Mr Cockram sought a correction in the next issue of the Sunday Star-Times and an aplogy to the district court judges concerned.

When the paper's editor Michael Prain didn't respond, Mr Cockram asked the Press Council to consider the matter.

Essentially the Sunday Star-Times learned, it seems from an urgent appeal hearing before Judge Robert Kerr involving the estate of a man who died of asbestos exposure, that there had been a meeting involving the ACC, the Chief District Court Judge and other judges who hear ACC appeals. The meeting decided not to schedule further appeals relating to one particular section of the Act, in the meantime.

ACC says that section stops the Corporation making payments to people who lodge claims for personal injury 12 months or more after suffering that injury. Because two separate district court decisions had suggested that section of the Act didn't apply to one particular category of complaint, the ACC had been given leave to appeal to the High Court to clarify the situation.

The ACC says the meeting decided not to schedule further appeals under that section of the Act until the High Court had ruled, to save claimants and the corporation time and money.

Mr Cockram says all this was explained to the reporter who, in the ACC's view, still chose to write his article in such a way as to undermine the credibility of its denials of anything improper having occurred. the use of the words "secret," "stifle," and "sinister" were used as examples of this contention.

In his response to the Press Council, Mr Prain defended the report. . He said the ACC seemed concerned not with the report's accuracy, but with the interpretation of facts that readers might draw. He rejected Mr Cockram's assertions that the article failed to adequately present the ACC's position and defended the use of ther word "secret" by quoting a dictionary definition.

The article, he said, had prominently used ACC's denial that there was anything sinister in the May 24 meeting "sinister" being a word Mr Cockram himself used in his letter to Mr Prain. Mr Prain also said the facts proved the article's points - the ACC had tried, unsuccessfully, to use a decision made by the May 24 meeting to delay certain appeals, to have the appeal before Judge Kerr adjourned.

In its decision the Press Council found the article was accurate as far as it went. Whether it went far enough in putting the ACC's view was a matter of opinion, though it found the newspaper, by incorporating a few extra words as to why the May 24 meeting decided to schedule no further appeals on this category of complaint until the High Court decision was known, would have left the corporation no room for complaint.

However, it further found this was a complaint for which other remedies could and should have been pursued and that it should not have had to be dealt with by the Press Council. It was a matter that could have been handled, for example, by way of a letter to the editor, for publication, putting the corporation's view. The complaint seemed to stem from a failure of communications on both sides.

The Council expressed its disappointment that the Sunday Star-Times editor didn't respond to Mr Cockram's complaint until it was referred to the Press Council.
Search Rulings

Links

Report on the Review of the New Zealand Press Council
The Australian Press Council
The British Press Complaints Commision
Independent Press Councils
Complaint Line New Zealand

© 2012 New Zealand Press Councill | Website by Basium IT

[quote name='not their victim' timestamp='1329248611' post='123082']
""implied improper actions by the ACC""

once you have your IT sweep file, you know for sure , that this is NOT IMPLIED, its done, and real

bearing in mind, psychopaths dont like getting caught out, especially big fat liars!!!
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/to...tar-times/]]> Quote:[quote name='hukildaspida' timestamp='1329221291' post='123075']
COMPLAINT BY ACC AGAINST THE SUNDAY STAR-TIMES

http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_r...number=556

Case Number: 556 COMPLAINT BY ACC AGAINST THE SUNDAY STAR-TIMES

Council Meeting OCTOBER 1994

A complaint by the ACC against the Sunday Star-Times for a report published on August 21, has not been upheld by the New Zealand Press Council, but the Council expressed some reservations about the way the corporation's complaint to the newspaper had been handled by both parties.

Client services manager for the ACC, Fred Cockram complained that the heading on the report "ACC in secret meeting" left the reader with the impression that :
* the ACC had attempted to interfere with the appeal rights of claimants;
* this attempt was covert;
* District Court judges had agreed to measures designed to iimpede judicial procedures.

He said the report was set on misrepresentation; that the use of the word "secret" implied improper actions by the ACC, and that the presentation of the ACC's responses were aimed at making them unbelievable and reinforced a belief that something underhand had occurred.

Mr Cockram sought a correction in the next issue of the Sunday Star-Times and an aplogy to the district court judges concerned.

When the paper's editor Michael Prain didn't respond, Mr Cockram asked the Press Council to consider the matter.

Essentially the Sunday Star-Times learned, it seems from an urgent appeal hearing before Judge Robert Kerr involving the estate of a man who died of asbestos exposure, that there had been a meeting involving the ACC, the Chief District Court Judge and other judges who hear ACC appeals. The meeting decided not to schedule further appeals relating to one particular section of the Act, in the meantime.

ACC says that section stops the Corporation making payments to people who lodge claims for personal injury 12 months or more after suffering that injury. Because two separate district court decisions had suggested that section of the Act didn't apply to one particular category of complaint, the ACC had been given leave to appeal to the High Court to clarify the situation.

