Wednesday October 24, 2018

ACC Claimants Blogs

ACC Claimants Blogs

ACC Case managers routinely flouting the law.

I have often heard of ACC victims being found to be vocationally independent and then dis-entitled with only a months notice.

Section 112 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 states the following.

112 Claimant with Vocational Independence loses entitlement to weekly compensation 

If the corporation determines under section 107 that a claimant has vocational independence, the claimant loses his or her entitlement to weekly compensation 3 months after the date on which he or she is notified of the determination.

The law is extremely precise is it not.

So is it a combination of incompetence, lack of training, laziness, inadequate supervision, simple abuse of the system when a case manager writes the following?


Kate Hull ACC Case manager in her scramble to earn her annual bonus (KPI's) for dis-entitling claimants has displayed a remarkable ignorance of the law she is supposed to be working with.

Which section of the act was the claimant dis-entitled under? Section 105 or section 107?

Only one months notice to the claimant that he will no longer receive weekly compensation?

Had the decision been made under section 105 the claimants right to compensation would have ceased immediately.

That's not laziness or incompetence that is an abuse of her power over a vulnerable claimant.

However because this type of notice and short payment happens regularly it is obviously a practice endorsed by senior ACC management.

Provisions of the 1982 Act.
Hoist by their own Petard

Comments (0)

There are no comments posted here yet
Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
Ok Decline