1.jpg 104.37KB 0 downloads
couldn't scan so took photo
Jump to content
Posted 29 October 2015 - 12:23 PM
this attachment states that i had a molestation out on me this is bullshit
Now as for her father there was bad blood between them He Did not talk to her for many years
I know as i used to take my children to visit up until both died in i think 1995 I am still uncovering lies from ALL meaning My X her man the Get or Motor mouth
this guy is real bad news == But my X made her own bed so she has to lie in it
I do have personal letters from my own children 2 especially that don't have a goods work for there mother
My lawyer has a copy of them
Posted 31 October 2015 - 10:40 AM
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
22 DEC 2003
22 December 2003
Mr Phil Heatley MP
109 Lower Cameron Street WHAN GARET
PREVENTION. CARE. RECOVERY.
Te Kaporeihana Awhina Hunga Whara
Level 1, Walton Plaza
3-5 Albert Street
Private Bag 9001
Whangarei, New Zealand
Ph 09-437 7800
Facsimile 09-437 7801
Freephone 0800 101 996
Dear Mr Heatley
I refer to a conversation between your electorate secretary and myself in respect of l-tter-sent to one of-your-constitacnts-Mrjohlrikuntley by the Minister-for ACC Hon Ruth Dyson.
I believe that Mr Huntley was concerned that the letter from the Minister contained an inaccuracy in that it stated "I understand the documents indicate a neck injury (although not a 'broken neck')". I undertook to investigate the situation and to try to explain why the comment was made.
I have made enquiries of ACC's Corporate Office and I have also examined the material provided from this office regarding Mr Huntley's claim.
I can advise that the Minister's office was informed that the first medical certificate on the claim clearly identified an injury to the left shoulder and neck, but not a "broken neck". Subsequent orthopaedic examination revealed bruising of the brachial plexus and a "left brachial plexus injury" was diagnosed.
I have concluded from my enquiries, that the Minister's letter to Mr Huntley was not meant to minimise the damage caused by the injury. I believe that the confusion is because there is no strict medical condition such as a "broken neck"
Mr Huntley has suffered significant damage to the joints in his neck and while this could be described in layman's' terms as a "broken neck" the-Minister appears to have been at pains to describe the condition in appropriate terms.
I hope that when this is explained to Mr Huntley he will understand that no disrespect was intended in the Minister's letter.
Posted 31 October 2015 - 03:57 PM
Dr. Alastair K. Wilson
B Sc.. M.B.Ch.8., Dip. Otrst, F.R.N.Z.C.G.P_
31 Dublin St., Wanganui Telephone (06) 345 3721
ACC INDEPENDENCE ALLOWANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
Date of Birth:
--Date of Accident:
Date of Assessment:
Mr John Huntley
24 Kawakawa Street, Wanganui East, Wanganui
2.List of Received Medical Documentation
Report from Mr P Hunter, Orthopaedic Surgeon to Mr DS Steverffon, Solicitor 21/8/81.
Report from Mr G Taine, Orthopaedic Surgeon to ACC 8/6/82 X-ray Cervical Spine, Hawkes Bay Hospital Board 7/6/83 Cervical Myleogram Report, Hawkes Bay Hospital Board 17/7/86
Letter from Mr G Curtis, Neurosurgeon to Dr H Liley General Practitioner
Letter from Dr S Peiris, Psychiatrist to Dr Litle 28/9/94 Report of Dr P Fleischl, Physician 18/10/94
Letter from Dr R W Hornabrook, Neurologist to Dr P Fleischl, Physician 22/11/94
Letter from Mr F Howes, Opthalmologist to Dr I Little, General Practitioner 30/12/94, 1/9/95
MRI Cervical Spine Report, Wanganui Computerised Imaging 23/8/95 CT Head Report, Wanganui Computerised Imaging 11/10/94
Letter from Dr R Hornabrook, Neurologist to Dr I Little 17/10/95 Letter from Dr P Baker, Neurologist to Dr I Little 6/4/95
Letter from Dr D Fung, Neurologist to Dr Little 18/9/96
Letter from Dr G Newburn, Neuropsychiatrist to Dr J Vaughan 25/9/97 Letter from Mr G Gillett. Neurosurgeon to Dr J Vaughan 29/9/97 Clinical Notes of Dr J Vaughan 21/2/96 - 25/5/98
a)Body part - Cervical spine
b)Nature and status of the medical condition
(i) The medical condition, injury to cervical spine is covered and non covered medical conditons have contributed to the impairment resulting from the covered medical condition.