The ACC says the meeting decided not to schedule further appeals under that section of the Act until the High Court had ruled, to save claimants and the corporation time and money.

Mr Cockram says all this was explained to the reporter who, in the ACC's view, still chose to write his article in such a way as to undermine the credibility of its denials of anything improper having occurred. the use of the words "secret," "stifle," and "sinister" were used as examples of this contention.

In his response to the Press Council, Mr Prain defended the report. . He said the ACC seemed concerned not with the report's accuracy, but with the interpretation of facts that readers might draw. He rejected Mr Cockram's assertions that the article failed to adequately present the ACC's position and defended the use of ther word "secret" by quoting a dictionary definition.

The article, he said, had prominently used ACC's denial that there was anything sinister in the May 24 meeting "sinister" being a word Mr Cockram himself used in his letter to Mr Prain. Mr Prain also said the facts proved the article's points - the ACC had tried, unsuccessfully, to use a decision made by the May 24 meeting to delay certain appeals, to have the appeal before Judge Kerr adjourned.

In its decision the Press Council found the article was accurate as far as it went. Whether it went far enough in putting the ACC's view was a matter of opinion, though it found the newspaper, by incorporating a few extra words as to why the May 24 meeting decided to schedule no further appeals on this category of complaint until the High Court decision was known, would have left the corporation no room for complaint.

However, it further found this was a complaint for which other remedies could and should have been pursued and that it should not have had to be dealt with by the Press Council. It was a matter that could have been handled, for example, by way of a letter to the editor, for publication, putting the corporation's view. The complaint seemed to stem from a failure of communications on both sides.

The Council expressed its disappointment that the Sunday Star-Times editor didn't respond to Mr Cockram's complaint until it was referred to the Press Council.
Search Rulings

Links

Report on the Review of the New Zealand Press Council
The Australian Press Council
The British Press Complaints Commision
Independent Press Councils
Complaint Line New Zealand

© 2012 New Zealand Press Councill | Website by Basium IT

[quote name='not their victim' timestamp='1329248611' post='123082']
""implied improper actions by the ACC""

once you have your IT sweep file, you know for sure , that this is NOT IMPLIED, its done, and real

bearing in mind, psychopaths dont like getting caught out, especially big fat liars!!!
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/to...tar-times/]]> <![CDATA[WorkAon - the pimple on ACC'S Arse]]> http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=855 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:38:48 +0000 http://www.acclaim-waikato.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=855 http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/to..._p__111684

Quote:Rob Percival....STILL branch medical officer for aon!
aon cm still interferring with claimants assessments , telling Drs what to write on medical certificate! Said Dr doing what aon tell them to do!
Denying entitlements a standard practice for aon. Cm are control freaks! Who have no morals, stoop to the lowest to get what they want, harrassement a continued practice they seem to enjoy indulging in...I guess it make them feel powerful???
Treat the claimant like they are putting one over them all the time, like a liar. They believe they are doing you the biggest favour by doing anything! Take orders from the company management they are insuring....hence what goes on, has company (who you work for) approval to do whatever they say! No such thing as loyalty from the said company to the employee who is injuried!
cm go behind the claimants backs an disscuss claimant with Drs, providors of rehab ect, alot is done through ph calls so there is NO evidence of this happening, on occasions one of those said providors may let something slip, thats when you will know your being discussed behind your back, an they only have the cm tak on things!
Get EVERYTHING in writeing from them, dont accept ph calls from them,have a paper trail a mile long, you will be surprised how often you need to referr back to it!

aon are third party providors for alot of large businesses, an makeing a killing, because they deny entitlements an get claimants off the books for the said com. frauduantly with the lies an crap they dish out to the claimants

http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/to..._p__111684

http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/to...accs-arse/]]> http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/to..._p__111684

Quote:Rob Percival....STILL branch medical officer for aon!
aon cm still interferring with claimants assessments , telling Drs what to write on medical certificate! Said Dr doing what aon tell them to do!
Denying entitlements a standard practice for aon. Cm are control freaks! Who have no morals, stoop to the lowest to get what they want, harrassement a continued practice they seem to enjoy indulging in...I guess it make them feel powerful???
Treat the claimant like they are putting one over them all the time, like a liar. They believe they are doing you the biggest favour by doing anything! Take orders from the company management they are insuring....hence what goes on, has company (who you work for) approval to do whatever they say! No such thing as loyalty from the said company to the employee who is injuried!
cm go behind the claimants backs an disscuss claimant with Drs, providors of rehab ect, alot is done through ph calls so there is NO evidence of this happening, on occasions one of those said providors may let something slip, thats when you will know your being discussed behind your back, an they only have the cm tak on things!
Get EVERYTHING in writeing from them, dont accept ph calls from them,have a paper trail a mile long, you will be surprised how often you need to referr back to it!

aon are third party providors for alot of large businesses, an makeing a killing, because they deny entitlements an get claimants off the books for the said com. frauduantly with the lies an crap they dish out to the claimants

http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/to..._p__111684

http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/to...accs-arse/]]>