Tuesday the 17th July, 2012
Press Release.
Kyle MacDonald: New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists
The 18 month follow up monitoring report of the ACC Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway shows clearly that only three of the 14 recommendations have been fully met.
“I consider this a fail mark” says Kyle MacDonald. “This report demonstrates how victims of sexual abuse and assault are still struggling to access the support they are entitled to as a direct result of the National Government led cost cutting drive in 2009. The fallout of this ill-informed policy is still being felt.”
The report details some areas of improvement, but strong concerns remain around the use of external ACC appointed assessors, implemented in 2009 due to the ACC’s “re-interpretation” of the legislation. Also of concern is the manner in which the Sensitive Claims pathway often fails survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
Detailed in the report is the massive decrease from 40{1b812f7ed7a77644fff58caf46676f6948311bf403a3d395b7a7f87010507f87} of claims accepted versus claims lodged in 2009; down to 4{1b812f7ed7a77644fff58caf46676f6948311bf403a3d395b7a7f87010507f87} in 2011 and 2012. “This is a horrifying number.” says MacDonald. “This is clear evidence that the ACC’s policies are still failing New Zealanders and survivors of sexual abuse. And it’s worth remembering this report pre-dates the Privacy Breach of over 6000 ACC claimants, and subsequent events.”
For a copy of the report released today click here: http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/public/documents/reports_results/wpc112862.pdf
Contact: Kyle MacDonald
021 708 689
ENDS.
Its obvious to the Sensitive Claims claimaints that nothing has changed for the better at the SCU.
In fact, Id say its actually worse now (today), than it has ever been.
It is disgraceful that ACC SCU case managers and Designer supposed Medical Experts continue to be so abusive to the survivors of sexual crime.
If any of them had an ounce of decency in them anywhere, they would utilize the “Protected Disclosure Act” – but they dont, and this just lets you know that they are all fully aware of, and compliant with, the abuse, and corruption they continually dish out to the claimants.
Ive just found out today, that my whole claims file – physical and sensitive claims has all been sent off to the Remote Claims Unit. I am no longer allowed to enter any ACC buildings, or contact any of my former ACC case Managers, or ring any of the ACC 0800 numbers other than the one Ive been given. The no contact with CMs is great, as is the no access to ACC buildings – this part is a blessing really 🙂
My new case manager is obviously assuming that I know all about the Remote Claims Unit – coz she didnt give me any information about it, other than to say that ACC staff take their staff safety very seriously. So Im figuring its some kind of Borstal for your ACC files, if you speak the truth to your ACC case Managers and other staff there. Go Figure.
So Im figuring the staff are afraid and extremely scared of the TRUTH? being spoken to them via emails. Hmm Not sure what this is all about really.
Personally I wish I had never lodged a claim with the SCU because even if I finally obtain cover after all these years of legal stuff and invasive assessments, there is always the high probability of a privacy breach (is it me or is the chance of this increasing?) . If ACC’s SCU were bonded in some way so that if my privacy were breached instead of a letter of apology they said immediately said “sorry” with cash.
My primary need is to know my information is safe, and this is more important to me than accepting of my claim.
Well then, lets just make rape legal.
This will solve all the ACC SCU problems wont it.
It will also solve the puzzle for J Collins on how she plans to reduce crime by 30{1b812f7ed7a77644fff58caf46676f6948311bf403a3d395b7a7f87010507f87} this year – while building a new prison!!!
Maybe the new prison can be used to house all the Lying women and children whove been raped and seriously abused.
Is this whats going on Collins and Key? Coz thats how you are portraying yourselves!! You are disgusting, and dishonourable.
Assessors need to be limited to 30{1b812f7ed7a77644fff58caf46676f6948311bf403a3d395b7a7f87010507f87} of ACC case work as they earn almost $500 per hour on my case file – had to have two, second over 11 hours work in total! – the second one also quoted the ACC referral letter word for word regarding occupation capacity. ACC clients need to be given a copy of the ACC referral letter before assessments take place, as this is no assessment, merely 5 or 6 questions asked by ACC to prove you are wrong!! Sensitive Claimants only require DATA (under $1k), their own treating teams are the experts on capacity, incapacity and knowledge of the client. Not some assessor who asked skewed questions. Also I was told SCU deny most scu clients under Section 103. Judge Beattie says in Vandy v ACC that Section 103 determines incapacity and Schedule 1 deals with entitlements and the two MUST be kept separate. We need someone to hold SCU accountable!!!!!!! And comments in my files read “Is this strong enough to deny …? Where is rehabilitation in that?? A culture change is long overdue!!!! One distressed csa adult of SCU processes!!
BOP
http://www.communitylaw.org.nz/resources/legal-reference-manual/chapter-24-accident-compensation/injuries-and-conditions-covered-by-acc/
You might find some useful info for yourself on this link to Community Law Website 🙂
Hey Kyle,
Just found this thread on ACC forum which is about a client who has been told they will have to go through another application for a sensitive claim again. Don’t know specifics but it sure sounds wrong and just the type of decision I would have thought ACC would want to avoid for the time being.
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/12872-scott-i-need-help-asap/page__gopid__133851#entry133851