208 replies to this topic

[gaffa09]

Hello John

 

This email is to confirm that the committee will hear from you on Wednesday 29 June at approximately 10am by telephone. Matt Lamb, who is copied in on this message, will ring you around that time and will talk to you before arranging the conference call with the committee. Matt will use the landline number you provided below.

 

Please note that the hearing will be in public, so there may be members of the public and press present at the Wellington meeting.

 

Cheers,

[gaffa09]

Hi John,

 

Barbra said that the Committee took what you said on board and the next step is to meet with the Ministry of Health.  Will let you know if I hear any updates.

 

Kind regards,

 

Laura

[gaffa09]

23 June 2016

Oral Submission on the Petition of John Huntley - 2014/42

‘That the House of Representatives undertake a comprehensive review of the use of the contrast agent myodil (pantopaque) used in myelography, and the link to the development of adhesive arachnoiditis’.

Introduction

·           Firstly, I would like to thank the Committee for your time and consideration of my petition.  I wanted to speak to you today to provide a personal insight into how the decision to inject me with the contrast agent, myodil has ruined my health and my life.  I want to emphasise that this is an issue affecting hundreds if not thousands of New Zealanders – I am only one of them.

History

·           Two years after I fractured my neck during a training exercise as a fireman, I was ordered to undergo a myelogram in 1979 and was injected with myodil at Wellington Hospital.  I immediately experienced massive headaches, became dizzy and was dry retching.  I experienced cramps, pains in my neck, arms, and legs, and at the injection site at the bottom of my spine.  I can remember hearing my own screams. 

·           After I was discharged from hospital, I knew something was very wrong.  I experienced regular black outs, dizzy spells, and was falling down stairs.  I could see where I wanted to go, but my body wouldn’t let me. 

·           Prior to being poisoned with myodil I was fully fit and active.

·           Two years ago, a specialist identified three big black dots which indicated concussion or a traumatic brain injury.  I believe this to be as a result of the myodil dye still present in my system.

·           I continue to experience horrific symptoms, including: massive headaches, pain in the eyes, stabbing pains and continual loud ringing in the ears, pain in my neck down to my arms, pain in spine into the lumbar – often unbearable, pain in toes and fingers, pain in all joints, burning and dry, sore mouth – teeth have now been taken out, my skin feels like it is crawling - especially at night, epileptic fits and blackouts, dizzy spells, balance problems and electric shocks that go through the whole body, body jerks - especially in bed, weak muscles and muscle cramps, numbness and tingling in my arms, fingers, legs and toes, and cold sweats.

Recent Tests

·           My GP is becoming increasing concerned for my health, and recently sent me for blood, urine, CT and MRI tests.  The results showed XXXX

Personal Impact

·           After being released from hospital and developing such debilitating symptoms, I lost everything.  My wife left me, I couldn’t work and lost my taxi business, I was declared bankrupt and ended up losing my home.

·           In addition to the physical symptoms, I suffered mental stress due to my life having been destroyed.  I struggled to bring up five children on my own for years.

·           As ACC refused to acknowledge that my symptoms and rapid declining heath was caused by the injection of myodil, I received no support to care for my children.  Despite ongoing horrific symptoms (listed above), ACC have continued to deny me compensation.

·           Having adhesive arachnoiditis has cost me a huge amount of money, I will never recoup including phone calls, typing, postage, and trips to see other sufferers in New Zealand and Australia.

·           I continue to experience chronic pain and am constantly in search of relief – it is unbearable.

Number of Sufferers in New Zealand

·           I have indications that there are XX who were adversely affected after receiving a myodil injection in New Zealand.  In 1996, after a 60 minutes programme aired, I received 900 enquiries.  It is estimated that there are 6 million people around the World suffering from it.  We will never know the true numbers for sure as many sufferers are now elderly, and some are in bad health.  Many of them may not have heard of arachnoiditis and put their symptoms down to other conditions.  Many people do not have a computer which is a barrier to accessing information and support.

·           Additionally, it can take years to show the effects, up to 15 years or more.

·           Many sufferers have now passed away without having received compensation or even acknowledgement of their condition and the cause.

Conclusion

·           I implore the Committee to act now and call for an investigation to provide relief to the New Zealanders suffering from this dreadful disease through no fault of their own.  As many of them are elderly, I fear they will not live to see justice being done.

Recommendations

As a result of my petition, I would like to see:

·           A study to determine an accurate estimate of the incidence and prevalence of arachnoiditis sufferers in New Zealand;

·           That arachnoiditis and the link to the injection of Myodil be accepted and understood by the medical profession;

·           For people in New Zealand who are suffering from arachnoiditis to receive health care and support for their condition;

·           For those responsible to be held to account and an investigation held into why Myodil continued to be used in New Zealand despite evidence of severe adverse effects;

·           For compensation to be provided under medical misadventure to those who were injected with Myodil and now suffer from adhesive arachnoiditis.

 

this  is  a copy  and  guide  to  what i said

[gaffa09]

Hi John

 

Just to update you on your petition, Barbara has informed me that the Ministry of Health will be speaking to the Committee about the issue – the date for this meeting is not yet known.  Barbara wanted to know if you would like to send us some questions that you’d like her to ask them?

 

Kind regards,

[gaffa09]

Petition,  , Ministry of Health attending Select Committee attending Select Committee

This is in relation to Myodil—Pantopaque causing Arachnoiditis

I John Cyril Huntley was injected  with Myodil on  the  17^th April 1979 Wellington Hospital after  an  work related accident  while  working with  the permanent  fire  service in Wellington

The second injection with myodil  was in Napier  hospital aprox 1985 under Gail Curtis  surgeon

With  both  injection I  was not  informed of  any  side  effects as  were  many  sufferers in NZ

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

Question=  is  why  as it  was  well documented  of  side  effects and  we  were  not informed

Myodil  was  withdrawn  from  the market 1987  with a shelf  life of  3 years   that  takes it  to 1990 yet  it  was  still used  through  to  the mid 1990s or longer  last known  was  1997 == WHY

After ill health since  1979  the medical  profession  put  a label on  me  along  with ACC

This  continued   through  to 1990  when  I  was admitted  to Wanganui Hospital  to find   that  myodil  was in my  brain

