Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 78253	2007-04-09 07:05:00	ACC again the *******s	Gordon62 (11771)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
539282	2007-04-09 07:05:00	Ok people wish me luck. I have an appointment tomorrow at 12 noon with the DSR (indepenent review). The brain dead beggar who wrote the original document for the review has so many mistakes in the document it would take up the whole night just to highlight them all for you. The first mistake is that he got my name right in the cover page then referred to someone else entirely on the second page. What comes after makes me think that he or his secretary has got two people mixed up. Page 1 has my real name Gordon, page 2 has John. Now we all make typos from time to time but John & Gordon?-don't think so! The second mistake (read c***k-up) is that apparently I was diagnosed in 1997 with OSS? No details of course. Never have I consulted any doctor re- OSS in my entire life. It will be interesting to see if he has the actual details in front of him, doctors notes and diagnosis, if not it's entirely irrelevant. The second claim shortly after he conveniently overlooks so that would be irrelevant also, unless he has the details which I seriously doubt. To all of us on this forum who have posted about their problems with ACC I would make the following suggstions. 1) Make sure you have every single aspect about your condition recorded "in detail" by your doctor and that goes for your specialist also. The average doc or specialist writes in their own type of "shorthand" which apart from themselves very few other people can decipher. If in doubt ask them to provide you with a typed report and if still not satisfied go back and get it made right. 2) If you are dealing with ACC via your doctor or specialist make sure that 1) above is accurate as the spin doctors at ACC will simply twist it to their own ends. 3) When you receive ACC's documents for review or simply perusal for an internal or independent review go through it with a fine tooth comb. You will probably be blowing steam through you ears at what you read in ACC's document. Take a deep breath and go through it word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph and make notes of any anomalies. When you have stopped sweating and swearing I would bet that you will have found a vast horde of things that ACC are "spinning" or simply clutching at straws about 4) The DSR Services are attended by lawyers in their own right and they do not take kindly to spin or anything that ACC can't substantiate by argument, documentation or otherwise. 5) Most of us (myself included) get quite uptight and emotional about being b******d around by a government department which on the one hand says they are there to help then on the other hand wipes you at the stroke of a pen-then qoutes an 800 million profit. My advice for what it is worth is to follow steps 1 to 4 and forward every letter to your MP and keep up the pressure- even if you lose- keep up the pressure. We are all aware of the spin type adds being shown on TV at the moment and there are those of us who are only too well aware that that's all they are-"spin" and simply another waste of what even we on Invalids/sickness benefits pay for! Rant over for the moment. Regards Gordon.	Gordon62 (11771)
539283	2007-04-09 08:03:00	Plainly the report was a "copy and paste" from another patient. Failing to get the name correct also raises the issues that many other details are also wrong. Very unprofessional.	godfather (25)
539284	2007-04-09 10:32:00	4) The DSR Services are attended by lawyers in their own right and they do not take kindly to spin or anything that ACC can't substantiate by argument, documentation or otherwise. Excellent. Tell us how that goes............	pctek (84)
539285	2007-04-10 07:17:00	Excellent. Tell us how that goes............ Well PcTeck it looks like it's going to be a 50/50 call on this one. The guy from ACC will, I'm sure eventually end up in parliament. As spin doctors go he must have a bachelor degree in spin. Multiple accidents to my shoulder since 2005 appear not to have much credence in his eyes. This guy (am I allowed to use his name on the forum?)-it may give some of you who have dealings with ACC the ability to request that he be denied attendance at the review as he is a prize p****k. According to himself and the tame doctors at ACC "I suffer fom an ongoing problem made symptomatic from the accident of the above date". Get your head around that little bit of spin. The fact that I have had multiple injuries to the shoulder through accidents appears to be irrelevant. To quote just one of his little spins quote-"the claimant was always likely to experience symptoms in his shoulder at some stage and likeley after some minor but recallable event"-unquote. After 4 recorded accidents to my shoulder and others witnessed by my boarder that left me writhing on the ground or floor in agony with tears streaming down my face (and I can stand a lot of pain) this absolute f****w*t comes up%2	Gordon62 (11771)
539286	2007-04-10 07:27:00	Funny, thats word for word what they said to my friend too. He is still having his battle, and has to see the surgeon again too. And see the guy who had the bike accident in the paper who complained about ACCs TV ads was naughty because "ACCs letters are confidential". I bet they are - thats so word doesn't get out how many people they screw over. Yeah, name the guy, why not.	pctek (84)
539287	2007-04-11 06:22:00	Hi ptek-OK I will name the spin doctor but first of all let me give you a peek into how these b*****s work (which you probably already know). They work as a team and depending on the type of review and how serious they see the outcome they appear to direct any serious issues to the most experienced team for the review i.e. those who can put the most spin on the issue and render it down to point where you wouldn't actually recognise that you were the same person who made the claim in the first place! Firstly there is the dork who actually sends you out the letter declining your claim. Then there is someone further up the feeding chain who explains in two pages how to go about requesting an independent review-jeez! This is where the fun begins. They obviously have another team somewhere in the bowels of ACC (pun!) who go as far back into your medical history to find even the slightest common denominator to your present condition. When they find any link, however tenuous that's when they start to feed the shark. It does not matter how many doctors or specialists who might attest on your behalf, their own tame "professionals" will always refute these findings. As an analogy, if you broke your leg in 1988 and again broke your leg in the same place 10 years later they would contend that this was always likely to happen as the result of a weakness in that area therefore it came about from a pre-existing condition etc. etc. This is more or less what happened to myself and many others from what I hear. The ones in ACC to watch for are 1) bottom of the ladder-one Mark Glover. 2) 2nd rung Emma Tulloch. 3) Spin doctor (read shark) Grant Mercer. Now I put these names in print on this forum as none of the documents are marked "private & confidential" therefore I can actually send the documents themselves to whoever I see fit. ACC don't appear to be bothered as to who reads the documents or even what I might say about the contents. Last but not least-in the 7 months I fought with ACC in 2005/2006 I only found out that I actually had a "case manager" 5 months down the track-and that by accident. Just for general information, after 3 claims, 2 internal reviews and an independent review, which I won, not once was I informed in writing as to the outcome. Does that tell you something about the mindset of these people? Finally I would say to all of us who have been b*****d around by ACC get your stories (facts) down in writing and hound your MP's till they are sick to death of you. Write to the papers, anywhere where some notice might be taken as to the bloody minded-well you can fill in the rest for yourselves. Deffinately- finally! My documents were sent to the review office on 27th March 17 days before the review. ACC's response to my document to the review office was dated 30th March but didn't arrive till the 8th of April- just six days before the review-anyone smell something? Regards Gordon.	Gordon62 (11771)
539288	2007-04-11 21:29:00	Ta.	pctek (84)
1