Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

Thank you for e mail letter dated 25 March received via FYI.org.nz.
 
1/ Please provide part of the act that relates to the following.

With reference to the above mentioned e mail, please confirm that given now ACC has Retracted its earlier disclosure and it’s been established Dr John Collier did not close his Private Practice in 2008 and remained registered as a Psychiatrist but discontinued to provide services to general public but continues to receive his single source of income by the ACC, has and does this comply with the 'Clinical Psychiatric Services Schedule' and 'Agreement for Services' between ACC and [Vendor] for Organisational Terms and Conditions. In particular drawing your attention to page 1 of 18 in the Master Agreement Schedule 2 (1) 1.1.
 
In short, whereby an 'Independent Professional' receives their Single Source of income by the ACC and no supplement from 'off the street' individuals, is their Role Considered to comply with the following or another reference not mentioned below:
 
“The Vendor is an independent contractor, contracted by ACC to provide the Services described in this Agreement. Nothing contained or implied in this agreement shall be construed as creating and neither Party shall state, imply or do anything to suggest, that this Agreement creates an employer/employee partnership or principal /agent relationship between ACC and the Vendor or any of its proprietors, officers, employees or subcontractors.”

2/ Is it policy that the ACC, is not to imply or disclose via either public forum or letter the following that could be seen as 'be construed as creating' 'employer/employee partnership or principal /agent relationship between ACC and the Vendor or any of its proprietors, officers, employees or subcontractors.'
 
3/ Given single source would imply, to a layman at least, an employer/employee relationship, is there another condition in any agreement/contract to not be as contradictory as the above (Where Colliers OIact history is concerned)
 
4/ Please provide information previously declined under the now retracted discloser, dated 25 March 2014 via FYI.org.nz.
  
5/ Please release publicly the information received to the Corporation by myself relating to, any Official Information act inquiry, but excluding FYI.org.nz content and information sent via Ombudsmen's Office. To support the following alegation and unfairness to withhold information.

The Corporation, for 'the sake of completeness', has stated they are not aware of any knowledge of whether Dr Collier has provided services to the public. This is incorrect. Please note the following:

ACC’s own Sensitive Claims Guidelines (2008) disclose Page 53: Research Team Members (Team 2: Hamilton)(13.) ‘John Collier (Independent Practice, Psychiatry)’. Independent = Oxford Dictionary ‘Not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence.

Various information has also been supplied to the ACC and during Ombudsmen Investigations. For example

Epsychotherapist.org/shrunk link was discovered 24 February 2012. This, by Dr Colliers own admission and intents, proclaims to offer service to ‘the layman’ and in fact, to the world.

A letter of complaint was submitted to epsychotherapist.org website. Along with ACC Official Information dated 18 November 2010 which by its content, evidently Collier was conducting his Professional Psychiatric affairs in contrary to the epsychotherapist code of conduct. Consequently Dr Colliers Profile and Advertising was discontinued. (Evidence was suplied to the ACC of this).

You will note in an earlier request, in order to obtain information under the act the Corporation was aware of a Dr John Lewis Collier practicing at 100 Clarence Street Hamilton and not 11 Firth Street Hamilton East as registered under the Business Register Website for registered office and address for service.

Given the location, surrounding neighbourhood etc of 11 Firth Street Hamilton East this would imply a place of business not readily staffed and open and accessible to the public or claimants. Therefore cannot be deemed Private Practice suitable to public service and claimants.

It is the prerogative of the Managing Director to determine an Address for Office and Service. However in the interest of transparency and loyalty to any agreement/contract, would it not be more prudent to register to a staffed, suitably maintained clinic (assuming clinic is open to public).

I allege the above would at least bring partial awareness of a clinical private practice if we are to assume Dr Colliers to comply with maintaining a staffed and appropriate facility.

The implications made publicly by both parties where Single source of income, Private and Public providing is concerned at least would appear contradictory by either parties’ obligations under act, agreements and common sense etc.

6/ Please provide information confirming Dr Collier has or has not been audited in the past fifteen years. And if no audit has been executed, why would the concerns raised via FYI or Media not warrant such a initiative

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Jordan