Pullar’s grievances
March 24th, 2012 at 10:25 am by David FarrarThe Dom Post has published the list of grievances that Bronwyn Pullar has against ACC. They are:
- Repeated non disclosure of correspondence regarding Bronwyn’s claim when requested.
- Extensive disclosure of other claimant’s information to Bronwyn
- No ability to restrict unauthorised access by 2500+ ACC staff and contractors to files, or medical files
- Medical records (considered in law to be the most sensitive of personal information) are not given protection which is appropriate to their status and are treated as general documents.
- Lack of procedure around dealing with statements of correction to incorrect reports
- Threats of legal action against Bronwyn’s GP for refusing to disclosure non-injury information. Misuse of criminal provisions in ACC legislation.
- Collection of information for an unlawful purpose
- False written and oral statements by ACC staff with the purpose of unlawfully procuring medical reports for pecuniary purposes.
- Defamatory statements by ACC employees
- Exceeding lawful powers by investigating injuries for which no claim has been made.
- Derogatory emails by ACC staff
- Excessive Access to Bronwyn’s files – 1948 accesses within 3 ½ years, by about 150 different individuals, of which 1100 were in a single one year period.
- Staff accessing files against management instructions
- ACC167 Consent – used to coerce claimant’s into authorising otherwise unlawful collections of information.
- Collection of personal information without claimant’s knowledge &/or attempted collection without knowledge
- Collection and attempts to collect information unrelated to injury/claim
- Imbalanced and biased decision making by Corporation
- Covert/inappropriate communication to assessors which bias & negatively influence outcomes against claimants
- Decision making without reviewing EOS
- Lack of workability of electronic medical file for lawfully compliant decision making
- Coercion, Harassment & Bullying, Unreasonable approach in management of claims. Use of threats of disentitlement to coerce
- Dictatorial approach of Case Managers, failure to make reasonable accommodations for claimant needs.
- “cherry picking” of unfavourable phrases from medical reports which contradict the ultimate conclusion.
- ACC abusing its monopoly position by limiting the pool of qualified medical assessors to a select group (some individuals assessors are paid up in excess of $1 million annually for services), leading to the appearance of bias and unfair market practises.
- Failure to demand adherence of staff to State Services Code of Conduct and to take appropriate action for breach
- Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to independently investigate complaints
- Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to follow a reasonable process when conducting investigations
- Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to validate the responses provided by ACC with the claimant for accuracy
- ACC’s case management approach to Bronwyn is disruptive and destructive of her ability to rehabilitate/work part-time
- ACC staff deliberately lying and writing false reports
- ACC staff making clinical decisions without appropriate qualification
- ACC staff making clinical assessments without medical competency
- Deliberate interference in independent medical assessments
- Prejudicial correspondence with independent assessors prior to assessments communicating ACC’s desired outcome – that injuries are spent &/or due to non-injury causes
- Provision of unqualified, non-specialist opinions, by ACC internal medical advisors, contradicting existing specialist advice, prejudicing independent assessors and compromising their independence
- Branches/Units having Case Managers who made an initial decision then conduct an administrative review of a matter before being sent to DRSL for review
- Taking advantage of disabled claimants for actuarial/financial gain
- Poor decision making which adds cost to the Corporation
- Poor OCI processes which adds cost to the Corporation
- Lack of flexibility over assessments/appointments/referrals
- Lack of reasonable consultation and flexibility over assessments/ appointments/referrals
- Unreasonable referrals/assessments processes which are exploitative e.g., chaperones, multi-party assessments, lack of privacy & dignity;
- Focus on avoiding liability at the expense of effective early rehabilitation
- ‘Silo’ culture where case managers are unaware of ACC’s own research into rehabilitation best practice
- Constant churn of case managers – each new case manager is unaware of the medical evidence on file leading to poor decision making and is unaware of claimant’s issues; Avoidance strategy for accountability of actions.
In a related story, the Dom Post notes:
ACC’S computer storage of its clients’ confidential medical records is “so primitive” the records can be viewed by virtually every employee from a mailroom assistant up.
The corporation relies on reminding its staff they should not look at files they are not supposed to view on its EOS claims management system as one way of protecting privacy.
It seems they can not prevent access to confidential medical records.
Related posts:
- Questions for ACC
- You want fair, but not a soft touch
- Neuropsychological testing and ACC
- Heads must roll
March 24th, 2012 at 10:40 am
Please remind me again, who was Minister for ACC and who was PM when all this appalling crap started?
Vote:March 24th, 2012 at 10:42 am
It also seems that the real scandal is ACC.
Nicky was unwise, silly even.
But “shamed” ? CRAP
The only shame rests with the media wolf pack and the red-melon-labour axis.
Inquiry? No. A lwayer’s benefit to “fix” problems of which we are already aware.
Vote:March 24th, 2012 at 11:08 am
@Adolf Fiinkensein 10:40 am
Most of this shit has been going on for a very long time – like since the early 1990s. It’s just that it got markedly worse under Nick Smith’s watch, due to pressure on ACC to cut costs. Take a look at this report from an inquiry conducted by former Judge Peter Trapski back in 1994. But not much was done in response.
Vote:March 24th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Labour MP Andrew Little and Greens MP Kevin Hague have called for an inquiry to be conducted into ACC Governance and other matters relating to the Smith/ Pullar case. The Auditor General Lyn Provost has received letters from Little and Hague but has not announced any intention to progress with an inquiry.