(ii)The medical condition is a preexisting medical condition that is to be assessed for a change in the percentage impairment.
I didn't put up the other 3 pages it is all shit from this spin ACC doctor
Posted 31 October 2015 - 04:38 PM
E3 N7 Da catd C7 ZA. 3L nazicyji_xxcy
163 Wicksteed St
Ph (06) 348 0081 Fax (06) 348 9011
Macpherson Mr Ian S 163 WICKSTEED STREET WANGANUI
Dear MR MACPHERSON,
Re: Huntley Mr John No 3 Line
R D 12, Okoia WANGANUI
Exam date Ref by Our ref
EXAMINATION: - cervical spine
- lumb spine + lumbo-sacral join
Previous fusion of C5/6 and C677; a little forward movement of C4 on C5. Marked degenerative changes to dorsal -interlaminar joints C2/3 and C3/4 with'bony eneroachment on adjacent foramina, most marked at C3/4 level on the left.
Early degenerative changes in disc spaces at L2/3, 1,3/4 and L4/5 level and -degenerativechanges . in _dorsal ir+erlatainar joints L4/5 L5/S1 level
Xray Report from: Dr R Gee
Posted 02 November 2015 - 09:24 AM
REPORT TO ACC
RE JOHN HUNTLEY
At the request of Mr Gerard McGreevey, Chief Operating Officer, and by direction from Dr Jan White, Chief Executive of ACC, I now present my report addressing the concerns raised by Mr John Huntley regarding his ACC claims.
I met with John at his home in Whangarei on 9 September 2006 and again on 17 February 2007. At both meetings, with John's agreement, Mr Baty Davis, the Branch Manager of ACC in Whangarei, was present. Present also at the first meeting was Mr Warren Forster, John's advocate/support person. Present at both meetings was a friend of John's, also a support person.
At the second meeting, I raised with John whether I should confirm with my report. He had suggested that I look at a website called ACC Forum to consider information relating to his claim for medical misadventure. When I did so, I saw that John had expressed some concern to a contributor to that site who had stated that I was corrupt. John unreservedly confirmed that he had confidence in me continuing with my report. I agreed at that meeting that I would provide John with a draft copy of my report, without the recommendations that I would make, in order to check for factual accuracy. I agreed that I would then be happy to participate in a telephone case conference with John and his advocate Mr Forster should he consider that to be necessary.
Because this report is an administrative matter, and not part of a statutory process such as a review hearing, I have avoided specific references to case law. Instead I have referred to general established principles which apply to ACC issues. I have also mentioned to John that ACC does not have to accept my recommendations.
The Report Writer
I am a Barrister in private practice in Christchurch. During my career, I have worked as a lawyer specializing in ACC and medical law. I have acted for claimants, for employers and for ACC. For a period of time I was employed by ACC as a Review Officer. During the course of that employment I worked as a relieving Branch Manager for ACC in Dunedin.
More recently, I have worked as a Reviewer on contract to Dispute Resolution Services Ltd (DRSL). I also hold a warrant in the judicial position of Tenancy Adjudicator at the Christchurch District Court.
Mr Huntley's Concerns
Although John has several accepted claims for cover with ACC, the concerns he expressed to me rincipally relate to his claims for a neck fracture which occurred ork3i, 0
November 1993 f
claim number 78/340709) and his declined claim for cover for medical misadventure (claim number xx).
