(Part 2 of 4) Request for written statements from Reviewer Mr Rex Woodhouse, deemed to fit within the Meaning of Corporation as defined by section 39 (c)

David Lawson made this Official Information request to Accident Compensation Corporation

Response to this request is long overdue. By law Accident Compensation Corporation should have responded by now (details and exceptions). You can complain to the Ombudsman.

From: David Lawson

Please find Part 1 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].

Part 2 should be read after Part 1 and then in sequential order in conjunction with Parts 3 and then Parts 4.

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.

.......continued with (Part 3 of 4) 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

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Accident Compensation Corporation only: