Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 104901 2009-11-12 03:03:00 Burton guilty leonidas5 (2306) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
829456 2009-11-15 07:34:00 What John H is ignoring is how the legislation is administered, The attitude for any organization starts at the top and flows on down.

And you can bet your best gold coin that the Labour administration hired people in strategic roles that shared their ideas and motivations, and if not, They would soon learn that's what the job entailed.

Each case has a case manager, and the damn fools that signed off on that leg need to be fired, Just like their old masters. 		Metla (12)
829457 2009-11-15 08:41:00 Who was trying to tell us what sort of shower heads and light bulbs we could use? And the Labour Government were not a nanny state? There's no denying the nanny state under the Labour Government so you may want to check who is being delusional and over-sensitive....nice one Deano!

Oh for goodness sake, what has that got to do with ACC? Go and play in the traffic. 		John H (8)
829458 2009-11-15 08:55:00 What John H is ignoring is how the legislation is administered, The attitude for any organization starts at the top and flows on down.

And you can bet your best gold coin that the Labour administration hired people in strategic roles that shared their ideas and motivations, and if not, They would soon learn that's what the job entailed.

Each case has a case manager, and the damn fools that signed off on that leg need to be fired, Just like their old masters.

The legislation and case law prescribes what can and cannot be awarded by ACC. There is relatively little discretion for case managers. See Schedule 1, Section 2 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001:

2 When Corporation is liable to pay cost of treatment

(1) The Corporation is liable to pay the cost of the claimant's treatment if the treatment is for the purpose of restoring the claimant's health to the maximum extent practicable, and the treatment—

(a) is necessary and appropriate, and of the quality required, for that purpose; and

(b) has been, or will be, performed only on the number of occasions necessary for that purpose; and

(c) has been, or will be, given at a time or place appropriate for that purpose; and

(d) is of a type normally provided by a treatment provider; and

(e) is provided by a treatment provider of a type who is qualified to provide that treatment and who normally provides that treatment; and

(f) has been provided after the Corporation has agreed to the treatment, unless clause 4(2) applies.

(2) In deciding whether subclause (1)(a) to (e) applies to the claimant's treatment, the Corporation must take into account—

(a) the nature and severity of the injury; and

(b) the generally accepted means of treatment for such an injury in New Zealand; and

(c) the other options available in New Zealand for the treatment of such an injury; and

(d) the cost in New Zealand of the generally accepted means of treatment and of the other options, compared with the benefit that the claimant is likely to receive from the treatment.

They could have been sacked if they had refused the claim, not the other way round. 		John H (8)
829459 2009-11-15 08:58:00 Believe what you like.

Do you think a Government who wanted to get tough on petty crime (as an example) would need a legislation change to get things moving?, Or just a directive from the top?

Any and all that crap can be interpreted to mean whatever the chump of the day is planning to do. 		Metla (12)
829460 2009-11-15 09:09:00 Believe what you like.

I don't seek or need your approval to do that, but thank you for your gratuitous comment anyway.


Do you think a Government who wanted to get tough on petty crime (as an example) would need a legislation change to get things moving?, Or just a directive from the top?

Um, the former actually... The legislation is clear enough so that the Corporation would be breaking the law if it didn't pay out any lawful entitlement, however distasteful it may be to you. And actually the Labour Government made changes to the legislation in 2005 to restrict payments to criminals, particularly in the case of murder. I don't know why that didn't apply in Burton's case, but no doubt you will have some conspiracy theory to account for that.


Any and all that crap can be interpreted to mean whatever the chump of the day is planning to do.

That may perhaps seem true to a simplistic mind. 		John H (8)
829461 2009-11-15 09:12:00 Fine, Believe what you like and carry on like an arse.:rolleyes: Metla (12)
829462 2009-11-15 09:15:00 Which end is wood? R2x1 (4628)
829463 2009-11-15 16:44:00 Which end is wood?

Head,clearly. 		Cicero (40)
829464 2009-11-15 18:33:00 Oh look, the blowflies have arrived. Irrelevant as ever. John H (8)
829465 2009-11-15 18:43:00 They are inevitable when rotten meat present. Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7