Quote:The ACC CEO's expenses are now available - I am appalled.

Dr Jan White - for the period commencing 1st July 2011 - ending 16th September 2011. A grand total of $17,605.89 in expenses claimed for this period of time.
Link: http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups...097200.pdf

Mr Ralph Stewart - for the period commencing 17th September 2011 - ending 31st December 2011. A grand total of $13,492.85 in expenses claimed for this period of time.
Link: http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups...097202.pdf

In my honest opinion, I believe this amount of 'spending' - or so-called 'expenses' in ACC's eyes, are OBSCENE.

And, on another note, is this type of 'spending' - or so-called 'expenses' rather 'out of line', when one considers the economic restraints that we are so often told of by the National led Government that all Government Departments and New Zealander's are operating under??

So much for ACC 'tightening' its belt.

And, ACC spends alot in rewarding its high achievers. What's this? Perhaps ACC are rewarding the high achiever's who deny claimants of their entitlements, their rights and lawful other such other claims and is based on how many claimants are either exited or denied....

The mind boggles .......in a six month period only, the ACC CEO's spend a grand total of: $31,098.74

Quote:In 2009, August 20th, Dr Jan White ACC CEO, states the following:‘Lastly, we are conscious of the impact of the current recession and the expectations of the Government and the community that ACC should always deliver value for money,’ said Dr Jan White, ACC Chief Executive. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0908/S00254.htm

In January 2012, I do not think anything is different in respect of the 'current recession', so what of the seemingly enormous expenses that the ACC CEO's continue to incur and spend. This seems to be rather extragavant to say the least - in my honest opinion

Quote: Gregory Case, Aon CEO
A tough turnaround at Aon


Gregory Case, CEO of Aon Corp., discusses how he turned the troubled company around

View with Windows Media/Flash

Quote:For "Public Record" - ACCforum - Page 4 accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/6472-for-public...st...Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
20 posts - 10 authors - 1 Jul 2008
... case, exposed some of ACC's bad-faith behaviour in District Court ..... in July 2002 with AON's Branch Medical Advisor Dr Robert Percival!

Quote:What Is a Class Action Lawsuit?

Filing and fighting a lawsuit can cost a great deal of money. For the average person, that can place justice out of their reach. But if that person becomes a part of a class (a group of similarly situated people), if the class can find a lawyer willing to finance and litigate a lawsuit, then all members of the class have a chance to right a wrong.

That is a class action lawsuit — a lawsuit brought on behalf of many similarly situated people who have been harmed in the same way by the same entity.

Usually class action litigation will have very few named plaintiffs (one or two is common), but those plaintiffs represent many other people — hundreds, thousands, sometimes millions of people.

Do you have a case that might be a class action? For examples of actual class action lawsuits, please see our Past Class Actions page. For information about potential class action cases, see the list on the left and click on any topic.

Class action lawsuits: Small claims multiplied by many people
The harm done to one person may amount to a relatively small amount of money — an extra $10 fee when you buy a product or service, for example. But if that $10 is multiplied by all the people who had to pay it, the amount could be a profit of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to the company that charged the bogus fee. A successful class action lawsuit can force the company to pay back all the members of the class plus pay a penalty.

ClassAction.com: A resource for righting the wrongs of others.
You may have a case that just isn't worth fighting on its own — an employer who doesn't pay the right amount of overtime, manufacturers who fix prices on products, a household product that fails in normal usage. By joining with others in a class action, you will be helping yourself and others, and you will be sending a message that wrongdoing has a price.

ClassAction.com: Finding lawyers who fight for justice
Not many law firms have the resources to invest in class action lawsuits. Many firms that do have the resources do not want to use those resources to fight difficult cases. At ClassAction.com, we bring together people who have been wronged with the right law firm to handle the case. There is absolutely no obligation to anyone who contacts us.

Class action lawsuits: Lawyers seeking justice for many people
Not every law firm or attorney has the resources to file a class action lawsuit. It takes a significant financial investment to investigate the wrongdoing, use the legal discovery process to obtain evidence, consult with expert witnesses, obtain class action certification, and fight the case in court — all against the formidable resources of a large corporation.

Tell us about your case.
At ClassAction.com, you can share your experiences and determination in the fight for justice. Fill out the form on this page or on the contact page. There is no cost or obligation. This is an opportunity to hold businesses accountable for their actions.

Quote:Bad faith related insurers objectives in some cases are simply not to pay as many claims as .... 1994 where all of the denied and unpaid claims were ordered to be reopened by ..... Feb 22 2005 - Aon In Settlement Talks with NY-CT-IL AGs .

Quote:This blog exists to make corporate companies and individuals aware of tactics deployed by UNUM and their agents to systematically cancel claims made against their Long Term Disability Plan.

Quote: Introduction to the UNUM Long Term Disability Scheme
"We can protect your income and help to preserve the lifestyle of you and your dependants."

This is the UNUM sales pitch which leads people to believe the payments they make will protect them financially if their physical/mental health takes a turn for the worst. How wrong one can be.

