Please find Part 1 of 4 Parts of a copy of my request request for written statements from Reviewer Mr Rex Woodhouse, emailed to Mr Rex Woodhouse care of [email address], and to ACC care of Victoria Mills at [email address];, and ACC's counsel Mr Peter Brownless at Medico Law [email address].

Part 1 should be read in sequential order in conjunction with Parts 2-through Parts 4.

To Mr Rex Woodhouse, and the Accident Compensation Corporation,

Background:

By very definition of Section 39 (c) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (AC Act 2001), Reviewer Mr Rex Woodhouse, is included within the meaning of Corporation, for the purposes of section 40 and 45 of the AC Act 2001, being the person who has and is currently providing services as a Reviewer (excluding treatment) to myself as a claimant, on behalf of or authorised by the Corporation in review matters associated with the following reviews and claim numbers;

Review No: 5440089 Claim No: 10029118540
Review No: 5440587 Claim No: 10029118537
Review No: 5441587 Claim No: 10027568119
Review No: 5493585 Claim No: 10030172374
Review No: 5491095 Claim No: 10029158387

I applied to the Corporation for the above 6 reviews since the Corporation has failed in their statutory obligations to me under Section 58 (2), (a), (b) and (c) of the AC Act 2001, to have had provided me with written deemed decision letters for additional classes for injury covers and their associated entitlements that I have previously formally lodged with the Corporation for the purposes of cover and entitlement acceptance, which became statutoraily deemed as being covered under section 58 (1) of the AC Act 2001, when the Corporation had failed to meet their obligations to have meet the timeframes prvided under either section 56 or 57 of the AC Act 2001, to have had made the decisions on cover and entitlement acceptance.

Naturally the remedy sought from the outcome following the completion of the review proceedings is the provision of the outstanding section 58 (a), (b) and (c) deemed decision letters covering the new and additional classes of injuries and their associated entitlements that I had formally lodge claims for seeking acceptance, so that I could then commence arranging for the treatment and rehabilitation of the the unhealed injuries.

To Provide further context as at today’s date the Corporation has withheld the provision of section 58 (1) and section 58 (2), (a),(b) and (c) deemed decision classes of injury cover and entitlement decision letters for classes of injuries and entitlements formally claimed for under the provisions of section 48 (a) (b), and (c) of the AC Act 2001 under the claim numbers listed below for the following number of days/working days;

10029118540 821 days outstanding of which 565 days have been working days
10029118537 816 days outstanding of which 562 days have been working days
10027568119 815 days outstanding of which 561 days have been working days
10029250341 754 days outstanding of which 517 days have been working days
10030172374 750 days outstanding of which 514 days have been working days
10029158387 741 days outstanding of which 507 days have been working days

As a result, my ability to have had commenced ACC funded treatment and rehabilitation for the unhealed injuries through the Corporations non provision of the section 58 (2), (a), (b), and (c) deemed class of injury and entitlement cover letters under all claims noted above has been delayed for over 2 calendar years.

Under the statutory provisions of the Code of Claimant Rights with Mr Rex Woodhouse being statutorily defined as being within the meaning of the Corporation, and for the avoidance of any doubt (s 41(2) AC Act 2001), with the Code applying not only for the purposes of Part 3: Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights, and claims Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights, but also for the purposes of this Act (AC Act 2001) generally(s 41 (1) AC Act 2001), and furthermore pursuant to Section 23 of the Official Information Act Right of access by person to reasons for decisions affecting that person, for which the Corporation is statutorily obligated comply with I am respectfully seeking the provision of Mr Rex Woodhouse's written statements outlining Mr Rex Woodhouse's reasons for

(i) certain decisions addressed in my request today that Mr Rex Woodhouse has made as Reviewer in review proceedings to date
(ii) certain decisions addressed in my request today that Mr Rex Woodhouse reasonably should have made as Reviewier, but failed to have had made in a timely manner

with Mr Woodhouse's decisions and failure to have had made fair and reasonable decisions affecting me as a person, and particularly my rights to have been able to expect Natural Justice and the ability to be fairly heard and treated through review proceedings to date in review matters under Review No's: 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597.