At  this  stage I knew  nothing  about Myodil  but  started  to inquire

Inquires  lead  me to  expose   this  toxic  drug and  the  drug  company  Glaxo

Large  write up in  the  Dominion new==60 minutes TV ==cover  story through  the  mid  1990’s also  the DPA Wanganui hold information  on this issue  as  well

This connected me  to Dr  Stewart  Gessaman , Ministry of Health on a  few  occasions

Dr  stewart  even  rung me

He  even  wrote  a paper  on  this  issue  as  did  Peter Day

Still  the  ministry  have  not  acted on this  information after  over  20 years  WHY

What  hold does  the  Drug  company Glaxo==ACC==medical==or  the ministry have over NZ sufferers = as in  the UK Glaxo  are  paying out  millions  to sufferers

Are  you  all frightened  of  the large  pay out  that may  come   to  the  100s or  if  or  1000s  to  NZ sufferers

Most  doctors and  specialist   in NZ know  nothing  about Myodil ==Pantopaque causing arachnoiditis   WHY 

In the  UK nurses  are  trained   to  care  for  arachnoiditis

The  same  drug  used in USA has  effected over 5 million  sufferers

Why is  there not  a register  of  sufferers of NZers  of  this  terrible toxic  drug

The  sufferers  want  action  and  some one  has  to lead  the  way

One  question  I   was  to ask is   Is  are  the ministry  responsible for  diagnostic  drugs in NZ  if not  why

 

 

 

I  wish  to  thank  Barbara  Stewart ==Laura == NZ  first party  and  all helpers  friends  family  for  believing  in this  case  to survive   and  fight   this   issue  for  sufferers  that  are loosing  the battle  and  the  supports  that stand  by   there  sufferers   and  a big  thanks  to my  wife  with out her  support to keep  going  

 

  

References  to  Myodil  in  cup

                         Charles Burton

                         House of  commons   UK

                         EX  head of  radiology   Australia and  New  Zealand

                        Peter  Day  Otago

                       Gaffa090   Thanks  the  web  members  and  site   for  this  huge  collection  of  information  that has  been  collected  since   the  early  1990s

                 

PS note  in  Peter Days  report   came  from ASAM  group  which I was  founder  member    

[gaffa09]

https://www.youtube....q=arachnoiditis

[gaffa09]

Hello John

The Health Committee has asked for and received submissions from you, the Ministry of Health and the Accident Compensation Corporation, which can be read here on the Parliament website. The committee has not asked for public submissions.

Cheers,

Charlotte

 

Charlotte Yeabsley

Clerk of the Health Committee

Select Committee Services

Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives

 

charlotte.yeabsley@parliament.govt.nz

Tel:+6448179079

www.parliament.nz

 

  http://www.parliament.nz    @NZParliament        PTV on Demand

 

[gaffa09]

 myodil in brain  now  cal

Attached Files

•  cal .pdf   245.07KB   4 downloads

[gaffa09]

I  believe  more  to  come

Attached Files

•  Doctor Hutchinson.pdf   1.42MB   0 downloads

[gaffa09]

Has  anybody had  this  problem

 

 Medical  center  arranged  for me   to  have injection  a course  of  3  for  a start

 My understanding is  my  red blood cell  count  is 140   the  danger level  is 170   the normal  is  over 300 plus 

 Hospital  say  this  is  the cause  of  weekness   very  tired  and  pain 

 I  am not  giving up  as  i believe  it is  related  to myodil in  brain

[gaffa09]

 

 

Date: 29/02/2016 5:47:38

 

Dear  John

Your file is the most difficult in terms of volume  we have come across.

I weep when I see the unpaid  work that has gone into it and which caused Dylan’s ill  health   

Its probably cost us $30000 in lost fees’

I am sorely tempted to admit defeat and hand it back for you to find  another lawyer – I doubt you would find one .  

The ACC’s$2000 is unlikely to meet Mossman’s costs  which are now in the $4500 region  and in any case he generally agrees with ACC.

I will ask Angela to go back to ACC and ask for an increase to meet Mossman’s fee

ANGELA

Ask ACC for more money to meet Mossman’s fees

[gaffa09]

 This  is last years  report  Whangarei Hospital

Attached Files

•  Doctor Hutchinson.pdf   1.42MB   0 downloads

[gaffa09]

13A Kotari Road Days Bay

Eastbourne

Wellington 5013

13 October 2016

 

 

Ms Angela Brown Solicitor

John Miller Law PO Box 6314

Wellington

Dear Ms Brown

Re: John Huntley

DOB:                                                29.9.1941

NHI:                                                                 CNL2879

 

Thank you for asking me review correspondence on John Huntley with respect to the diagnosis of arachnoiditis.

I should say from the outset that clinical arachnoiditis is a controversial issue and patients may have radiological evidence of arachnoiditis, evidence of arachnoiditis on inspection at surgery, or pathological evidence on histological examination under a microscope.

However, there is no clear relationship between clinical symptoms and these radiological changes and most commonly patients are asymptomatic with respect to such radiological changes. Further, although radiological changes of arachnoiditis may occur in association with oil based myodil contrast medium this can sometimes be difficult to dissociate with from the disease process of lumbar disc disease with the associated trauma with blood in the CSF space and also surgery. Last, these other factors are also implicated in causing radiological arachnoiditis. Only rarely, if ever, has myodil on its own been implicated in radiological arachnoiditis.

I have read the comprehensive summary which you have provided in relation to Mr Huntley's previous correspondence and also read the correspondence supplied.

I note his initial injury in 1997, decompressive laminectomy 1979 when there was evidence of spinal cord compression at multiple levels, together with subsequent surgery for nerve root decompression and cervical spine stabilisation.

I note the multiple opinions by up to at least six different physicians/surgeons, including neurosurgeons and a neurologist; in general, without a consistent objective neurological deficit in either the arms or legs but with acknowledged troublesome musculoskeletal pain, with limitation of back movement (also following a subsequent injury with a compression fracture of L1). As above, arachnoiditis can really only be diagnosed at least radiologically by MR imaging. Previous MR imaging

 

John Huntley / 2

of this patient'sthoracic and lumbar spine refers specifically to the absence of any adhesive arachnoiditis of the lumbar spine does not make comment of any positive findings with respect to the cervical region.

Radiological arachnoiditis may be more common affecting the lumbar spine than the cervical spine because of the effect of gravity and the upright posture with radiological changes referenced in the lumbar spine. However, there do not appear to be cases of cervical spine radiological arachnoiditis. On this basis, Mr Huntley does not have any investigative support for arachnoiditis. That is, he does not have MRI evidence arachnoiditis and this really is the answer to your question.

