Wear and tear excuse to decline cover

[duckonin]

Link works now, I had an 's' in the wrong place...Yes I know what you want, I read the court cases to see how the magistrate views the problem offered..cheers

[Bald Eagle]

Disturbing item in the news article

""When you're talking about a couple of hundred being wrong out of 57,000 [a year], that's not a bad batting average."

Are they telling us they only had 57,000 claims or they turned down 57,000 and only got called out on a couple of hundred of them.

[duckonin]

B.E your bottom line would say it all..

[MSTRS:Me]

Response sent...

Re. Letter Sat 22/5 Wear and tear is not an accident.
Of course it isn’t. No-one would dispute that.
Ms Cosgrove writes ‘This is especially problematic in complex areas like shoulders, backs and knees’. She also says ’ACC is not using wear and tear as an excuse.’
However, it is apparent that ACC does use this as an excuse to deny claims, almost as a matter of course, no doubt in the cynical hope that a significant proportion of genuine claimants will ‘just go away’. I understand 57,000 claims were denied last year.
Ones like the recent case of a 17 year old netballer, who suffered a knee injury on the court. She was declined cover because of wear and tear. A 17yo girl with worn-out knees? What? How did she play netball?
Or a friend of mine hurt his knee whilst working. The doctor said it was likely to be a bursitis, but scans and an MRI proved he had torn his AC ligament. But ACC refuse to cover him because they say the original diagnosis is right.
Or a woman who had her right arm amputated as a result of an accident. She was declined a lump sum payment ‘Because her arm might grow back’. What?
Have ACC become medical experts? Certainly declining claims appears to be official policy now.
Genuinely injured people now have to pay a specialist for a second opinion, or even take legal action.
Levies are up and cover is down. Whilst ACC continues to post record profits. And they are profits, not a ‘surplus’. Because they pay tax on these gains. The govt hides this by calling it a dividend.
Woodhouse’s ACC was a social contract, and we are being robbed.

[MSTRS:Me]

Very interesting reply. No further denial of the wear and tear issue. But a full range of medical experts on staff, eh?
Anyone care to comment?

[MSTRS:Me]

It occurs to me that for ACC to 'have medical experts on staff', there is no chance of avoiding the perception (at the very least) of independence in matters of a medical nature.
It's the Golden Rule in action (he who has the gold, makes the rules).

I would like to respond to this latest bit of bullshit, appropriately. But I could use a little help.

[yungatart]

So they have medical personnel on staff... wouldn't it be cheaper to just contract that out?

[MSTRS:Me]

Response sent

So ACC consider themselves medical experts? Because they have such people on staff?
Well, I’m sorry, but with ‘experts’ who deny cover to 17 year olds because they reckon it’s wear and tear, who deny cover based on a wrong diagnosis, who deny compensation because limbs might grow back – who, indeed, are paid by the very people denying cover to the injured – I’d be wanting someone truly independent to make those medical calls.
ACC should be a place where the Golden Rule has no place.