At our meeting on 9 September 2006, with Mr Forster's assistance, he identified 35 separate issues. Following our meeting on 17 February 2007, some of those issues were resolved in the sense that discussions between us led to further clarification. However, John identified a further five issues which he wanted addressed.
For completeness, I will address all of the issues raised at both meetings, 40 in total.
The issues are:
1. The calculation of earnings related compensation (ERC) from the date of John's accident in November 1977.
2. The refusal by ACC to include John's taxi related income in the relevant earnings calculation.
3. The refusal by ACC to consider payment for a housekeeper for a 41/2 year period commencing in 1979.
4. John's disentitlement in 1980.
5. John being answerable to the Fire Service and not to ACC.
6. The non payment of ERC for a 6 week period while John was in hospital.
7. The loss of his marriage and home in 1979 and 1981 and the treatment of him and his children.
8. The incorrect calculation of ERC following the reinstatement of ERC in 1985.
9. ACC's treatment of him generally and the labels placed on him.
10. The minimizing of his medical condition and the refusal to recognize the effects of myodil in his brain.
11. The refusal by ACC to accept some of the findings of the Appeal Authority Mr Cartwright.
12. ACC's refusal to pay legal fees when it wrongly calculated his ERC entitlement in 1985.
13. The stopping of his ERC on many occasions for various reasons.
14. The payment ACC made to WINZ after his ERC was reinstated was wrong.
15. The use of the wrong codes by ACC when it paid him interest on the back-dated ERC.
16. ACC seeking the repayment of interest on his back-dated ERC.
17. The independence allowance being reduced from 80 percent to 8 percent.
18. The wrong payment of lump sum compensation.
19. The refusal of treatment including physiotherapy and ambulance costs.
20. The refusal by ACC to furnish assessors with all information relating to his accidents and medical condition.
21. ACC lying to the Minister by stating that his claim was not for a broken neck.
22. An application for review in 1998 not having been dealt with.
23. The handling of his medical misadventure claim for the effects of the drug myodil.
24. ACC not addressing the issue of stress and mental strain.
25. The cost of legal fees.
26. The loss of potential earnings.
27. The suffering which his family and friends experienced.
28. The issue surrounding ACC refusing to deal with his advocate of choice.
29. The denial of access to the specialist of his choice.
30. ACC not accepting medical reports which he provided at his cost relating to arachnoiditis.
31. Payment for treatment and hospital expenses.
32. ACC providing private investigators with personal information for the investigation of fraud.
33. ACC not correcting specific information that was wrong.
34. ACC not identifying the disease that he had.
35. His past treatment generally from ACC staff.
At the second meeting on 17 February 2006, John referred to the following issues, some of which were noted at our first meeting. They are:
1. The manner in which ACC deducted tax from his back-dated ERC following Mr Cartvvright's decision and the fact that the DSW payment should have excluded non benefit matters.
2. The way allegations of fraud were dealt with by ACC.
3. The fact that ACC deducted tax from the compounding interest which it paid on his back-dated ERC.
4. The legal fees he had incurred.
5. The most recent independence allowance assessment. The Issues Expanded and my Recommendations
1. The Calculation of ERC from November 1977
John's concern with the calculation of his relevant earnings, upon which ERC entitlement is calculated, is two fold. Firstly, he believes his relevant earnings were calculated taking into account a training wage rather than his full operational wage as he was on a training course at the time he suffered his accident. He considers that his earnings for the 12 months before his accident were not used in the calculation of his entitlement, but rather on the 4 week period before his accident. As a result, he considers that his relevant earnings were a lot lower than they should have been had the correct period been
taken into account. igi tt-a0
Secondly, he is concerned that increases in wages since his accident, taking into account rank and experience as a fireman in the Fire Service, have not been taken into account.