I will provide the Background/Context to each written statement respectfully requested from Mr Rex Woodhouse, then request Mr Rex Woodhouse's written statements outlining his reasons

Written Statement 1 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse

Context:

(1) Upon learning that Reviewer Ms Maree Hill, when providing review services under review 4047587, 4047586, 4049595 & 4066110, had an undisclosed history of having had worked for the Accident Compensation Corporation prior to having gained employment as a Reviewer of ACC matters, on 27 July 2016, I sought Ms Maree Hill's recusal in matters associated with prior reviews applications under reviews 4047587, 4047586, 4049595 & 4066110, with confirmation of Ms Hill having been replaced returned to me by email confirmation on 28 July 2016.

(2) As precedent, Lee M. (www.FYI.org.nz username), who goes by the ACCForm.org username of Battleaxe confirmed that you had recused yourself in review matters of theirs due to the following reason and I quote

"... no actually Mr Woodhouse "recused" himself because I had complained - repeatedly - about my perceived conflict of interest insofar as his relationship (past employment) with the ACC."

Lee M.'s comments can be found within the following ACCFourm.org thread titled NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR REVIEW APPLICATION that can be found at the following web link :- https://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/t...

Written Statement 1 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse:

I respectfully request Mr Woodhouse your written statement outlining your reasons as to why you decided, at the very commencement of your involvement as Reviewer in matters that affect me in review proceedings concerning Review No's: 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597, not to disclose your prior involvement as an employee with the Accident Compensation Corporation between the period 16/09/2002 and 14/06/2007 at which point you resigned from ACC and took up a role with ACC's owned subsidiary Disputes Resolutions Services Limited. (refer https://fyi.org.nz/request/2510-mr-rex-w...)

I note that had I have been advised by your disclosure of your prior involvement with ACC, I would have at the very outset challenged the partiality of your involvement in any and all review matters that I had sought review of through ACC.
***************
.......Continued with Part 2 Request for written statements from Reviewer Mr Rex Woodhouse, deemed to fit within the Meaning of Corporation as defined by section 39 (c).

Yours faithfully,

David Lawson

Part 2 of Part 4 of Request for written statements from Reviewer Mr Rex Woodhouse, deemed to fit in within the meaning of Corporation as defined by section 49 (c) of the AC Act 2001 requested by email on 13/09/18 at 4.29 p.m. emailed care of [email address], and copied to the Corporations Ms Victoria Mills at [email address], and ACC's Counsel Mr Peter Brownless at Medico Law care of [email address]

To Mr Rex Woodhouse, and the Accident Compensation Corporation,

Written Statements 2 through written Statement
Context:

On 26/01/2018, by email at 11.45 a.m. I requested the adjournment of reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 set down for hearing on 30/01/18, through until 30 May 2018. Three of my substantive and compelling reasons for why I requested the adjournment were conveyed to the Reviewer in my letter dated 26 January 2018 were as follows;

* The requirement to arrange and secure legal counsel to represent me in all matters with ACC at appeal or review.

* My disclosure to the Reviewer that the Corporation's Ms Victoria Mill's had processed my 6 review applications for Review No's: 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 concerning the Corporation's ongoing breaching of their obligations to me under section 58 (a), (b) & (c) of the AC Act 2001, under the incorrect jurisdictional Review Category/Code Description of X2 /Cover-Is there a Personal Injury (which applies to reviews under sections 20 & 26 of the AC Act 2001) , instead of Ms Victoria Hills having applied the correct jurisdictional Review Category/Code Description of Y12/ Out of time - failure to issue a decision, which applies to s 58 (1), & s 58 (2), (a), (b) and (c) of the AC Act 2001.

* My disclosure to the Reviewer that the Corporation had failed to have had provided me with a c/d copy of my claim files;

Claim No : 10029250341 required for Review No: 5447597 ,
Claim No : 10029158387 required for Review No: 5491095
Claim No : 10030172374 required for Review No: 5493585

FairWay Resolution's Jamie Taylor emailed ACC's counsel on 26/01/18 at 12:07 p.m. and asked if ACC or Medico Law had any objections to my adjournment request through until 30 May 2018 for reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597.

Mr Peter Brownless from Medico Law ACC's Counsel replied by email at 2:17 26/01/18 and advised all parties as follows and I quote;

"I have received instructions and ACC consents to the adjournment request for the above six matters" Peter Brownless 26/01/18 email sent at 2:17 p.m.

ACC and ACC's counsel had placed no restrictions on my adjournment request of 26/01/18, and placed no conditions upon my application for adjournment.

On 29/01/18 all parties received directions by email at 4.49 p.m. from Reviewer Mr Rex Woodhouse confirming that the 6 reviews set for 30/01/18 had been adjourned, however Mr Rex Woodhouse placed the following restrictions on my requested adjournment through to 30 May 2018;

"However, I am not persuaded there are sufficient grounds to adjourn the hearings for 4
months. Please set all matters down for a hearing in 2 months time, allowing 3 hours."

Therefore without direction/feedback from ACC or myself, or providing his substantive reason for making these 2 decisions, Mr Rex Woodhouse (1) restricted the period of my adjournment request to 2 months only, and (2) allowed only 3 hours for 6 reviews to be heard.

Page 26 of FairWay Resolutions "Reviewers Training Manual" makes it very clear that Reviewers are required to make known their reasons for refusal of providing an adjournment as requested by the applicant which Mr Woodhouse had not done.

6.8.1 Refusal appealable
A reviewer may decline to grant an adjournment if he or she considers there are no reasonable grounds for the request. The reasons for that refusal should be fully recorded by the reviewer in

Mr Woodhouse had also failed to provide me with confirmation of how I could legally apply for the appeal of his decisions to restrict my adjournment request to 2 months and my allocated time for 6 reviews to a period of 3 hours. Mr Woodhouse failed to have had provided me with the information and or time frames by which I could lodge an appeal to these restrictive adjournment decisions of 29/01/18 that Mr Rex Woodhouse had made.

I refer to page 2 of Miriam R Dean's (CNZM QC) MAY 2016 INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACCLAIM OTAGO (INC) JULY 2015 REPORT INTO ACCIDENT COMPENSATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES which can be found at: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/e..., which states under being heard, and I quote;

"Other problems are process-related... the limited hearing time (one hour) that leaves claimants feeling their side of the story has not been heard,.."

Mr Rex Woodhouse had restricted my allocated time to 30 minutes per review and combined 6 reviews into a single hearing reducing 6 hours to a period of 3 hours to be heard.

Page 21 of the Fairway "Reviewers Training Manual", under 5.5.4 Other Matters I quote;

5.5.4 Other Matters
If any of the following occur, the reviewer should raise it with the parties by letter or
memorandum prior to the commencement of the review hearing:
* a failure to disclose information that is relevant to the issues at review
* the parties should undertake some other action before the hearing
* there are issues of jurisdiction that need to be addressed at the hearing e.g. whether the application for review is valid.

In Mr Rex Woodhouse's advise confirming his restricted adjournment granted 30/01/18 Mr Rex Woodhouse had failed to raise with the Corporation and myself by way of memorandum prior to the commencement of the review hearing the following jurisdictional matter;

* seeking the Corporation's written withdrawal of Ms Victoria Mills incorrect Review Category/Code descripton X2/Cover-Is there a personal injury which applies to reviews conducted on matters relating to section 20 and 26 of the AC Act 2001.

*seeking the Corporation's supply of new review documentation of reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 to be heard under the correct Review jurisdiction being Review Category/Code description Y12/Out of Time-failure to issue a decision, and furthermore,

*advising the Corporation that they were obligated to supply to me per the ACC/FairWay Review Contract 14 days prior to the review hearing for reviews 5447597, 5491095 & 5493585 the following claim files;

Claim No : 10029250341 required for Review No: 5447597
Claim No : 10029158387 required for Review No: 5491095
Claim No : 10030172374 required for Review No: 5493585

Written Statement 2 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided to restricted my 4 month adjournment request of 26/01/18 to 2 months, when the Corporation had agreed without restriction to reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 being adjourned through until 30 May 2018 from 30 January 2018, without any conditions.

Written Statement 3 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided to;

(1) schedule review hearings 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 in your adjournment letter of 29/01/18 to be heard at one session, which would mean that I would only be able to seek cost associated with the review hearing equivalent of 1 review hearing, where as if all 6 of my reviews had been scheduled on separate hearings, then I would have been able to recover the equivalent of 6 accumulated sets of review costs. This prejudiced me by only being able to recover 1/6 of my costs.

Written Statement 4 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided in your decision dated 29/01/18 to allocate only 30 minutes to each of the 6 reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597, when Mirian Dean had noted in her report that the standard timeframe is 1 hour allocated for a standard review in her INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACCLAIM OTAGO (INC) JULY 2015 REPORT INTO
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES report.

Yours faithfully,

David Lawson

Part 2 of Part 4 of Request for written statements from Reviewer Mr Rex Woodhouse, deemed to fit in within the meaning of Corporation as defined by section 49 (c) of the AC Act 2001 requested by email on 13/09/18 at 4.29 p.m. emailed care of [email address], and copied to the Corporations Ms Victoria Mills at [email address], and ACC's Counsel Mr Peter Brownless at Medico Law care of [email address]

To Mr Rex Woodhouse, and the Accident Compensation Corporation,

Written Statements 2 through written Statement
Context:

On 26/01/2018, by email at 11.45 a.m. I requested the adjournment of reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 set down for hearing on 30/01/18, through until 30 May 2018. Three of my substantive and compelling reasons for why I requested the adjournment were conveyed to the Reviewer in my letter dated 26 January 2018 were as follows;

* The requirement to arrange and secure legal counsel to represent me in all matters with ACC at appeal or review.

* My disclosure to the Reviewer that the Corporation's Ms Victoria Mill's had processed my 6 review applications for Review No's: 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 concerning the Corporation's ongoing breaching of their obligations to me under section 58 (a), (b) & (c) of the AC Act 2001, under the incorrect jurisdictional Review Category/Code Description of X2 /Cover-Is there a Personal Injury (which applies to reviews under sections 20 & 26 of the AC Act 2001) , instead of Ms Victoria Hills having applied the correct jurisdictional Review Category/Code Description of Y12/ Out of time - failure to issue a decision, which applies to s 58 (1), & s 58 (2), (a), (b) and (c) of the AC Act 2001.

* My disclosure to the Reviewer that the Corporation had failed to have had provided me with a c/d copy of my claim files;

Claim No : 10029250341 required for Review No: 5447597 ,
Claim No : 10029158387 required for Review No: 5491095
Claim No : 10030172374 required for Review No: 5493585

FairWay Resolution's Jamie Taylor emailed ACC's counsel on 26/01/18 at 12:07 p.m. and asked if ACC or Medico Law had any objections to my adjournment request through until 30 May 2018 for reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597.

Mr Peter Brownless from Medico Law ACC's Counsel replied by email at 2:17 26/01/18 and advised all parties as follows and I quote;

"I have received instructions and ACC consents to the adjournment request for the above six matters" Peter Brownless 26/01/18 email sent at 2:17 p.m.

ACC and ACC's counsel had placed no restrictions on my adjournment request of 26/01/18, and placed no conditions upon my application for adjournment.

On 29/01/18 all parties received directions by email at 4.49 p.m. from Reviewer Mr Rex Woodhouse confirming that the 6 reviews set for 30/01/18 had been adjourned, however Mr Rex Woodhouse placed the following restrictions on my requested adjournment through to 30 May 2018;

"However, I am not persuaded there are sufficient grounds to adjourn the hearings for 4
months. Please set all matters down for a hearing in 2 months time, allowing 3 hours."

Therefore without direction/feedback from ACC or myself, or providing his substantive reason for making these 2 decisions, Mr Rex Woodhouse (1) restricted the period of my adjournment request to 2 months only, and (2) allowed only 3 hours for 6 reviews to be heard.

Page 26 of FairWay Resolutions "Reviewers Training Manual" makes it very clear that Reviewers are required to make known their reasons for refusal of providing an adjournment as requested by the applicant which Mr Woodhouse had not done.

6.8.1 Refusal appealable
A reviewer may decline to grant an adjournment if he or she considers there are no reasonable grounds for the request. The reasons for that refusal should be fully recorded by the reviewer in

Mr Woodhouse had also failed to provide me with confirmation of how I could legally apply for the appeal of his decisions to restrict my adjournment request to 2 months and my allocated time for 6 reviews to a period of 3 hours. Mr Woodhouse failed to have had provided me with the information and or time frames by which I could lodge an appeal to these restrictive adjournment decisions of 29/01/18 that Mr Rex Woodhouse had made.