Vote:P.M. John Key has scotched calls for an inquiry during oral question time in Parliament this week, and with respect to a 1994 Report into ACC by Judge Peter Trapski, little is to be gained from inquiries because the recommendations are ignored.
However in view of the many case profiles published in the Herald recently, and comments made by ACC Chairman John Judge : http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6625334/ACC-whistleblower-told-to-back-claims, a Review of ACC would not be remiss.
March 24th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Fran O’Sullivan has a superb column in todays Hearald outlining the clumsy way Michelle Boag has handled this. A Minister had to resign over this not because of the failings of the corporation but because Smith mishandled his role as Minister no doubt egged on by his relationship with Puller and Boag setting him up and other Ministers notably Collins, [who is too smart o be dragged down by Boag]. It may be the Pullar case has thrown up some weaknesses in the way the Corporation handles sensitive information. But the two women Boag and Pullar have serious questions to answer over the way THEY handled sensitive informational they were not entitled to have.
Vote:March 24th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
If the list is accurate, I foresee a large settlement to Ms Pullar.
Vote:What happened to the allegations of blackmail?
March 24th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
WineOh – probably went the same way as the allegations of “sex”… Whale Oil has a link to Winston getting hammered by Laws on radio about this
Vote:March 24th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Thanks PiA, here is the link: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/03/michael-laws-vs-winston-peters/
Vote:March 24th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
This seems to me to be a woman out of control, full of grievance and thirsting for revenge, no matter what the cost. ACC are getting too much stick for this and I wait for some balance to come from the independent investigation.
Vote:In the meantime lets not have that lack of balance stand in the way of a good story.
March 24th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
That seems like mud-slinging rather than mud running.
Vote:If we remove Pullar from the equation all together, it still appears that there is a raft of issues around ACC behaviour especially with regards to privacy of confidential information, the way it obtains and stores information, safeguards internally around access to that information and treatment of claim applicants.
March 24th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Have you never dealt with ACC as a self employed person?
Do you know someone who has?
The outfit is seriously disfunctional. The management even in the provinces behave like Attilla the HUN.
Staff turnover is seriously high.
What is the p[roblem?
Well its has insurance actuary’s running accident and healtcare provisions.
They are not interested in helping people but in making cash for the Corp ACC by investing the money taken from the customers, mostly by statute.(force). They don’t give a flying crap about the customer, their bonuses depend on the money made in investments.
The customer focus of ACC has never been correct.
Never will be whilst money is an unchallanged never ending supply.
Just like superannuation that’s compulsory.
Someone else’s money.
Now where have I heard that before? eh
Vote:March 24th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
I lay in hospital a 18 months ago, with a victorian ward nurse (or whatever they’re called) who would not let me see my notes. I knew that ACC had copies of them, as they referred to them in phone calls , emails and letters. Only after many days of whining did I get see them, on the morning before a meeting with ACC and about 6 medical professionals.
Vote:I have every sympathy for Bronwyn. It’s a shame that Nick Smith’s idiotic behaviour has overshadowed her complaints.
ACC hold massive power over individuals, and in a country where we have no other legal standing in the case of acciddental injury, they are our only option. They behave like a stingy private insurer with a C- rating.
I don’t want a private option. I want ACC to be run properly.
March 24th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
@Viking2 5:02 pm
Not often I agree with you Viking2, but I think you are spot-on here. ACC doesn’t treat anyone fairly anymore – not claimants, not self-employed, not employers.
That is because it has long departed from its original intent, which was no-fault compensation and rehabilitation for personal injury. Now it is run like an insurance company, on an actuarial basis, levies are set on the basis of supposed risk, with prefunding required to cover claims 30 or 40 years into the future, and compensation and rehabilitation are denied on very tenuous grounds in the interests of saving money.
In various employments over the last 20 years I have been involved in ACC claimant advocacy, including reviews and appeals. My experience is that most of what Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag are saying about ACC is correct.
And I am a Green, not a Nat, and Pullar and Boag are both the sort of people I have little in common with and would normally have little association with, so I’m not saying that from a position of political patronage.
Vote:March 24th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Viking2 – Compulsory super works well in Australia. It works even better for me since I have a self managed super fund and nobody else is responsible for losing my money except for me.
ACC needs to either be run for the public interest, or it should be opened up to competition. You ahouldn’t have a compulsory state monopoly that isn’t run for the public interest.
Vote:CTP insurance in Australia has roughly the same premiums when you pay your registration (but no levy at the pump). On average you will recieve much, much more if you are in an accident that you didn’t cause from a CTP insurer than you would from ACC. If you cause the accident your policy states certain limitations that are in line with what you get from ACC.
I’d take the CTP model any day.
March 25th, 2012 at 8:18 am
The Fran O’Sullivan article is very good. Pullar sounds like a right piece of work and Boag’s actions were disgraceful. As soon as Boag knew Pullar had these files she should have demanded that she return or destroy them or stayed a mile away. By acting as her support person her endorsement of Pullars actions on the leaked files was implicit
Vote:April 3rd, 2012 at 2:01 pm
>Have you never dealt with ACC as a self employed person?
I have. They’re been unfailingly polite, professional, helpful, and it’s made a tremendous difference to the life of my son. He went from getting a little bit of physio every week to having 4 therapists (OT, PT, SLT, vision specialists) seeing him every week. This has tapered off as the needs became less, and as we learned the therapy they taught us and how to apply it.
Vote: