Abuse victim "vindicated" by win over ACC

An article from the Whakatane Beacon

An Eastern Bay sexual abuse victim says she feels vindicated after an independent review found ACC “unreasonably delayed” processing her claim for weekly compensation for 10 months.
The decision ruled ACC must accept the victim’s claim and give her 10 months backdated weekly compensation costs.
The woman, who has asked to be referred to as “Rachel” in the Beacon, was also awarded costs of $1985 to cover case preparation, travel costs and a psychiatric assessment.
Her claim related to mental injuries caused by childhood and adult sexual abuse, conditions that relapsed last year as a result of personal circumstances, culminating in her resignation from her place of work.
Over the next 10 months Rachel and her husband exhausted their savings, defaulted on their rent many times, became indebted to utility providers and sold furniture to pay their bills while fighting for weekly compensation.
Rachel told the Beacon she felt a “righteous and justifiable” indignation about what had occurred with her claim. “Horrific, boy, that’s an understatement of what I truly feel about ACC and what they have put me through.”
She acknowledged some of her own communications with ACC in the past had not been great, but said she felt provoked into “reacting rather than responding” by the corporation’s unreasonable actions.
Over the 10 months ACC rejected one claim for compensation, then accepted a second only to rescind that decision a month later according to a copy of the reviewer’s decision obtained by the Beacon.
ACC experts decided Rachel needed to undergo further medical assessments to determine her claim, but failed to make appointments with the relevant professionals.
Rachel and her advocate David Wadsworth maintained throughout that there was enough information on file to make a decision, but she would willingly under go further examination to progress things.
She arranged two assessments with her GP and counsellor during the course of the year and provided them to ACC.
In August, in an effort to expedite matters, Rachel arranged her own psychiatric consultation and assessment.
Upon receiving that report, ACC maintained further assessment before “a panel of relevant health professionals” was still required before Rachel’s claim could be settled. Those assessments had still yet to be booked at the time of review on September 8.
ACC blamed the delays on Rachel and “the evolution of the claim”. They also argued that all events after the lodgement of the review hearing on May 1 were outside the reviewer’s jurisdiction, which the reviewer disagreed with.
The reviewer ruled there was sufficient medical evidence in reports for ACC to have made a decision on the claim in May.

http://www.whakatanebeacon.co.nz/cms/news/2010/10/art10008024.php