How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Chris The Lawyer Your Own Question
Chris The Lawyer
Chris The Lawyer, Lawyer
Category: New Zealand Law
Satisfied Customers: 22888
Experience:  38 years qualified as a lawyer; LLB, MMgt and FAMINZ.
Type Your New Zealand Law Question Here...
Chris The Lawyer is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

The ACC legislation requires the ACC to determine their

Customer Question

The ACC legislation requires the ACC to determine their ongoing liability by way of medical information. In 1997 the ACC cancelled my ACC claims along with entitlements on the basis that they possessed information that I was working and that the working information related to section 93 (1) of the 1992 Act. The months so earlier they suspended my compensation in reliance of section 93 (2) claiming that had not been working on my rehabilitation projects in accordance with their directions. ACC refused to describe a single work task activities any material time and as such it was not possible to address their allegations at the review hearing with the reviewer deciding to adjourn without hearing the matter until ACC agreed to make disclosure that did not reconvene before deciding not to disturb the ACC decision. The ACC then obtain search warrant to try and find information relevant to what they claimed to possess without finding any.. Notwithstanding the lack of information the ACC prosecuted for fraud and asked the civil Court not to hear my appeal to the reviewer's decision by way of a indefinite suspension to my right of appeal to which the registrar obliged. The matter went before a criminal court resulting and a conviction based on the fact that ACC is the only jurisdiction that can determine the right claim to cover and entitlements. 10 years later the matter finally got into the civil Court on appeal to the reviewer's decision at which time the court directed ACC to disclose but claimed information work with due particularity and time of the alleged work so as i could challenge their allegations. The judge agreed that section 73 in reference to information was not generalised information such as information about work but rather could only relate to section 37 and 51. As the ACC had never sought any information regarding my preinjury occupation already subsequent medical information such as from their own assessors to determine whether or not I had recovered there is no possibility they could have determined I was split and safe to return to my preinjury occupation thus producing section 93 information under section 37. aas a previous judicial process had directed the ACC to fund reconstructive surgery, which the ACC has failed to comply up until the present the only possible conclusion is that the ACC has failed to disclose that they have made a decision under section 60 of the 1982 act as the medical professions agree there is no possibility of my returning to my preinjury occupation without the reconstructive surgery as was confirmed by the 1992 review hearing decisions. In addition the ACC had not produced the regulations to mmake any form of determination under section 51 and as such there can be no section 51 information in accordance with section 73.
After confirming that the cancellation of claim decision letter had to have been made under section 37 yet the ACC had not actually presented with any information the judge simply determined that all the medical profession have somehow been tricked or lied to by myself in order to maintain the status quo of the ACC decision to cancel my claim and entitlements. Notwithstanding the ACC agreed that they were not entitled to cancel the entire claim or all of the entitlements and so the judge appears to have cancelled the decision and should a new one to the effect that my entitlements have merely been suspended.
I have attempted to appeal the district court decision through to the Court of Appeal without being given leave to appeal.
The word suspension appears to me to be a temperate situation. After arranging independent funding I have now had the first stage of the reconstructive surgery in the form of an artificial wrist at the cost of about $40,000. Further surgery is required to assist me with improved dexterity. My current capacity is only 4 KG which is a fraction of the requirement for my preinjury occupation meaning that I cannot return to my preinjury occupation as there are no light duties in any event I do not have the necessary dexterity yet.
Given the current situation what avenue of approach can be made to reinstate my earnings compensation and fund surgery as previously directed by the 1992 review hearing decision?
Submitted: 9 months ago.
Category: New Zealand Law
Expert:  Chris The Lawyer replied 9 months ago.

I am reviewing this which appears familiar to me.

Customer: replied 9 months ago.
The question is
Given the current situation what avenue of approach can be made to reinstate my earnings compensation and fund surgery as previously directed by the 1992 review hearing decision?
I am available to provide you with any additional information should you perceive that to be necessary. Obviously as the claim is under the 1982 legislation which the ACC is required to determine temporary or permanent incapacity with the reviewer rescinding the s59 temporary incapacity decision followed by resolution of the injury the ACC is required to make a s60 or such a decision was imposed by the 1992 reviewer by way of implication with the mechanisms of enforcement under the current legislation Which also includes the ACC being required to make new decisions upon becoming aware of the current information.
Expert:  Chris The Lawyer replied 9 months ago.

If there is a review decision which says that you are now entitled to earnings related compensation and surgical assistance, and ACC have refused to pay in terms of that review decision, they must provide reasons. I was not sure from your description whether you have such a decision. Do you have a review decision which explicitly says that you are entitled to something?

