Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

A friend was sent to the senior ACC psychiatrist in Auckland by the Sensitive Claims Unit in April last year. This assessor has since been found to have provided unclear/mis-leading information in her assessment report to ACC's SCU by a Medical Body. When ACC asked this senior psychiatrist in March 2013 (as a result of advocate questioning) to clarify exactly what she meant in her report, the psychiatrist now states "I did not make a separate statement that sexual abuse was one of the contributing factors. From my point of view, at the time, I considered that ACC would be aware of that. I was writing the report for the Sensitive Claims Unit and not a lay person, and as I have said above I have confirmed that this was understood."
Does the SCU accept this position regarding claimants when senior psychiatrists deliberately with-holds making such a separate statement as they already know what she is trying to say? So in effect, the SCU can mind read their assessors? Or is this evidence that a case manager and a senior ACC psychiatrist pre-determined the outcome for the claimant, before they were assessed?? Collusion theory. I am also informed that based on this psychiatrist report the SCU declined my friend her original cover of some injuries and all entitlements.
The senior psychiatrist then continues "....it is clear that there has been a misunderstanding, which perhaps has been shared by the reviewer as to my conclusions." Apparently this Report went to two Reviewers who both concluded that the senior ACC psychiatrist did not link sexual abuse with a mental injury my friend was seeking cover for. So based on this statement then the SCU sent a Report that had a misunderstandings in it to the DRSL? (They already knowing that the sexual abuse was one of the contributing factors.) Surely this is against the Code of Claimants Rights for the SCU to provide inaccurate, misleading and out of date information to DRSL?
Can the SCU clarify a) they knew that this senior psychiatrist did not need to link sexual abuse with mental injuries as they already were aware - prior to assessment even - that this was the case.
Secondly, if indeed the SCU knew this was the case as this senior psychiatrist is now claiming, why would ACC's SCU have declined my friend cover for a mental injury and entitlements, subjecting her to significant stress and humiliation?
Thirdly does the SCU know what it's senior psychiatrists are going to write? This assessor assumes she was writing for the SCU and that they would be aware of her thoughts on the matter. If this a serious statement of SCU's operations then why would SCU need to send claimants to this senior psychiatrist - paying her large sums of taxpayer monies when they know her opinion? And then SCU used the Report provided to deny entitlements.
Fourthly, who is correct here? The senior psychiatrist, not needing to provide separate statements as SCU already knew her position - or the SCU who based on this Report (and knowing the senior psychiatrist beliefs even though they are not in writing) declined entitlements and sent false information to DRSL as they already knew - and the senior psychiatrist checked - that sexual abuse was linked to my friend's mental injury.
In this matter it appears that SCU - knowing that sexual abuse caused my friend her injuries - then declined her full cover plus entitlements and went on to provide false information to DRSL?? Is this normal SCU practice?
Or perhaps a senior ACC psychiatrist is 'making up' a position to cover themselves from negligence and the significant harm she has caused my friend?
Can ACC's SCU respond please regarding their policy on these matters.

Yours faithfully,

Gladys Webster