If one were to consider the situation of clinical arachnoiditis, one would expect this to be associated with radicular pain, that is pain in the distribution of a single nerve root (and Mr Huntley did not have this clinical picture). If this were the case, one would expect that there would be atrophic changes from compression or thinning of the nerve roots and neurological findings on examination. On repeated examination Mr Huntley has shown no consistent objective neurological deficit. This also argues against the theoretical picture of clinical arachnoiditis.

This is in relation to radiological evidence of arachnoiditis and its clinical equivalent. As above, importantly Mr Huntley does not have even radiological evidence of arachnoiditis. Nevertheless, I think the controversy in the absence of good evidence supporting a relationship, even between radiological and clinical arachnoiditis, is relevant to Mr Huntley - but of course does not support his belief that is symptoms are related to myodil contrast medium.

I also enclose an article on Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Arachnoiditis: Fact or Fallacy and have copied aspects from this article which I think are relevant to the controversy as to whether clinical arachnoiditis exists. Comments in this article, where inserted into this letter have been both highlighted and included within hyphenated lines where this has been copied from the journal directly.

,veurz^.,sc,ence ¹,2007 7n.5', 3N-377 Pu'.:rshle7s UU

DO:: 10.'.Ofz: jocn0;70 0227. avalat:de onime a;

 

Personal view

Symptc:: atic lumbar spinal arachnoicritis: fact or fallac.'?

P. G. Petty.' P. Hudgson.² W. S.C. Hare'

 

 

 

Beyond these specific diagnoses there exists a significant set of patients variously labelled as 'failed back syndrome', 'chronic low back pain', 'chronic pain syndrome (lumbar)', or any permutation of the words 'chronic —lumbar — spinal — adhesive — arachnoiditis'. These are overlapping and not mutually exclusive labels — they should not be dignified with the epithet diagnosis. All authors are agreed that there is no specific clinical syndrome within this group to which the pathological diagnosis of arachnoiditis can be associated.

Their myelograms, and more recently their magnetic resonance (MR) images will commonly show changes consistent with the radiological diagnosis of arachnoiditis. It is, therefore, very tempting to label these patients as diagnosed with 'arachnoiditis' (which they have from the radiological point of view), and thus imply that there is clinical arachnoiditis which is the cause of their continuing symptoms.

Apart from direct inspection at surgery, radiology has been the means of providing objective evidence of chronic adhesive arachnoiditis in the living since the condition was described almost a century ago

Laitt et al., studying chronic adhesive arachnoiditis patterns following Myodil myelography, conclude that 'only a single case of arachnoiditic nerve root patterns was seen in the absence of stenosis or previous surgery. We conclude that chronic adhesive arachnoiditis is significantly related to previous Myodil myelography in the presence of spinal stenosis or previous surgery but that Myodil alone rarely produces these changes'.

In patients with more severe radiological changes following Myodil virtually always there is a history of previous surgery or evidence that bleeding occurred into the spinal theca.

[gaffa09]

John Huntley / 4

The radiological changes seen in chronic adhesive arachnoiditis as a result of fibrous exudation and organisation have shown no consistent correlation with the clinical findings except in those cases where nerve root (or occasionally spinal cord) atrophy has been demonstrated. Certainly the Delamarter patterns do not correlate with the clinical histories. Following his extensive review of the literature, Long (8) summarised the situation: 'There is no doubt that all of the contrast agents that have been and are now employed cause a meningeal inflammatory reaction. What is not known is how significant these reactions are from a clinical standpoint, and if such contrast agent induced reactions are related to the clinical syndrome of chronic adhesive arachnoiditis.'

As regards the correlation of oily contrast media induced lumbosacral chronic adhesive arachnoiditis and clinical symptoms, useful information is available from experience with Myodil ventriculography and cervical myelography. Myodil ventriculography was a commonly performed procedure until the advent of CT imaging. In this, 3 ml of Myodil were instilled into one lateral ventricle, and then manoeuvred through the third and fourth ventricles. It was then let fall to the lumbar region, never to be retrieved. The total number of such procedures can only be 'guesstimated', but it would be of the order of tens of thousands worldwide. Hughes and Isherwood(16) presented 98 patients followed for a year or more, and Rowland Hill et al.(17) presented 222 cases. Neither author could demonstrate any clinical case in which this procedure could be blamed for lumbar symptoms. Unfortunately, the opportunity to study with MRI the appearances in the lumbar theca in these patients has probably been lost as the method is now obsolete. Almost certainly the radiological changes of chronic adhesive arachnoiditis would have been found in this asymptomatic group.

Cervical myelography is a commonly performed procedure, and often a larger volume of contrast material is used, compared with lumbar myelography. The contrast, either oily or water soluble, is introduced cisternally or by the lumbar route. At the conclusion contrast gravitates to the lumbosacral region, and in many patients the oily contrast agent was not removed (the water soluble contrast is not usually removed). The present authors have no personal experience of arachnoiditis following cervical myelography. Long states: 'There are only a few reports of patients undergoing cervical myelography who subsequently developed lumbar arachnoiditis — this in the face of millions of cervical myelograms' (he cites no references for these `few reports' and includes no personal cases).

Mooij(19)reviewed 63 patients with a radiological diagnosis of arachnoiditis and concluded that if lumbosacral arachnoiditis is a coincidental finding in the majority of cases, without clinical consequences'.

In summary, lumbar myelography with any agent may cause the radiological changes of arachnoiditis, but no author has demonstrated any causative relationship between the radiological changes and clinical symptoms. Rather it is noted that if both the radiological changes and the symptoms are present, a causal relationship is implied, but not explicitly stated.

 

John Huntley /5

 

r n2.111.10 1

.

Conclusion

There is no rational basis for the belief that the radiological and pathological changes of lumbar spinal arachnoiditis are correlated with clinical symptoms, except in the most rare of circumstance. Every effort should be made to find some underlying structural or functional cause for the symptoms and treat the patient accordingly, because the diagnosis of 'clinical arachnoiditis' is essentially a diagnosis of despair or a justification for otherwise unsustainable litigation.