Please read my story carefully and protect yourself from a future of misery, physical/mental suffering and financial hardship. I will be naming and shaming Louise Vaughan, Stephen Brown, Stuart Lewis, Lizz Keirnan and Christine Taylor. These people employed all kinds of tactics in an attempt to refuse my claim - including advising me to take steps which would effectively make my claim null and void. Also they employed a private detective to invade the privacy of my family and I. Including camping outside my parent's house for 3 days, reporting the movements of my family, taking pictures, video and most disturbingly breaking into my car to read my private letters.

Quote:Monday, July 18, 2005

ACC reaches a new nadir

The Accident Compensation Corporation is supposed to provide New Zealanders with public-funded insurance against accidents in the workplace and at home. unfortunately, over the years, they seem to have been infected with a desire to maximise their profits by screwing their customers, using every trick in the book to avoid or reduce payouts to claiments, no matter how well justified the claim. but today, they really have hit a new nadir: forging a claiment's signature to avoid paying out.

The person responsible came forward and admitted it six months ago, and ACC has done nothing. She has not been disciplined, and ACC has not apologised. This simply is not good enough. They owe their client an apology, but more than that, they need to change the toxic internal culture which leads case managers to go to such lengths. And if they are unwilling to do so, the Minister should sack the CEO and install someone who will.

Posted by Idiot/Savant at 7/18/2005 05:26:00 PM

Quote:Big News: ACC Boss Misleads Public Again
Monday, 2 December 2002, 12:00 pm
Column: Dave Crampton

Big News with Dave Crampton

ACC Boss Accused Of Misleading The Public Over Rehabilitation Costs

A few weeks ago ACC CEO Gary Wilson was crowing about the great faith he has in his case manager’s decisions and the increased amount the Corporation spent on rehabilitating ACC claimants, particularly as compensation costs have reduced. He said, “Five years ago 60% of our money went into compensation and only 40% into rehabilitation. Now these percentages have switched – we now spend 60% on rehab and 40% on compensation.

Wilson told a select committee that ACC spent 38% of the scheme costs - $606m from a pool of $1,579m - on compensation. No amount was given on rehabilitation, but a quick glance at the Corporation’s annual report tells the true picture. ACC also supplied figures to both Scoop and the Sunday Star-Times on Friday afternoon, two weeks after initial queries, showing rehabilitation costs were actually $865m and compensation costs were $715m. That is closer to a 45/55 compensation/rehabilitation split – not the 40/60 split quoted by Wilson. So Wilson has inflated rehabilitation costs by a massive $82 million.

The ratio difference arises as a result of how the figures are presented. ACC provides figures for “income maintenance” (ie compensation payments such as weekly benefits), but this does not include compensation payments such as independence allowances, death benefits and lump sum payments. Wilson lumps these costs with rehabilitation expenditure, contrary to the corporations annual report. It may only be a small percentage difference, but in a scheme of this magnitude, $82 million is a lot of money.

Lump sum payments fell dramatically due to legislation changes, but costs associated with Independence Allowances and death benefits increased 25 percent since 1998. So it is interesting that the 60/40 split promoted by Wilson does not include the compensation payments that actually increased.

Scoop has previously reported that ACC’s latest accountability documents show that the Corporation was to spend over $960m in rehabilitation. That’s from a pool of $1825m. Yet even that is $131m short of the 60% quoted by Wilson.

The amount spent on rehabilitation would have been less had medical costs not risen significantly. The increase in rehabilitation costs was more to do with the increased cost of medical treatment than active case management intervention. So Mr Wilson should not be too hasty in crediting staff for increasing the proportion of rehabilitation costs. Credit must be given to the medical profession for relying on ACC for much of their income and increasing their prices. Credit must also be given to the many claimants kicked off ACC who didn’t bother gong to review.

The amount spent on public health costs alone increased 150 percent - $143m - since 1988, accounting for much of the increase in rehabilitation. Yet the number of long-term claimants has fallen dramatically. One of the reasons is that case managers are more ruthless when exiting claimants from the scheme. Apparently they are not ruthless enough as there are more long term claimants – on the scheme more than a year – than originally forecast. This ruthless approach is one main reason why compensation related costs are lower – if you put a bit of effort in an attempt to exit claimants successfully, compensation costs will minimise and rehabilitation costs will increase.

ACC may be spending more on rehabilitation, but the money goes toward medical specialists. Case managers merely refer claimants on and pay the bills. The direct involvement of ACC in rehabilitation is in the area of social and vocational rehabilitation. Much has been made of ACC’s concerted effort to improve social and vocational rehabilitation, and there has been an improvement.

There has to be, as Mr Wilson admitted that the reason half all long term claimants – or “stock” – are currently receiving compensation is because they are not getting sufficient rehabilitation. ACC case managers claim to work harder in rehabilitating claimants and although the proportion of rehabilitation costs in the scheme has increased markedly, the proportion of social and vocational rehabilitation costs has hovered around the 20 to 25% mark since 1988.

You would think that if ACC was putting in the effort in both social and vocational rehabilitation, more people would be fully fit when leaving the scheme as they would have received what they are entitled to – and when they were entitled to it.

Yet Scoop has seen cases where medically unfit claimants have been “exited” from the scheme as a result of dodgy medical reports. In one medical misadventure case, a medical report was obtained from a specialist who never examined the claimant, but when providing his report to ACC, relied on notes from the specialist who caused the medical misadventure in the first place. That is as dodgy a situation as an ACC complaints officer investigating a complaint of a case manager who happens to be his wife.

All other specialist reports on the claimants file supported ongoing entitlements, yet ACC disregarded these, primarily due to the seniority of the specialist relied on, and the backing of the specialist’s view by the corporations own branch medical adviser. The adviser noted, “ I think there is strong enough evidence to act on alone,” (cut the claimant off the scheme). Expect more dodgy exits to occur in the lead up to Christmas. Scoop will be keeping tabs on the problem. If it occurs to you or anyone you know, make Scoop aware of it.

ENDS

Quote:ACC Annual Report

Chairman’s Statement
2002

Last year was one of fresh starts from founding principles. ACC’s challenge has been to fulfil the Government’s desire to expand the benefits and scope of the original ACC scheme as set out in the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001, while ensuring its smooth operational implementation.

The new Act is a significant piece of work affecting every staff member and every facet of the way ACC conducts its business. More than 250 people were directly involved in the legislative programme and almost half of ACC’s staff were involved in analysis and implementation of the changes which were planned and managed in considerable detail. The achievements included:

• training sessions delivered to 1,126 people

• review, modification and creation of 600 letters, 260 forms and 50 fact sheets

• 107 independent assessors trained, seven of whom were new to ACC — for the return of lump sums

• around 6000 pages of intranet documentation for staff — new or substantially modified

• 107 operational policy issues decided, with 90 policy papers written and approved

• nine sets of new regulations — completed and passed within the 28 day rule.

Under Garry Wilson’s leadership, ACC staff undertook this major change management project with enthusiasm and effort for which I congratulate and applaud them.

It was disappointing that we will be unable to hold all levies at last year’s levels, particularly in the Self-Employed and Motor Vehicle Accounts. The levy increases were due directly to cost increases in the seriousness and duration of injuries for several groups, especially farmers among the self-employed, and motorcyclists. Changes in the range and scope of entitlements incorporated within the new Act also contributed to the increases.

On the other hand, we were able to hold levy rates for employers at $0.90c per $100 of payroll again for a further year. It may be instructive to point out that under the private market, employers paid an average of $1.20 to $1.25. When ACC re-entered the employer market in 2000 we offered a reduced average rate of $1.11, dropping it further 12 months ago to $0.90 per $100 of wages. Holding the rate at $0.90 two years running is a tribute to the Corporation, and good news for employers. New Zealand businesses will be more than $200 million better off than they were when the private sector was providing workers’ compensation and $876 million better off than they would be across the Tasman, where the average corporate rate is NZ$2.42.

Lower levy rates are a direct result of ACC’s drive to improve rehabilitation, and to shorten the time claimants require ACC services and compensation. ACC’s claims liability this year was $7.5 billion, down from $8.3 billion five years ago. The unfunded liability is now $3.6 billion compared with $6.8 billion five years ago. Further progress was also made in reducing the number of long-term claimants. At year’s end, 14,518 claimants had been in receipt of weekly compensation for more than 12 months, down from 16,373 a year ago and exactly half of the 28,926 five years ago.

These improvements are a great achievement. They reflect a variety of ACC success stories, from good cost-control to stronger injury prevention and rehabilitation programmes, more intensive case management, and robust contracting of health provider services.

Recent experience in Australia, with the collapse of HIH and its major medical insurer, has shown the clear comparative advantage we in New Zealand enjoy, with our workers’ compensation, public liability, medical and personal injury and motor vehicle insurance all provided effectively and cheaply by a government-backed organisation run on a sound commercial basis.

I would like to thank the Corporation’s staff, management and Board members for their part in the progress we have made over the past 12 months. Our task will be to continue to achieve improvements in ACC’s performance in the future.

David Caygill
Chairman

Quote:Garry Wilson
Owner, Wilson Consulting

Location
New Zealand
Industry
Management Consulting
Garry Wilson's Overview
Current Owner at Wilson Consulting
Past PasT CEO at ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
CEO at ACC
Connections 59 connections

Quote:Garry Wilson's Experience
Owner Wilson Consulting
Currently holds this position

PasT CEO ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; Insurance industry

1997 – 2005 (8 years)

CEO ACC Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; Insurance industry

1996 – 2004 (8 years)

Quote:Garry Wilson's Skills
Governance Change Management Strategic Thinking Workers Compensation

Quote:ACC Disputes & Reviews

If you have a dispute with ACC, DRSL can help. If you feel you are in conflict with ACC, DRSL provides mediation and facilitation services.

DRSL also conducts ACC reviews for people who are unhappy about a decision or outcome of their ACC claim. People who contact DRSL with an ACC dispute are encouraged to try facilitation or mediation first, to try and resolve the problem. However if mediation isn’t successful, or you want to go straight to an ACC Review, DRSL can also help you with that.

Quote:DRSL also conducts ACC reviews for people who are unhappy about a decision or outcome of their ACC claim.