Customer: replied 9 months ago.
You asked
Do you have a review decision which explicitly says that you are entitled to something?The current situation is that the ACC accept they are still bound by the 1992 review hearing decisions and are therefore still subject to the ongoing liability to fund reconstructive surgery to return me to my preinjury occupation but despite being invited to fund the surgery and provide home help afterwards the ACC have step back and ignored everything with the appearance that they are avoiding making decisions so as to avoid judicial decisions that will obviously caused the whole ball of string to unravel. I continue to obtain medical certificates describing an incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation of which the ACC also avoid issuing decisions with reviewers even claiming that there is no delay of processed to make decisions and therefore no right of appeal is no decision is available to be challenged.This leaves the original decisions of which you were aware at the criminal trial and I have reminded you just now that there were two review hearing decisions in my favour in 1992 requiring ACC to fund reconstructive surgery and that I would remain incapacitated from being an earner unless I had the reconstructive surgery and that surgery was successful. You represented me with the challenge to the fact that the surgeon had simply open me up without carrying out the prescribed surgery but instead carried out a nonconsensual experimental surgical activity, which failed, which even caused the most recent surgery extreme difficulty, taking over five hours instead of 90 minutes and of course attracted much criticism by the surgeon. Further remedial surgery is necessary to assist with the fine dexterity which has been compromised by ACCs directions to Dr Rees' unauthorised and ill-conceived activities. The defining feature however is that ACC disregarded the review hearing awarded reconstructive surgery and instructed the surgeon to carry out a cheaper cell with procedure that would guarantee that impossibility for me to return to my preinjury occupation and cause a downward spiral of increasing and capacity. The nylon sutures that were used as structural elements over sewing ligaments lose their tensile strength of the rate of 15% per year rendering impossibility of a temporary incapacity and guaranteeing permanent incapacity for any occupation that requires the right hand. As the ACC have not made a decision on this matter I have not had an opportunity to initiate a judicial remedy.The other decision was that I was not temporarily incapacitated under s59 and that ACC had not carried out the relevant assessment processes and work was not the criteria to determine an end of an capacity, notwithstanding the ACC not presenting any information describing work.. Chris the principal defence to the criminal conviction was just that. As this was one of the biggest cases in your experience I would have thought you would have remembered. However what has happened is that both criminal and civil courts have disregarded the binding affects of those two review hearing decisions which are binding upon all parties. ACC have simply made the same decision again in 1997 claiming that this time they had additional information when in fact they had no information at all, not describing a single work task activity at any material time and had been instructed by the review hearing that "work" was not relevant to the decision. Further ACC has again been reminded that they are not permitted to make "commonsense decisions" and must be subservient to the legislator criteria as described in other decisions such as Burnett v ACC which address the criteria for determining ongoing ACC liability in circumstances when a claimant has committed fraud involving working and earning while in receipt of earnings compensation. The distinguishing feature between he and I is that he was working and I was not. Barry Mark Burnett (AI 452/06) Decision No: 210/2007With regards ***** ***** 1982 legislation and implications of section 60 which I believe is relevant to my case, a permanently incapacitated person is effectively retired by the ACC no requirement to work on rehabilitation into a new occupation but may work and earn utilising the rigid your capacity at their own discretion with the only obligation that they pay abatement of earnings should they generate any earnings. ACC claim that they have not yet made this decision and don't need to which brings into effect King v ACC (M1738/92) High Court judicial review which provided the remedy I believe I should have. The ACC won't make a decision so as to avoid any review that would obviously follow the same course and unravel everything as under section 60 it would have been completely impossible for there to be fraud given that there was no earnings.Chris the difficulty is that the ACC have created quite a labyrinth making it difficult to determine a suitable soluti
Expert:  Chris The Lawyer replied 9 months ago.

Is your point really that they have avoided making decisions, and that therefore they have avoided liability? Refusing to make a decision is itself a reviewable matter. But the problem is, that there appears to be considerable delay in pursuing the remedies. Judicial review proceedings in the High Court would be compromised because it is a principle that relief should be sought quickly in judicial review.

Customer: replied 9 months ago.
My point is contained in the original question to your service. Despite having no information describing a single work task activity and not making a decision based on relevant legislation the district Court has set aside tthe ACC decision and made a new decision that effectively maintains the status quo.. I continue to be incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation and ACC continues to have no involvement whatsoever as if they had still cancelled the entire claim which appears to be contrary to the district court decision and the ACCs acknowledgement that I'm injured and incapacitated without ACC ever calculating for determining a degree of incapacity.The Court has changed the ACC decision from cancellation of claim and entitlements to suspension of entitlements which of course is contingent on my incapacity to earn. Despite ACC confirming that they never had any information of work and neither had any information describing earnings they have not revisited their decision despite being requested to do so. There has been a review hearing application which was not provided a review hearing date and when I sought confirmation of a deemed decision in accordance with s146-7, Also without answer, when finally getting the matter to a reviewer for the enforcement of the Dean decision the reviewer issued a ruling on the substantive matters. An application for an appeal was submitted which sat with the registrar for many years without a hearing date. These extent to delay tactics throughout the entire system has been commonplace with the civil appeal to the 1997 decision taking 10 years to get into court with the ACC still not making disclosure which likewise resulted in the judiciary reinventing the ACCs rationale and decision in order to achieve the same outcome. It is obvious everyone is just playing for time.I am not a legal expert. I'm coming to you as a legal expert. ACC staff, their agents and informants have acknowledged under oath to have misrepresented matters to the court with the ACC principal witness REPEATEDLY confessing that he lied to both civil and criminal courts with the lawyer writing the decision letter, signing it and seeking to defend it stated under oath that she had no understanding of legal principles contained with the letter and have not been acquainted with a single fact that she had claimed the ACC possessed. Three days before the end of the criminal trial the ACC civil lawyer wwrote a memo addressed to my ACC files explaining to the ACC how they had got it wrong in as much as "working" is not the criteria for determining entitlement and at best the only issue that the ACC were permitted to deal with was abatement of earnings and for that they would need to have evidence of earnings.It was the ACC lawyer that asked for an adjournment that lasted for almost 7 years because the ACC did not have the "working" information of which he was going to need to defend.Ultimately the judge decided to proceed with my appeal without the ACC needing to support their decision with a single fact.Obviously a judicial review is one way but it may be advantageous to initiate private criminal prosecutions against the various individuals involved and also make a complaint against the ACC lawyer for is failure to advise the court, in his capacity as an officer of the court, that the ACC had initiated a private criminal prosecution without legal basis.Chris it is very obvious that we have a very serious problem with both the ACC and the judicial system. You must look at this issue with two hats on, one in accordance wwith your capacity as the provider of answers to legal questions and in your personal capacity surrounding how matters unfolded at the time when you are commissioned to provide legal services.My question seeks the legal procedure/process necessary to navigate through this ACC generated quagmire to affect a solution that represents the medical facts in relation to the criteria of the ACC legislation.
Expert:  Chris The Lawyer replied 9 months ago.

Fundamentally the problem is that your case has been argued on review, on appeal to the District Court, to the High Court before Gilbert J, and to the Court of Appeal. None of them upheld your argument that you are entitled to compensation. Your issue is what do you do next? I think you have comprehensively explored your options before the different levels in court, and I suspect you may also have asked the ombudsman to intervene. If you have explored all of those options, then there is nothing further which can be done. That may appear unattractive to you, but is the reality of your position

Customer: replied 9 months ago.
Chris my question remains unanswered. You simply have not addressed the matters I have raised. Never mind about how I got to where I had got by way of perjury to both civil and criminal courts, failure of disclosure, acquiring my evidence and exhibits by way of search warrant without returning information to me for the purposes of my appeals the question put to you is given the fact that the district court ruling was that the ACC decision letter was changed to my entitlements being suspended rather than cancelled. Suspension implies a contingent liability. The question requires the legal process is necessary to activate the sequential matters upon the ACC acknowledging that I continue to be incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation. I raise the issue of new information and the section of legislation requires the ACC to make new decisions. Obviously there is no possibility that this whole situation will ever simply fade away but rather will certainly escalate. On a personal situation with your different hat you might like to consider the possibility of contacting ACC personally yourself in relation to how you were obstacles at every single level when you try to defend me of the criminal Court when there was no possibility of prime even occurring. In this of course you are still shackled with a very personal interest. I had not contacted you earlier because I thought you were in Australia.I await your answer to the legal question I have opposed.
Expert:  Chris The Lawyer replied 9 months ago.

This is a website which is designed for general answers to questions. It does not function as something for very specific legal advice for individuals. We try to give general advice on the way to progress legal problems, but if you read the terms and conditions it is not intended to create a lawyer client relationship.