In summary and to answer your questions, I note that Mr Huntley has numerous symptoms detailing in

at least one assessment more than 24 symptoms, none of which relates to the theoretical concern of even clinical arachnoiditis, rare as this condition must be.

There is no clinical or radiological evidence that he has arachnoiditis and so the remaining questions in that respect are no longer relevant.

With respect to any treatment recommendations that I have for the patient, this is complicated and influenced by the relatively consistent comments in the previous medical correspondence of the absence of an objective deficit and the burden that the illness and the grievance of Mr Huntley has to ACC. After so many years of disability and the unacknowledged confirmation and belief that his symptoms are due to arachnoiditis, the way forward is difficult. I think Mr Huntley requires an empathetic physician to deal with each of his symptoms and give him an explanation for these, to address these as best as possible and also where relevant to consider the impact of functional

[gaffa09]

John Huntley / 6

symptoms, that is, symptoms not explained by a structural or medical cause. This can be addressed in the web site www.neurosymptoms.org.

It is acknowledged that the patient is significantly disabled by his musculoskeletal discomfort with restricted spine and neck movements but this is not due to arachnoiditis.

I comment on individual reports supplied where I think this is of particular relevance and highlight comments by myself in italics.

Dr Harvey June 2013 Lower back pain is described as persistent but less severe than the neck pain - such comments as above are relevant to the unlikely occurrence of cervical arachnoiditis

The absence of any clear symptoms or objective signs of lumbar radiculopathy are noted.

Incidentally, comments of vertigo attributable to vertebral basilar insufficiency would be regarded as extremely unlikely.

Comments of anger against the ACC are noted.

Dr D Ridder letter 3 September 2010 Restricted neck movements are likely to reflect musculoskeletal factors. The absence of any lumbar spine symptoms at that time is noted

CT head scan report of 3 November 2008. Multiple calcifications within the subarachnoid space as previously demonstrated are still evident. / presume this may relate to myodil in the ventricular system with previous correspondence documenting that. Such changes have no recognised clinical equivalent and equally the patient's symptoms would not relate to that.

Dr Grant Thompson musculoskeletal physician January 2008 refers to a second myelogram in 1985 at which time myodil was no longer used.

Dr John Simcock July 2006. Although reference is made to the patient being able to only walk to 300m before backache and weakness of the legs stopped him walking further, there was no objective neurological deficit and Dr Simcock noted that the MRI scan also excluded arachnoiditis as a cause of lumbar problems.

Dr David Lyon Orthopaedic Surgeon 12 November 1999 comments that MRI imaging (likely date also 1 November 1999) includes a spacious lumbar spinal canal without evidence of "adhesive arachnoiditis"

Dr Alistair Wilson General Practitioner 23 June 1998. Normal MRI imaging or at least the absence of any evidence of arachnoiditis is referred to in MRI imaging of the cervical spine at Whanganui (11 October 1994. The extensive nature of the pain is also noted - the extent of which would not accord with any question of clinical arachnoiditis

Mr Grant Gillett Neurosurgeon 29 September 1997 Comments on the absence of any radiological evidence for arachnoiditis.

Dr Philip Baker Neurologist 6 April 1995 comments on the occurrence of low back pain present since his accident in 1977 with examination findings of musculoskeletal origin & and marginal reduction in the left biceps and bra chioradialis reflexes. He also comments on principle (discussing the subject) on the less likely occurrence of arachnoiditis in the cervical, compared to the lumbosacral spine with the effect of gravity. This is a general comment and not conveyed as a confirmation of diagnosis.

 

John Huntley / 7

Yours sincerely

ICAtr eSiP

Stuart Mossman

Enclosure

[gaffa09]

SV.L            Home Databases ! WorldLII! Search ! Feedback

NZL New Zealand Accident Compensation

Appeals - ACC Appeal Decisions

You are here: NZLII >> Databases >> New Zealand Accident Compensation Appeals - ACC Appeal Decisions » 2001 >>12001l NZACC 4

Database Search ! Name Search ! Recent Decisions ! Noteup I LawCite I Download! Help

Huntley v Accident Compensation Corporation [2001] NZACC 4 (15 January 2001)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON  Decision No. 4/2001

(Appeal Nos. Al 165/99 & Al 161/99)

UNDER The Accident Insurance Act 1998

AND

IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 152 of the Act BETWEEN J C HUNTLEY

Appellant

AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Respondent

HEARD at WELLINGTON on 12 October 2000 DATE OF DECISION: 15 January 2001 COUNSEL:

Mr J M Miller for appellant

Mr A D Barnett for respondent

DECISION OF JUDGE P F BARBER

[1] Originally these two cases involved the two separate issues of whether the appellant is entitled to an independence allowance and whether he has cover in respect of a claimed medical misadventure. The latter issue was abandoned at about the outset of the hearing before me because Atkinson v ARCIC  (AP 25/00, High Court, Wellington, 16/8/2000, Ellis J) makes it clear that it is a necessary component of a medical misadventure that there be a causal link between the medical treatment and the claimed injury, and that the onus of proof lies upon the

claimant to the standard of the balance of probabilities. Mr Miller seemed to concede that, at present, the appellant has not made out medical misadventure and this case proceeded on the issue of entitlement to an independence allowance.

Background

 

[2]   The appellant suffered an injury in 1977 when a boulder hit him on the neck and left shoulder while doing a cliff-face rescue exercise as part of his job as a Senior Fireman at Wellington. He has cover for this personal injury.

[3]   The appellant was admitted to Wellington Hospital for investigations in July 1979. A cervical myelogram was performed, using Myodil as the contrast medium.

[4]   A skull x-ray performed at Wanganui Hospital in September 1990 indicated a residual contrast material in the basal part of the inter-cranial cavity.

[5]   On 13 May 1994 the appellant lodged a claim for cover for medical misadventure, namely, for injury consequential upon the myelogram performed in July 1979. The claim was considered by the Medical Misadventure Advisory Committee which sought a further specialist opinion.

[6]   On 7 December 1995 the Medical Misadventure Advisory Committee determined that a causal link was not established between Mr Huntley's symptoms and the residual Myodil, and there was no evidence of medical error. The Committee advised its opinion in March 1996. The respondent's primary decision issued on 28 March 1996 declined cover.

[7]   On 27 June 1996 an application for Review was lodged. That matter came on for Review on 12 August 1999. In a comprehensive 22 page review decision, the Review Officer determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence did not support a finding of medical error and that the medical opinion indicated that there was no causal relationship between the retained Myodil and the symptoms. Accordingly, the application was unsuccessful. An appeal was filed.

[8]   On 24 September 1998 the Corporation issued a decision declining any entitlement to an independence allowance in respect to the November 1977 personal injury by accident for which the appellant has cover. This decision was based on the assessment of Dr A K Wilson who had assessed a 10% Whole Person Impairment.

[9]   The appellant has previously received a lump sum payment for a permanent impairment amounting to 8.25%. This percentage was required to be deducted from the 10% assessment. Thus the appellant fell below the 10% threshold required for the payment of the independence allowance. This decision was upheld on Review in a decision dated 3 September 1999. This decision of Review Officer Mr M J Dunn is now appealed.

Reasons for Decision

[10]           To dispose of the medical misadventure aspect for the present, I record that I can only agree with the submissions on the point by Mr Barnett that, on the basis of a significant body of medical opinion in this case, the Medical Misadventure Advisory Committee concluded that a causal association between the myelogram, which the appellant underwent in 1979, and any injury suffered by the appellant was not proven.

[11]      While it is the belief of the appellant that there is a causal association between the myelogram and the injury or some of the injuries he suffered, this is not established on the medical opinion. Even if a causal association were established between treatment and injury, the evidence in the present appeal does not establish that there has been a medical error. Nor does the evidence establish that there is a medical mishap in that it is neither shown that the claimed injury was a rare consequence of the treatment nor a severe consequence.

[12]   In any case, as already mentioned, Mr Miller seemed to concede the medical misadventure

The Independence Allowance Issue

 

[13] The appellant's initial injury occurred on 20 November 1977. Persistent pain in his left arm resulted from that injury. He has developed a wide range of pain symptoms in his head, neck, arms, chest, hips, feet and legs. However the Review Officer found:

"Decision:

It is evident from the information available that the Corporation appointed Dr Wilson, an approved assessor under Regulation 4 to carry out an assessment of the applicant's Whole Person Impairment because of the personal injuries indicated on the independence allowance application. Based on the information provided to him by the Corporation, and the applicant's General Practitioner Dr Wilson carried out the assessment in accordance with the AMA Guidelines and concluded that the applicant's Whole Person Impairment was 10%. In addition, Mr Huntley had also received lump sum payments under previous Acts. These payments were based on an 8.5% assessment.

As explained above, from I July 1997 a person has to reach a threshold of 10% Whole Person Impairment before they are eligible for an independence allowance. Therefore, based on Dr Wilson's report and the previous lump sum assessment the applicant is not entitled to receive an independence allowance, as his Whole Person Impairment is less than the threshold of 10%.

I note there was some confusion over the actual amount awarded in lump sum payments. The Corporation advised 8.5% in the decision letter, Mr Huntley considered that he had previously received a 20% lump sum payment from the Corporation for permanent disability. Even deducting the smaller figure from the impairment as assessed Mr Huntley is well below the required threshold.

There was no evidence of any flaw in procedure with Dr Wilson's report. Consequently, the Corporation's decision of 24 September 1998 is confirmed and the review is unsuccessful ... If

[14]  Mr Miller submitted that the appellant's present injury situation is still linked back to that 1977 accident as a fireman, and he submitted that the appellant still has cover even though he cannot show medical misadventure. This leads on to the independence allowance issue. The respondent's stance pivots on a full independence allowance assessment report from Dr. A K Wilson dated 23 June 1998. This assesses the appellant as having a 10% Whole Person Impairment "resulting from the described injuries consisting of a cervical spine injury, the investigations, the surgery that followed and the chronic pain syndrome that has developed as a consequence". All those matters arise out of the said injury of 20 November 1977.

[15]  Mr Miller referred to the appellant being adamant that his present incapacity is due to medical misadventure, but to the ACC Medical Misadventure Committee and the Review Officer, not accepting that but appearing to accept that the medical evidence indicates that the appellant's incapacity was due to the physical and mental consequences of the said 1977 accident. Mr Miller then opines that there is nothing to be gained by a finding of medical misadventure as full entitlements will flow from the 1977 accident.

[16]  Mr Miller noted that the appellant was assessed as having a 10% Whole Person Impairment from which 8.25% was deducted for a previous lump sum

payment so that no independence allowance has been paid. Mr Miller submitted

that if the present physical and mental consequences of the original 1977 injury are to be taken into consideration, then the percentage impairment will be considerably increased.

 

[17]            Accordingly, Mr Miller's main submission is that there should be a fresh assessment to take into account those physical and mental consequences.

[18]            Mr Miller then proceeded to analyse Dr Wilson's said independence allowance assessment report on the theme that it is inadequate so that I should require a further assessment. He also appeared to be criticising the Review Officer's interpretation of Dr Wilson's said report. He emphasised that Dr Wilson is "only a GP" and that disorders being suffered by the appellant involve psychological and psychiatric matters. He submitted that in terms of the way such issues are dealt with in the American Medical Association Guides (to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment — 4th Edition) and especially with regard to Chapters 14 and 15 of those AMA Guides, there are doubts whether Dr Wilson's assessment has been properly carried out. He submitted that Dr Wilson's report is flawed on its face and should be more specific.

[19]            Inter alia, Mr Miller submitted that when dealing with the issue of "pain" in terms of Chapter 15 of the AMA Guides and referring to the aspect of the appellant's chronic pain, Dr Wilson has not made it clear whether or not he has considered the appellant's case in the light of Chapter 15 only of the AMA Guides, which deals with "pain", or whether he has also considered this case in the light of Chapter 14 dealing with "Mental and Behavioural Disorders", or vice versa. Mr Miller seemed to be submitting that there should not be an encapsulation of the concept of mental disorders in to chronic pain syndrome when the AMA Guides have a separate chapter about mental and behavioural disorders. I certainly accept that "pain" and "mental and behavioural disorders" are quite different issues and sufferings but, no doubt, they may combine.

[20]            The appellant's contention is that if the physical and mental consequences of the 1977 injury are properly taken into consideration, the percentage impairment will be greatly increased.

[21]            Mr Barnett submits that the independence allowance assessment completed by Dr Wilson discloses that he has taken into account both the physical impairment suffered by the appellant and the impairment associated with the chronic pain syndrome, and that these were the consequences of both the original injury and the resulting medical investigations and surgery.

[22]            Dr Wilson writes in his assessment at page 6:

"fi I consider that Mr Huntley has a 10% Whole Person Impairment resulting from the described injuries consisting of a cervical spine injury, the investigations, the surgery that followed and the chronic pain syndrome that has developed as a consequence".

[23]            Accordingly, Mr Barnett submits that there is no medical evidence, or not sufficient medical evidence, that would enable the assessment of Dr Wilson to be set aside.

[24]            Mr Barnett emphasised that he regarded Mr Miller's submissions as "short on detail" and containing material not previously raised with the respondent or the Review Officer. Mr Barnett then addressed Mr Wilson's said report and pointed out that the heading on page 5 "(e) Impairment Rating of Body Parts, Functions and Systems" was all based on appropriate references to the AMA Guides. Mr Barnett submitted that despite the argument of Mr Miller to the contrary, Dr Wilson's report is clearly made taking into account the whole range of the

appellant's suffering and the whole range of guides on the ingredients of such

suffering, as set out in the AMA Guides. I agree, although Dr Wilson has

specified more about pain under the said Chapter 15 of the AMA Guides than about the content of Chapter 14; but he also records at page 6 of his report

 

"(iii) I have incorporated Mr Huntley's other psychological and psychiatric effects, outlined by Dr G Newburn, into the chronic pain syndrome and have rated them as part of this.

This assessment was conducted in accordance with the ACC Policies and Procedures for Assessing Impairment for Independence Allowance in accordance with AMA Guides, the Guidance provided during ACC Independence Allowance Assessor Training Programme."

[25]              I also consider that Dr Wilson has adequately considered the mental and behavioural disorders concepts.

[26]              Mr Barnett also referred to Dr Wilson's conclusion at "(f)" on page 6 under the heading "Whole Person Impairment", which I have set out above, and which I agree shows that Dr Wilson has considered the total possible and extended situation of the pain and injury experienced by the appellant.

[27]    I also agree with Mr Barnett that if the assessment of Dr Wilson is to be challenged, then there needs to be a properly formulated and separate medical opinion adduced as evidence. In my view, one can only conclude from Dr Wilson's report that his assessment for independence allowance purposes has been carefully and properly compiled. Dr Wilson seems to me to have considered all the consequences of the injury and consequential treatment and surgery. Without any other medical opinion to contradict Dr Wilson in any way, and in view of the manner in which that report has been expressed, one could not possibly regard Dr Wilson's report as flawed, and it must stand.

[28]    Mr Barnett conceded that if I were to find ambiguity in something Dr Wilson has said, then I could ask Dr Wilson to provide a further commentary or supplementary report. However, I cannot find any ambiguity, and to me there can be no suggestion from the report that it is in any way inadequate. I do not think there can be any suggestion that Dr Wilson has in any way misapplied guidelines under Chapter 14 or 15 of the AMA Guides, or in any other part of those Guides, or in terms of his own experience.

[29]    Inter alia, both counsel referred to the fairly recent decision of Judge Beattie in Nansen v ACC (No. 216/2000, 8 August 2000). There, he referred to the statutory provisions and regulations regarding the system of assessment for independence allowance, but they are not in issue in this case. It is not being suggested that Dr Wilson is not a proper "assessor" for the purposes of the regulations. In Nansen Mr Miller was counsel for the appellant and he did not seem to suggest that the assessor in that case was unsuitable, but did submit that she was not a specialist in the field of psychiatry and he therefore submitted that it must be axiomatic that she could not give a specialist assessment on the particular facets of that appellant's personal injury from sexual abuse.

[30]    In Nansen, Judge Beattie refers to a submission from Mr Miller that an assessment under the AMA Guides required more than simply "following the book". Mr Miller seemed to be making that sort of submission in the present case. However, I can only agree with Judge Beattie's disposal of that submission at page 6 of his decision in Nansen as follows:

"Whilst I find that Mr Miller's submission has certain logic and reason, nevertheless I must hold as a matter of law that there is nothing in the Act, or indeed its predecessor, which would

enable this Court to rule that unless a specialist was appointed to assess, the assessment could
not be valid and the appointment of a person who was not a specialist was not a proper
exercise of the Corporation's discretion. It cannot be found in the language of the Act or
indeed from its scheme or intent. The fact that the statute is silent on any qualification being

 

required for an assessor appointed under the Act must surely militate against Mr Miller's argument as a matter of law, however sensible and reasonable as a matter of practice it might seem to be.

Having regard to the power given to the Corporation under the provisions of Clause 60 and the wide parameters for the appointment of an assessor that the Act allows, I cannot find that as a matter of law, the Corporation improperly exercised its discretion in requiring this appellant to be seen and assessed by Dr Williams, a General Practitioner.

Insofar as Mr Miller's second ground is concerned, I have had no evidence that any matter of substance is contained in the ACC Instruction. I note that the instruction relates to Content and Format of an Impairment Instruction Assessment Report and I accept Mr Barnett's submission that that instruction simply relates to the way that the assessment report should be set out as a matter of format.

In the particular assessment of this appellant it is to be noted that it covers 26 pages and is particularly detailed and identifies all the personal injuries for which the appellant is to be assessed and then deals with them individually and comes to individual conclusions and assessments before providing a combined impairment rating at the end of the assessment.

In summary therefore, I find that there is nothing in the Act, either expressed or implied, which requires the Corporation to refer a claimant to a specialist in the particular field of expertise which identifies with the nature of the injury, or impairment from injury, that is required to be assessed.

There being no evidence to give rise to any suggestion that the assessment of Dr Williams was in fact in any way flawed, that assessment must be accepted and the Whole Person Impairment that was so assessed, after deduction of the previous lump sum disability, percentage, does not give rise to an entitlement to an independence allowance under the Act. The respondent's

decision to find so is therefore confirmed."

[31] When I stand back and look at this situation overall, it seems to me that the proper procedures have been followed by the respondent with regard to obtaining a proper assessment of integrity for independence allowance purposes. There has been a hearing before a Review Officer and an appeal to this Court. There is simply no evidence to counter the assessment of Dr Wilson and, from my point of view, Dr Wilson's report seems excellent and comprehensive and is the main evidence before me. There is no other medical evidence to counter the assessment of Dr Wilson. Nor is there anything in his report which should alert me, in terms of common-sense, to query his assessment or require further commentary. There is nothing which suggests that an alternative independence assessment is needed.

[32]       Mr Miller must be submitting that the pain and suffering of the appellant is such that, even from a layperson's perspective, the percentage assessment is clearly too low, so that as a precaution I should obtain a further and different independent assessment. However, there is nothing to flag that approach to me.

[33]       Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judge P F Barber

District Court Judge

WELLINGTON

[gaffa09]

this  report  is made out  when I said  no   to mossman making  a  report   through  J Miller  this is  a  white  wash  and I  won't  wore  a bar of  it 

refer  to  

http://accforum.nz/t...-myodil/?p=1340

[gaffa09]

my   report  dated  10th Jan  2017

 

Mossman==J Millers == report

I  john C  Huntley  know  my own  body   and  the pain  I have  been  going  through  since    the myodil injection back in 1979  after  an accident in the  fire  service

 Apart  from  my  own  doctor  Andrew  miller  who  believes  in me  other  doctors  don’t  want  to know ; specialist  are  the  worse   you  can  talk  as  much  as  you  want   but  it  goes  in one  ear  and out  the other

Specialist that   are making out  reports  that I have  never  seen; all  working  for ACC  or under   there   thumb

In one of  J Millers  report  he  states  that Mossman  will  side  with ACC  and  make  out  a report  that  favours  ACC   this  has been  born out  in  this   attachment==

I  replied to J Miller law that I  don’t  want  to go ahead  with  this  report from Mossman but he  still  went  ahead  with it

My Doctor has  and is  the only  doctor  that has  started  to  carry out   a  full  testing  program

 First   is a few  years  back  Andrew  sent me  for  tests  and found  that I  have   epileptic  fits       there is  no history of epilepsy   in my  family  at all

 New  tests  carried out   just  recently    on  my  blood  count

 Red  blood  cell count   are  safe  300  to 600  danger 170  mine  are  at  140  

I  don’t  know  if   this  is  related  to  myodil or not

 I have  a hospital  appointment   coming  up  for more  tests ?

 If I am  sitting  down   and have  a blood pressure   test  it is  high  now  stand up  and have  the  same   test  and my  blood  pressure is  low

Now   this is  fact  I have  had  2  injections of  Myodil the  first  went  to my  brain  and  to date is  still  there  that  was 17^th April 1979 wellington  the  second  was in  Napier  aprox 1985 Gail Curtis

 2 operations  one  by  Russel Worth   the  second  Gail Curtis Hastings

  The  second by  Gail  he  took  bone  from  my  hip  and  fussed  my  neck

I have had  many  falls   fracturing   L1   spine == splitting  my head  open   and  many  blackouts  The  last  big  one  I  broke  all my  bottom  teeth  and  jaw

I  am on tegretol  to control

My  Memory is  fading   and  am now   told I have   the  early  stages of Dementia  or  Alzheimers

Again   there is no Dementia in my  family

Asbestos   now   doctor  has  found  that I  have  asbestos ACC accept  this  but  won’t  pay out on  this   this  was   from  the  1977  big  fire  in Wellington

 Now  lets   talk  about  Mossmans  report

First   which is missing  is Russell  Worth  report  to  my Lawyer  Rob Handley  dated   mid  1990s  or  about

States  the  dangers  of myodil  and  yes  john  did have  injection  but  states or  pulls  the  statue of limitations   on us

 

 Second   no  report  from Gail Curtis

No report  from Greg Miles   registered radiological

Remarks  to me   there is  something  wrong with  the  x-rays but I  don’t know  what something  to  do  with colour

No  report  from  Frank Howes  Whanganui  states possible arachnoiditis

Report  from Professor Grant  Gillett   told  me  I  had  arachnoiditis   and  to bring  all my  notes  and x-rays  to him   Then lost  the lot  and  went  back on  what he  first  told me  records  still missing

Dr John Simcock July 2006   I can’t  remember  seeing  him

 I  notice  that  they  state   at  this  time == in my  opinion  ==comments on  the absence of  any  radiological  evidence for  arachnoiditis

Do radiologists know  what  they are looking  for

Refer  to    the ex president of  NZ and  Australia radiologist

In my opinion  there is  a big  cover  up  by  Drug companies , Medical profession , ACC ,  and  government

This  pain  we  go  through doesn’t  come out of  thin  air   and I  would  bet  that most of  us  were  fit  and  healthy   people

How  do  you  explain Pain

 

Now  finally  Whangarei Hospital  when I was    there  last   time  sent  a rehab  person  to see me   and  gave me  a  walking  frame

This  has  since  been  returned  under my instructions

[gaffa09]

Myodil Action Group (UK)

 

Index Page 3

 

Sign the Myodil Action Group e-petition

 

ABOUT IOPHENDYLATE (MYODIL, PANTOPAQUE, ETHIODAN)

        Iophendylate is a mixture of Isomers produced in 1936 in the USA by Eastman Kodak and was initially developed as a photographic processing chemical and was not originally intended for use on humans. Around 1941 researchers started experimenting on animals with this chemical to test it's suitability as a contrast media for x-ray investigation of back pain related symptoms, but they immediately found it caused meningismus in all tests carried out. Despite this drug producers sold it as safe for doctors to use on humans. It was later discovered the substance “Iophendylate,” was not only harmful but melted plastic and rubber. The FDA did have serious concerns about tests conducted by Steinhausen (1942), but granted a licence in 1944. Iophendylate (U.S. Patent 2,348,231) appeared on the world scene as a myelographic oil-ester for high volume (12-15cc) routine use in diagnosing disc herniations and was widely used as a contrast medium between 1944 and 1987 in spinal x-rays called Myelograms (Myelography). 
    Eastman Kodak supplied Iophendylate to Lafayette from 1944 and Lafayette sold it under the marketing name Pantopaque. Eastman Kodak supplied Iophendylate through an intemediary company called British Drug Houses, who were granted sole distribution rights to sell Iophendylate throughout Canada under the marketing name Ethiodan, and to Glaxo in the UK, who sold it under the marketing name Myodil. The FDA were concerned about the lack of test data being provided by Lafayette. Lafayette never made public their 1969 findings that it failed scientific studies, but continued selling it as "Safe". In 1977 Lafayette was bought by Alcon (Alcon was at this same time bought by Nestle), at this time Pantopaque represented about 80% of Lafayette's product sales. Glaxo sold Myodil as a service product in the UK when no licensing was required up until 1974. When new licensing laws came in to affect in 1974 Glaxo were automatically granted a licence of right because Myodil was already in production. As far as we are aware Glaxo have never conducted their own safety tests on Myodil, if they did they have never been made public.