Recommendation 7?., 4e-,
2. The refusal to include income from his taxi business in the calculation of relevant earnings
this is just a few pages from the report
Recommendations no comment but john Greene recommended a payout of $12-000 which i got
This was a bloody insult
Posted 02 November 2015 - 09:35 AM
I would like to link my personal story to the myodil
Myodil is under === Go the general lounge click on that and look for Myodil
Myodil ==Pantopaque is a drug injection into the spine for x-rays it was discontinued in 1987
There is other drugs used that will cause the same problem
It is called Arachnoiditis
Posted 03 November 2015 - 01:39 PM
Now for a summery from the time i was in the fire service
Accident 20th November 1977
Last day at the fire service Aprox August 1978 Ngaranga gorge Worked with Broken neck== I loved the work== Accountable to Fire service not ACC== Fire service had my statement about Taxis took months to adjust pay now I question WHY
Owned 3 taxis August 1978 Trained 2 drivers one being a [Redacted] who now was working as a full time taxi driver finished his training aprox mid 1977 Had 5 drivers total at this time == also working as a fireman cab 52==53==59 I did drive on a part time bases
First taxi owned aprox== mid 1977
Admitted hospital aprox April 1979
While in Hospital ERC stopped for about 6 weeks
Had injection with Myodil 6cc= aprox April 1979 followed by OP was not informed of side effects turned my life upside down specialist Mr Russell Worth
Owned a single story home then had addictions added aprox same time I was in hospital report on site from builder Photos on site
[Redacted] I will call him the GET== or motor mouth took over the running of taxis== x=wife instructions
While I was in Hospital the Get now not only took over the running of the Taxis but took over my X-wife sleeping in my bed with her
I was unaware that motor mouth and my X had written to ACC letters up on site In there letters stated about fence that was completed mid 1977
Milk run== My mate who i worked with in the fire service owned a milk run == back in 1977== early I did go on the milk run with him before my accident == just for the ride
Greg sold the milk run aprox the end of 1977 and brought a taxi Think it was cab 39== by 1979 early sold it to me and left the fire service to live in Aussie
Came home from hospital to find out A brand new pool table == new carpet= and furniture== had been purchased Plus the Taxi business in financially trouble
Then came ACC notified me ACC ERC was stopping my x-wife had walked out leaving me with 5 young children
Then came the court asking for money
ACC stopped ERC aprox April 1980
November 1979 I employed a live in house keeper to take care of the children and the home meals and keep an eye out on my health as it was not good
The x and motor mouth went to court without me and was awarded a Taxi an chalked up thousands of dollars in my name Ho yes smashed the car went back to court without me and got granted my new car to run as a taxi that was the finished of Taxis and home
By April 1981 had lost home lost Taxis and was thrown out on the street so moved to Hastings to make a new start== well that is what I thought
==================================================== more to come
When We lost our home I tried to start a new life with my 5 children Hyde and my X had nothing to do with them or there bring up what so ever
Edited by Admin, 04 May 2016 - 01:33 PM.
We have removed a name from this post due to a complaint received. If there are more concerns please contact the author/poster (John Huntley) direct to sort it out. Thank you.
Posted 04 November 2015 - 06:57 PM
To all readers
I received a friendly Phone call from ACC corp Office Wellington this morning
I was asked to remove a posting regarding names and details that I had posted which are on my files
I pointed out that I am wild over the way my case has been handled and that i want some action
He pointed out that under the privacy act he could have it removed so to protect the site and the people concerned I have removed that posting
Now ACC have to notify all names that i have put up and go through all my files to find the other documents
I am sorry to all readers and people that names went up
This would not have happened If ACC had worked on my files and listened to what I had to say and to given me my rightful entitlements
and covering me for the myodil and the asbestos's and other related injuries and entitlemants
PS now this leaves a huge question==== How much of my information is in other sufferers files
Posted 06 November 2015 - 08:39 AM
I still have to full in the gapes on past postings =
Had another blackout smashing my head against the bed side cabinet braking some of my bottom teeth == was sent to hospital to have them all removed as the others were damaged as well this week November 2015 just had a plate made so now have both top and bottom plates
Posted 10 November 2015 - 12:29 PM
It is now the 10th of November 2015
As yet no response from ACC by way of a phone call e-mail or mail regarding the post I removed after ACC phoning me asking me to remove it on post # 54
Am I just going to be taken for granted yet again == No apologies I am sorry
I might have to take this further and in fact how much of my information is in other sufferers files
Posted 26 November 2015 - 11:32 AM
What do you make of this letter from ACC arrived this morning
Te KapOrelhana Awhina Hunga Whara.„)
23 November 2015
Mr J Huntley
10 Ikatere Place Raumanga
Dear Mr Huntley
Further to my email of 3 November 2015, I would like thank you for your patience whilst I have looked into your concerns.