My perception of your issue is that you want to get ACC to pay defence-related compensation and to pay your medical expenses. There are formidable hurdles including the fact that you have thoroughly explored your options through arguments in all levels of court. So your question is, how can you get compensation and medical expenses in a situation where ACC refuse to support you, and where you have taken this refusal as far as the Court of Appeal. The answer is, although you may not like it, that you have exhausted your remedies.

Customer: replied 9 months ago.
Chris I don't mean to be rude but you are not actually reading what I have written.The current situation is that my entitlements have been suspended. Suspension is always a contingent upon certain elements.. The ACC have not made a decision of any sort. I continue to be disabled to return to my preinjury occupation and without earnings compensation. Other entitlements such as independence allowance also remains uncalculated. ACC acknowledge and agree that they have a duty to calculate their liability to have an surgery,, independence allowance and the ccurrent disability to return to my preinjury occupation for purposes of paying earnings compensation. When going into the courts they continually get second chances and additional time yet to an a half decades have gone by which effectively means my claim has been temporise to permanently without benefit of any legal procedure. Obviously if the ACC undertake any calculation of any sort the whole situation will unravel in my favour which seems to be the motivation as to why nothing is happening. You have made wrong assumptions about what has gone before the courts in contrast to what I have already informed you. That gives me cause for concern.The legal question is simplistic and fundamental. It is you that are making it more complex when misdirecting yourself. You have been contracted to answer the question so please answer it instead of your escalating these matters further.
Expert:  Chris The Lawyer replied 9 months ago.

I understand that you are not getting any entitlements. I have also looked at the results of those court cases, which explains why you are not getting those entitlements. You may not like the results, but ACC will obviously comply with whatever the court says. You have made a number of statements of principle in the latest reply, and of course ACC does have a statutory requirement to pay earnings related compensation and for surgery required after an injury. I have not seen any court decision which says you should be getting compensation. I am not sure whether this is getting to, but it can be expressed simply. You want compensation, have litigated this to the Court of Appeal without success, and need to know your next step. There is no next step.

Customer: replied 9 months ago.
Obviously as ACC has committed insurance fraud by producing a document which there was no legal or factual information to support it followed by their witnesses acknowledging under oath that they had committed perjury there are a great many things that can be done. It is even in your interests to apply yourself a little more diligently to your practice of law and answer my original question properly in accordance with the information I have provided. It is neither sufficient nor relevant for you to take a cursory examination of various judgements that have fallen victim to misrepresentation and perjury and say to me that there is no answer to such serious crimes that have been committed against me in this regard. There are a great many different avenues that could be explored which you are fully aware of including the nature of the which dunking approach both criminal and civil judges took by pressing an invalid well beyond their capacity through a trial and expecting me to defend myself in that situation. A forced catastrophic withdrawal from the maximum dose of an opiate medication immediately prior to my having my opportunity to defend myself as you are perfectly well aware rob me of any possibility of a fair hearing and as such whether or not there was a fair trial is relevant. There is a large number of various avenues that could be explored but none of those has been my question.In addition you are wrong in asserting that there has been an appeal. These matters have never been appealed aas I have never been given leave to appeal.All you are doing is seeking avenues of excuse,, perhaps because of the nature of your past involvement.Refer yourself back to my question please and answer it.If you believe that there exists a conflict of interest for you to diligently apply yourself I would then suggest you pass this question on to one of your colleagues as I have paid my deposit and expect the completion of the contract in accordance with the terms of that contract.
Expert:  Chris The Lawyer replied 9 months ago.

I dont believe I can add anything useful. So you are free to seek a refund

Customer: replied 9 months ago.
The biggest ACC case in New Zealand's history which addresses fundamental principles of the ACC legislation. Research information availability is extensive such as Brookers and even the ACC itself. There were numerous optional judicial mechanisms available not yet explored to choose from. Chris's response was "I dont believe I can add anything useful. So you are free to seek a refund".
Customer: replied 9 months ago.
Chris I'm disappointed in your response instead of an answer. Even though I am not as qualified and experienced as you I have researched this issue and prevented several from going to jail that were in much the same circumstances as myself while also providing the necessary caselaw and description of the legislation to QCs to assist to others getting out of jail in almost identical situations as my own. As you had accepted the assignment for both civil and criminal representation the legal advice I have been given what to address you directly in regards ***** ***** duties. as you know I am a mild and passive person without thoughts of hatred or revenge. I had hoped that you would be of the right heart to work more diligently and assisting with some form of remedy to my predicament. Sadly you did not even suggest even one of the numerous lines replace that could be taken which others have successfully taken. My door remains open to reduce wish to take aadvantage of that opportunity.

Related New Zealand Law Questions