I refer to page 2 of Miriam R Dean's (CNZM QC) MAY 2016 INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACCLAIM OTAGO (INC) JULY 2015 REPORT INTO ACCIDENT COMPENSATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES which can be found at: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/e..., which states under being heard, and I quote;

"Other problems are process-related... the limited hearing time (one hour) that leaves claimants feeling their side of the story has not been heard,.."

Mr Rex Woodhouse had restricted my allocated time to 30 minutes per review and combined 6 reviews into a single hearing reducing 6 hours to a period of 3 hours to be heard.

Page 21 of the Fairway "Reviewers Training Manual", under 5.5.4 Other Matters I quote;

5.5.4 Other Matters
If any of the following occur, the reviewer should raise it with the parties by letter or
memorandum prior to the commencement of the review hearing:
* a failure to disclose information that is relevant to the issues at review
* the parties should undertake some other action before the hearing
* there are issues of jurisdiction that need to be addressed at the hearing e.g. whether the application for review is valid.

In Mr Rex Woodhouse's advise confirming his restricted adjournment granted 30/01/18 Mr Rex Woodhouse had failed to raise with the Corporation and myself by way of memorandum prior to the commencement of the review hearing the following jurisdictional matter;

* seeking the Corporation's written withdrawal of Ms Victoria Mills incorrect Review Category/Code descripton X2/Cover-Is there a personal injury which applies to reviews conducted on matters relating to section 20 and 26 of the AC Act 2001.

*seeking the Corporation's supply of new review documentation of reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 to be heard under the correct Review jurisdiction being Review Category/Code description Y12/Out of Time-failure to issue a decision, and furthermore,

*advising the Corporation that they were obligated to supply to me per the ACC/FairWay Review Contract 14 days prior to the review hearing for reviews 5447597, 5491095 & 5493585 the following claim files;

Claim No : 10029250341 required for Review No: 5447597
Claim No : 10029158387 required for Review No: 5491095
Claim No : 10030172374 required for Review No: 5493585

Written Statement 2 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided to restricted my 4 month adjournment request of 26/01/18 to 2 months, when the Corporation had agreed without restriction to reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 being adjourned through until 30 May 2018 from 30 January 2018, without any conditions.

Written Statement 3 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided to;

(1) schedule review hearings 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 in your adjournment letter of 29/01/18 to be heard at one session, which would mean that I would only be able to seek cost associated with the review hearing equivalent of 1 review hearing, where as if all 6 of my reviews had been scheduled on separate hearings, then I would have been able to recover the equivalent of 6 accumulated sets of review costs. This prejudiced me by only being able to recover 1/6 of my costs.

Written Statement 4 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided in your decision dated 29/01/18 to allocate only 30 minutes to each of the 6 reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597, when Mirian Dean had noted in her report that the standard timeframe is 1 hour allocated for a standard review in her INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACCLAIM OTAGO (INC) JULY 2015 REPORT INTO
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES report.

Yours faithfully,

David Lawson

Part 3/4 of email forwarded to Mr Rex Woodhouse, ACC and ACC's Counsel

To Mr Rex Woodhouse, and the Accident Compensation Corporation,

Written Statement 5 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided in your decision dated 29/01/18 not to first consult with me first as to the amount of time that I thought that I would need to be heard at review considering Miriam Dean's report quoted already goes on to note that a Reviewer can allocate more than 1 hour for a standard review if the applicant thought required.

Written Statement 6 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided in your decision dated 29/01/18, not to include memorandum to the Corporation ( copied to all parties), noting that prior to new review hearings being set down for review for reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597, that the Corporation was obligated to;

(1) provide written confirmation to FairWay Resolution Limited and the Reviewer of the Corporation's withdrawal of their incorrect review documentation that the Reviewer is to hear reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 under the incorrect jurisdictional review category/code description of X2/Cover-Is there a Personal Injury which applies to s20 and s26 of the AC Act 2001, and not section 58, under which the review was brought by myself.

(2) provide amended written review documentation to FairWay Resolution Limited and the Reviewer for reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 which has corrected the Corporation's incorrect review documentation to authorise
the Reviewer to allocate the correct review jurisdiction Review Category/Code Description Y12/Out of time-failure to issue a decision so that the review can proceed with the correct review jurisdiction that applies to reviews brought under s58 of the AC Act 2001,

(3) provide to myself on a couriered c/d the following 3 complete claim files no less than 14 days prior (Re: ACC/FairWay's contract for services) to the setting of new hearings for reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597

is to hear reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 under the incorrect jurisdicional review category/code description of X2/Cover-Is there a Personal Injury.

Written Statement 7 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided in your decision dated 29/01/18, when you placed the following restrictions on my adjournment request of 26/01/18 for the adjournment of reviews from 30 January 2018 through to 30 May 2018;

(i) granted only 2 months,
(ii) allocated only 30 minutes per review in place of 1 hour per review,
(iii) combined all 6 reviews into one hearing,

that you failed to have advised me of my appeal rights, and provide me with the necessary documentation advising me of the appeal process, who the appeal is to be forwarded to and within what time frame the appeal is to be forwarded with for the appeal of your decisions (i)-(iii) noted above.

Written Statement 7 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;
Context :

In review submissions of 26/01/18 emailed on 26/01/18 to all parties, ACC's counsel Mr Peter Brownless, confirmed on behalf of the Corporation that

Review No. 5441587 - The Corporation accepts that deemed cover arises
Review No. 5440587 - The Corporation accepts that deemed cover arises, and that

Review No. 540089 - Deemed cover does not arise, as no valid claim for cover was received.
Review No. 5447597 - Deemed cover does not arise, as no valid claim for cover was received.
Review No. 5493585 - Deemed cover does not arise, as no valid claim for cover was received.
Review No. 5491095 - Deemed cover does not arise, as no valid claim for cover was received.

However, as at the 26/01/18, nor anytime since has either the Corporation, or their legal counsel provided to me the outstanding section 58 written deemed decision letters for the additional classes of injuries and their associated entitlements that I had claimed cover for, relating to claim/review numbers 10027568119/5441587 and 10029118537/5440587, which were the reason that I sought review, and was the specific remedy sought from review as noted in my review applications

Thereafter reviews 440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597, were set down for hearing (without my approval since I had yet to be able to source legal representation) on the 22 August 2018.

On 22 August 2018, I was unable to attend the set review hearings on 22 August 2018 for the reasons that I advised all parties in the afternoon of the day that the review hearings had been heard.

I applied for the adjournment of reviews 440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597, because as previously raised with the corporation and the reviewer the following matters remained unresolved ;

Because the Corporation had failed to provide me with claim files for the following reviews;

Claim No : 10029250341 required for Review No: 5447597 ,
Claim No : 10029158387 required for Review No: 5491095
Claim No : 10030172374 required for Review No: 5493585

Because the Corporation had still not corrected the Review Category/Code description to Y12/ Out of time-failure to issue a decision which is the correct jurisdictional review category/code descriptions that apply for reviews brought under section 58 of the AC Act 2018.

And because our family has had to resort to selling our home to try and get legal representation, and as at 22 August 2018 we had not sold our home, purchased a new one, and so no funding was available.

I also asked for these matters to be addressed prior to reviews commencing, along with the adjournment of reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 for an indefinite period until I had secured legal counsel, but with progress updates to all parties on 19 September 2018 and 17 October 2018 to allow for the completion of the sale of our family home so that we could afford legal representation in all matters before appeal and review with ACC.

I advised the all parties that I would be asking for my pending legal representation to seek a conciliatory meeting with the Corporation in view of settling matters at the earliest convenience.

"As a result ACC's counsel Mr Peter Brownless wrote the following email ;

Afternoon all,

I attended the review hearing this morning at 9am before Rex Woodhouse. The matter was not adjourned part-heard.

In short, ACC has conceded 5 of the review applications, and agrees that deemed cover arises. Those review applications are:

5440089;
5440587;
5441587;
5491095; and
5493585.

ACC continues to defend Review 5447597, on the basis set out in my submissions filed in January 2018.

I have received instructions and ACC’s position is that, following the hearing today, the matters are concluded. ACC does not consent to attempts by Mr Lawson to revive the reviews.

The hearing notice was issued on 30 May 2018 and emailed to the parties. While the matter was set down un-agreed, Mr Lawson was in receipt of the hearing notice, and was aware of the date and time of hearing. There was ample opportunity (nearly 3 months) for Mr Lawson to apply for an adjournment of these matters, or raise the issue of representation.

Rex, could you please advise the next steps in this matter?

Kind Regards,"

to be continued with part 4/4.

Yours faithfully,

David Lawson

Please find Part 4 of 4 Parts of a copy of my request request for written statements from Reviewer Mr Rex Woodhouse, emailed on 13/09/18 at 4.29 p.m. to Mr Rex Woodhouse care of [email address], and to ACC care of Victoria Mills at [email address];, and ACC's counsel Mr Peter Brownless at Medico Law [email address].

To Mr Rex Woodhouse, and the Accident Compensation Corporation,

.........
This means that the Corporation had as at 1.18 pm 22/08/18 subsequent to earlier review hearings advised me for the first time that ACC had conceded that reviews 5440089, 5491095; and 5493585 brought by myself were correct and agreed that deemed cover arises for these reviews and their relevant claim numbers.

It was also new information to me after the fact that ACC had decided to continue to defend review number 5447597.

ACC had not provided me with any submissions to this effect prior to emailing me after my request for the adjournment of proceedings of the 22 August 2018.

And since 22 August 2018, I have still not been provided with the 5 section 58 (2) (a), (b), and (c) deemed decision letters that the Corporation has conceded section 58 (1) applied, and was obligated to have provided me well over 2 years ago that detailed all the new class of injuries and associated entitlements that are deemed to be covered some 2 years ago.

With the new information provided to the Reviewer at review, which had not been placed in front of me the Reviewer was obliged to have had established;

(i) the reasons for my non attendance (noted above), and furthermore, due to the new information provided to the reviewer adjourn the reviews part heard, to have had allowed me to have had the right of reply to the Corporation and be heard in front of the reviewer.

The following substantive information I have a right to have asked the Corporation;

(1) Why have ACC continued with proceedings not using the correct jurisdictional Review Category and Code Description, or Y12 Out of Time-failure to issue a decision,

(2) why have they not provided the 3 outstanding claims file to me.

(3) when will I receive the outstanding 5 section 58 (2) (a), (b) and (c) deemed decision notices for each relevant claim number specifying all the listed additional classes of injury claims and entitlements now deemed covered.

(4) when will my claims on my files be updated with the additional classes of injury and entitlement covers,

(5) when will my full schedule of injury claims be updated in full to reflect the additional class of injury covers and entitlements deemed covered over 2 years ago. When will I be provided with a verified schedule.

(6) What is the substantive reason ACC have not conceded review no 5447597 also and conceded that deemed cover also arises?

Written Statement 7 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided in at the review hearing on 22 August 2017, not be adjourned part heard after ACC had presented submissions, given the new evidence provided to the Reviewer at Review, which had never been provided to me.

Written Statement 8 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided to progress with review hearings for on 22 August 2017 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597, under the incorrect jurisdiction review category/code description, and not Y12/Out of time -failure to have issued a decision.

Written Statement 9 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided to progress with review hearings for on 22 August 2017 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597, when ACC had not provided confirmation to me that they had supplied me with the following claim files;

Claim No : 10029250341 required for Review No: 5447597 ,
Claim No : 10029158387 required for Review No: 5491095
Claim No : 10030172374 required for Review No: 5493585

Written Statement 10 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided to progress with review hearings for on 22 August 2017 without first having established prior to 22 August 2018 as to whether I had been able to secure legal representation to be able to be represented at review.

Written Statement 11 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided no to supply me with the a copy of the audio recording of the review proceedings on 22 August 2018, and any relevant transcripts submissions provided by the Corporation, to allow me a fair chance of responding about these matters in an informed manner.

Written Statement 12 respectfully requested from Mr Woodhouse;

Dear Mr Rex Woodhouse, I respectfully request your written statement providing me with the reasons that you decided not to allow me the natural justice right to have been legally represented in matters going forward from the 22 August 2018, by having adjourned all 6 reviews in response to my adjournment request of 22 August 2018.

In the event that these statements are not provided I respect that from today at this point Mr Woodhouse you recuse yourself from all matters associated with reviews 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597.

I would appreciate these statements being provided to my email address and formally acknowledged and addressed within formal review documentation.

In the event that review matters 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597 are not adjourned part heard through until I have legal representation then I respectfully request that Mr Rex Woodhouse recuses himself from all reviews and matters under 5440089, 5440587, 5441587, 5493585, 5491095 & 5447597, and that the reviews are reheard afresh.

Regards,
David Lawson.