I have read through your blogs and it has saddened me to read of your issues with the management of your claim and the personal situations you have been through. I certainly empathise with your situation.
Having liaised with Management at Whangarei Branch I have been advised a Mediation occurred on 19 September 2014 with the hope to seek some resolution for you. In the document, point five, your Barrister and Advocate, Dylan Miller of John Miller Law agreed to send original files in relation to your weekly compensation and home help attendant care entitlements to ACC for
consideration. Unfortunately, with your Barrister going on unexpected leave it was not until May this year that the Corporation began to receive the documentation required. On the 9 September 2015 a response answering all questions raised at the Mediation was sent to John Miller Law who confirmed receipt. Currently ACC are awaiting further instruction from your lawyer.
I am pleased to see your concerns raised are being addressed in the Mediation. Mr Huntley, I genuinely hope on the completion of the Mediation it will bring you some resolution.
Thank you for removing your post from the ACC Forum as requested by the Corporation on the 4 November 2015.
Mr Huntley, thank you for taking the time to write and I wish you well for the future.
Client Co-ordinator Executive Office
Posted 08 December 2015 - 11:10 AM
Found this on F/Book
Regular news from the New Zealand Doctor newsroom
Wellington lawyer says proposed tribunal for ACC appeals a worry
Rachel Wattierwattie@nzdoctor.co.nzMonday 07 December 2015, 4:47PM
Eighty-four per cent of reviews of ACC decisions were upheld last year, ACC’s annual report states
More resources for claimants battling ACC in court is what the system needs, not a specialised appeal tribunal says Wellington lawyer John Miller.
And that is what he will ask for in his submission on the proposed Accident Compensation Appeal Tribunal, announced yesterday by ACC minister Nikki Kaye.
Finding independent medical advice to counter ACC claims is very difficult in New Zealand, and more resources would give claimants the financial ability to find and engage suitable expertise, Mr Miller told New Zealand Doctor.
“If you are any good, you are busy, caring for the sick...” he says.
ACC minister seeks feedback on paper
ACC minister Nikki Kaye yesterday released a discussion paper on a proposed Accident Compensation Appeal Tribunal.
The paper invites claimant support groups, advocates and lawyers to submit feedback on how they would like to see the process for appealing an ACC decision changed.
In a media release, Ms Kaye says ACC declines about 3 per cent of the claims it receives each year; that's around 54,000 considering the total 1.8 million new claims received last year according to the agency's 2014/15 annual report.
Cases going through the courts take an average of 669 days, which is too long, Ms Kaye says.
Four options for appealing ACC decisions
The discussion paper suggests four options for appealing an ACC decision, which are:
* Retaining the District Court and current rules for dealing with accident compensation appeals
* Retaining the District Court and changing the rules for dealing with accident compensation appeals
* Replacing the current approach with an Accident Compensation Appeal Tribunal, made up of specialist tribunal members led by a tribunal chair
* Modifying the proposed tribunal to be led by a District Court judge.
Quality and independence key issues
However, Mr Miller says he is worried about the impact that introducing a tribunal would have, because a tribunal lacks stable judicial quality.
“I worry about the process, even if a District Court judge is the supervisor, because you can’t actually supervise,” he says. “You get written decisions from a tribunal member; it might look alright on paper, but you don’t know what is being left out.”
Furthermore, tribunal appointments have limited periods of tenure, meaning if the minister or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment don’t like a decision, they can refuse to reappoint that person, he adds.
