Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

Anecdotal evidence suggests that ACC's specialised unit "Sensitive Claims Unit" (SCU) is still very unsafe for clients despite apparent implementation of further recommendations contained in the Disley Report update 2012.
Much of this 'unsafeness' exists particularly for adults of childhood sexual assaults.
Evidence from clients suggest that a) staff at scu are very rigid, distant and aggressive when dealing with claims/claimants. b) assessors scu have on their books often place the effects of childhood sexual abuse in the context of poor upbringing, genetics and environmental factors thus minimising the abuse effects in adulthood and allowing scu to decline any rehabilitation. c) treatment providers concerned about their clients wellbeing ring scu to discuss placing their unwell client on Medical Leave short term. They are told it is a long and complicated process. d)Recent court judgments show scu is not using the correct legislative process, MC v Accident Compensation Corporation, Fairway comments in their Reviews "ACC made fatal flaws in their decision...." and evidence of staff cherry picking information when clients obtain copies of their files.
Clients experiences of scu is still highly traumatic especially for adults, who function at home or in the workplace - for a long time after the event - hall marks of PTSD - and then meltdown for no apparent reason. Branch Advisory Psychology (BAP's) do not grasp this known factor from reading their notes on files, in fact they do not exist to protect clients, their role is to support ACC selected assessors, how dangerous is this??
1. How has scu implemented the recommendations in the Disley Report for adults of childhood sexual assault?
2. What changes can clients expect when sent to scu as few of the original cohorts have left? The tone is still toxic!
3. If a treatment provider contacts scu requesting time out for a struggling client with PTSD as a covered claim, how is it in keeping with 'safe and therapeutic' expectations as recommended in the Disley report? (The GP provider is attempting to limit more costly hospital treatment! as scu staff refuse to listen or co-operate??)
4. How does scu implement judgments of the court in cases like MC v Accident Corporation when scu limit cover (among other failings) - which is not mandated in the 1982 Act, or as in LS v ACC where the assessors are misleading using (environment, genetics, thus discounting the contribution of csa)? What process exists in scu for this and how are case managers upskilled?
Yours faithfully,

Gladys Webster