Review No.: 191256 .

The application for review of the jurisdictional issue is successful. I have issued a report and recommendation in respect of the substantive issue.

A Decision made under the Accident compensation Act 1982

At Issue is whether ACC's decision of 17 September 2010 declining to accept Mr Davis's late application for review was correct.

Hi Mark I expect you have a copy of the review decision by now.

What the Reviewer has done is first, he allowed the late application for review, then he sent the decision back to ACC to do the calculation.  This is because there wasn't an exact figure that he thought he could use and it requires an assessment by ACC to set the figure, because he can't do this himself.   He has endorsed both my submissions and Mr Ganley's opinion and in the ordinary course of events, ACC follows the recommendations.

Regarding the costs, I sent Mr Orange the enclosed letter, invoice and submissions... He could have made the costs decision even though he didn't make the final decision on the weekly figure, but again he has recommended that ACC pays it.

So what happens now?  ACC must make the decision promptly, and send it to you and the the reviewer.  ACC has to give appeal rights straight to the Appeal Authority, so if you don't like the final amount of the relevant earnings figure or the costs, then you don't need to go through the review process again.  The Authority normally upholds the Reviewer's recommendations unless there is some jurisdictional issue and you get reasonable costs.

You should automatically get interest backdated to the amount owing as at 1/7/92 and calculated from then until the date of payment, so at least you will pick up something there for the delay, but I won't write off to ACC about it yet as it could affect the final calculation - the higher the RE figure, the higher the interest amount.

Robyn

Well what better news could I get today.

What can I say but Yay I won!

As this is a review under the Accident compensation Act 1982 ACC was not entitled to be represented at the hearing. lt sought to be represented. However, Ms Bedford opposed this request in reliance on the decision of the Accident compensation Appeal Authority in Lanqhorne (4/2010).

However, ACC was entitled, and, legally required, to undertake an administrative review, which it did. Before the hearing was held it sent Ms Bedford and me an undated, unsigned copy of its administrative review. It reached the view that there were no satisfactory reasons for the delay in making the application for review. For that reason it decided it could not accept the application. It said its decision was made having had regard to the principles in McDougall. However, I can see little evidence that it gave those principles any serious consideration.

The fact of the matter is that ACC have dicked me around from day 1.

To quote ACC's Legal beagle who oversaw my original request in 2006 "If the claimant is correct this will cost the corporation a lot of money".

To bad they didn't look properly at my case then.  All that ACC staff have done is to deny, delay and obfuscate. I would have been happy to accept what I asked for.

It will now cost ACC a lot more. Robyn is to be praised. We have talked about my claim for probably 2 hours tops. Robyn investigated my files... My copies and ACC's selevtive documentation and found some huge factual discrepancies (slight of hand?).

IMHO it is fraud  that ACC claimed to have applied all the OIC pay rises to my ERC to three reviews when in fact my barrister discovered that they hadn't!

There was an OIC increase of 5% made in feb 1990 less than a month after I left the DFC that ACC ignored and didn't add to my make up pay!

Did I even get make up pay? The decision made in May 1990 for make up pay claims to have paid it from 19/1/0- to 30/5/90.  I haven't seen proof of that!