“There’s a lack of independence that’s possible with a tribunal.”
Majority of ACC reviews upheld
The number of reviews of ACC decisions has dropped from 10,000 a year in 2010/2011 to about 6000 a year now.
ACC’s annual report 2014/2015 states 84 per cent of those reviews were upheld and found in ACC’s favour.
Last year, about 450 cases were then appealed to the courts, Ms Kaye’s office confirmed to New Zealand Doctor today.
A report released in July by University of Otago Legal Issues Centre and support group Acclaim Otago, which examined 500 court decisions between 2009 and 2015, describes ACC as a “leviathan”, against which claimants have a low success rate.
“As ACC was always one party, they potentially have a significant advantage in litigation strategy, gaining precedents and all of the other advantages of repeat litigants identified in literature,” the researchers write in the report, titled What are the barriers to access to justice facing injured New Zealanders engaged in the ACC dispute resolution process?
Ms Kaye says Miriam Dean QC will carry out an independent review of Acclaim Otago’s research. A timeframe for this will be discussed within about two weeks, she says.
NZMA wants timeliness and consistency
NZMA chief executive Lesley Clarke says the association will definitely be submitting on the proposal.
It will be calling for a system that is: timely; where there’s good access for the claimant or anyone who needs to go through the process; where there’s consistency in decision making; and in which people will have confidence at the end of the day, Ms Clarke told New Zealand Doctor.
However, it’s very early days and the NZMA has not yet met to discuss its position, she says.
Like covering rust with paint
Mr Miller says the rationale for introducing a tribunal is that there’s a delay in hearing appeals at the moment, however the proposed scenarios won’t solve this problem.
“The real reason for delay really gets down to, when we are disputing a claim with ACC, they have all the time in the world and all the resources in the world to mount all the medical and legal evidence to dispute the claim ... So when the claimant gets the decision they are immediately on the back foot.”
It’s also partly because there haven’t been sufficient judges to hear the cases, Mr Miller adds.
The minister’s proposal is like painting a ship to cover the rust, Mr Miller says.
“It’s like the flag referendum – we have got four proposals here which really I don’t think will solve the problem."
READ MORE FROM NEW ZEALAND DOCTOR
Osteo settles baby, but terrifies mum with suggestion of stroke
Posted 09 December 2015 - 12:01 PM
ACC claimant advocacy group Acclaim Otago has welcomed an announcement by ACC Minister Nikki Kaye that a senior lawyer will investigate access to justice issues highlighted in a recent report.
An Auckland lawyer, Miriam Dean QC, will undertake an independent inquiry into the issues in the ‘‘Understanding the Problem'' report, initiated by the advocacy group, and released in July.
And Ms Kaye also simultaneously announced the terms of reference for wider consultation, to be completed by next March, on a proposal to establish an Accident Compensation Appeal Tribunal.
Ms Dean was "a recognised expert'' in formal advocacy and alternative dispute resolution and was "well placed'' to undertake the inquiry, Ms Kaye said.
Warren Forster, of Dunedin, the lead author of the report, said the minister's approach in seeking the inquiry was "encouraging''.
Access to justice issues would ‘‘really benefit from a rigorous analysis by someone with access to government resources''.
The report's authors realised they did not have all the answers and it was "great that someone of Ms Dean's calibre and experience'' would investigate the issues raised, he said.
The July 2015 report found that barriers to justice facing many ACC claimants included:
● Insufficient access to the law.
● Access to evidence often difficult, including issues obtaining relevant medical evidence.
● Insufficient access to an experienced lawyer to defend claimant's interests.
● Claimants believed they were not ‘‘being heard'', and given a fair hearing by independent judicial officer based on evidence and law.
Acclaim Otago spokeswoman Dr Denise Powell said the minister had signalled a "collaborative approach'' to ensuring these issues were inquired into and addressed.
This was "only the beginning'', but it was ‘‘the first time in decades'' that the ACC law's effects had been considered.