THE MYELOGRAM PROCEDURE

    In most cases people went in to hospital for investigation of lower back pain. The myelogram (spinal x-ray) procedure involved injecting Myodil directly into the spinal cord mostly in the lumbar region, but some consultants insisted the Myodil was then spread the full length of the spinal cord as far as the base of the brain, which was unnecessary and bad practice. Myodil was designed to illuminate the spinal cord and nerve roots on x-rays. Worldwide, millions of people underwent Myodil Myelograms, but were not warned they were being poisoned (criminal offence?).
 

THE CONSEQUENCES

    Glaxo initially claimed Myodil was harmless and would aspirate naturally but instead it was a toxic oily sticky substance and non-aspirating, therefore impossible to withdraw after the procedure. Because of this it immediately caused toxic chemical meningitis. This damage to the spinal cord causes intractable pain and organ dysfunction/failure, which can lead to death. Myodil also works it's way around the lining surrounding the brain (causing cranial Arachnoiditis), which can also lead to brain damage and death. Free Iodine in Myodil can also cause Thyroid dysfunction. 
    It would appear most doctors were not reporting adverse reactions, that their patients were jumping and jerking, urinating and defecating on the X-ray table, being ill in hospital with fits, nausea, and vomiting for days, weeks, or even months afterwards, and leaving hospital in a wheelchair or limping on cruches, either because they were classing these as normal reactions or they didn't want to admit they were injuring people, which would explain why the drug producers (Lafayette and Glaxo) claim adverse reactions were rare. It's called aiding and abetting, and is a criminal offence, so nobody knows how many it has killed.    
    Myodil induced Adhesive Arachnoiditis is Iatrogenic, which means Glaxo and the medical profession caused it, so they don't want to diagnose it. In the UK (due to compensation costs and lost reputations) the NHS guards itself and it's own doctors against medical negligence/injury claims. For decades consultants, doctors, and radiologists have been telling people that their new problems are being caused by the worsening of their original condition, not Myodil (however any underlying condition would not have caused chemically induced diffuse Adhesive Arachnoiditis). This means you can't get a diagnosis or the correct treatment, making you a sufferer of Iatrogenic neglect, which is cruel and has led to a life of pain, poverty, and misery. 
    Glaxo's statement is always the same, "we acted responsibly at all times with regard to the supply of Myodil, and warned doctors of the risks." But this isn't true, as far as we are aware Glaxo never conducted scientific tests and prior to 1973, they never told anybody Myodil was toxic and non aspirating and say adverse reaction reports from medical professionals were rare (this is either a lie or doctors weren't reporting adverse reactions, either because they were accepting them as normal or didn't want to be blamed.). In 1972 Glaxo only made reference to removing Myodil after Myelography, but then in 1973 Glaxo advised that Myodil should be aspirated after Myelography, by advising this Glaxo effectively admitted they knew Myodil caused inflammatory reactions and threw responsibility on to the medical profession. They also advised if low back pain and symptoms of sciatica persisted an injection of hydrocortisone sodium succinate (short term anti-inflammatory) should be given intrathecally (however it is now known this was also an extremely dangerous procedure also involving a cocktail of chemicals), which would probably have accelerated the onset of Adhesive Arachnoiditis. On the first UK licence application in 1974  Glaxo admitted Myodil caused Arachnoiditis, thus throwing responsibility on to both the medical profession and the licensing authorities. So Glaxo don't deny this medical injury, they deny being responsible. In effect they are saying they knew it was dangerous but because they warned doctors of the risks they don't hold themselves responsible (but this was only after 1973).
 

    SUMMARY

    So you went in to hospital for investigation of your back ache and underwent a routine procedure which was designed to find any problems with your spine and then possibly lead to pain relief, but instead you were strapped to a x-ray table, tortured, and poisoned. Therefore if the investigation did find a problem which could be solved by surgery, the pain relief would be short-lived because you came out of hospital having been poisoned with a toxic chemical which would never leave your body causing chemical meningitis, a devastating incurable untreatable medical injury which progressed over decades leading to diffuse Adhesive Arachnoiditis. Leaving you with all kinds of organ dysfunction: brain damaged, crippled, incontinent/constipated, and in agonizing pain (terminally injured?). Lots of people didn't have anything wrong with their spine and it was discovered their pain was being caused by some other medical problem, but because they underwent a Myodil Myelogram they became permanently disabled.
 

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

    All the evidence presented on index page 2 of this website is overwhelming, animal tests conducted by Lafayette in the USA, and adverse reaction reports clearly show the drug producers and the medical profession knew it was dangerous and that they were injuring people. But because they had nothing else to use, either through willful ignorance or willful negligence they continued using it, which means this is a criminal medical injury. In the UK there are no statute of limitations on criminal offence, the law also clearly states if you injure somebody intentionally or unintentionally and they die it is murder or manslaughter. I don't know where in law it says it is legal for Glaxo and the medical profession to kowingly poison you causing a progressive, incurable, un-treatable injury which may even kill you. 
 

UK LITIGATION 1994

In the mid-1990s there was litigation in the UK. It was perverted because the NHS demanded they be excluded from litigation and in return they would cooperate fully and release all patients records, the solicitors agreed to this blackmail without informing claimants. This didn't work well for claimants because many of them found that their records had mysteriously disappeared. Also the medical criteria used to diagnose this medical injury was specified by the offenders themselves and therefore purposely flawed for their own benefit so sufferers did not get a diagnosis. The Legal Aid Board put pressure on solicitors and claimants to settle out of court so that the Legal Aid Board could get their money back. This left thousands of sufferers without compensation or even recognition, leaving them to struggle and fend for themselves.

 

[gaffa09]

I  sent  reports to my  Doctor  by e-mail

this is  his  reply  to   the last  3  reports i  sent him

 

Hi John. Looks like we’re not getting far with this. Dr Hutchinson is hedging his bets but the Mossman report is black and white saying ACC have no case to answer. You then look at the UK information which is just what we know is the truth- health authorities/Glaxo banding together to absolve themselves of responsibility. Awful

 

Andrew