The Swamp Report: Dominion Post

Showing posts with label Dominion Post. Show all posts

25 November 2013

Judge criticises ACC act as unfair

An article from the Dominion Post by Shane Cowlishaw

After Coral Waitere had a new oven installed, she filled up the sink to do some dishes.
But the electrician who set up the oven had left the house unearthed, so when she turned on the tap she was blasted across the kitchen by 240 volts of electricity. The current that surged through her body blew a hole just below her lip where it exited.
Temporarily paralysed, burnt and left with brain injuries, Ms Waitere, of Alexandra, was unable to work after the 2005 accident. But because she was unemployed at the time, she was not eligible for weekly compensation from ACC. She is one of six ACC claimants, some of who were sexually abused as children, who have lost their legal battle against the corporation.
The group took their case to the High Court, but were turned down by Justice Stephen Kos, despite him noting that the outcomes under the ACC Act were "unquestionably anomalous".
Under the act, only individuals who are employed at the time of their injury are entitled to full weekly compensation. They are still eligible for treatment costs. People injured as children are eligible for a reduced weekly compensation sum based on a loss of potential earnings. Three of the four injured as children receive this compensation, but believe they should be entitled to the full amount.
The two claimants who were injured as adults receive no weekly compensation at all, including Ms Waitere, who was injured the day before she was due to start work after taking time off to raise her children. She said the High Court decision, and the others ruling against her during four years of legal action, had "made me want to cry".
Another of the claimants, who was sexually and physically abused by her ex-husband, said ACC had cut off her compensation in February. It made life extremely tough for her and her three children, who had also suffered abuse, she said.
Lawyer John Miller, who represented the group, said it was ridiculous that children who were injured while not working could be in a situation where they were denied adequate compensation for life. In essence, Justice Kos was saying the act was unfair, and that such a situation would never be allowed in the private insurance industry, he said. While preparing for the case, he looked through the transcripts of debates and select committee hearings related to drafting the act, and no discussions had taken place about the potential problems arising from this clause.
ACC Minister Judith Collins said the eligibility criteria of the act were designed to apply to a wide range of circumstances. There were special provisions to deal with unique situations when the rules were not appropriate, and the eligibility criteria would be reviewed next year.
"The eligibility criteria are challenged from time to time where applying the law may be considered unfair to claimants.
"I take issues of unfair treatment very seriously, and pay close attention to these issues when they arise."

THE SIX CLAIMANTS
HANS KOGLER - Severely injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1991, aged 16, and had his left leg amputated. He found fulltime work in 2003 but had to give it up after 10 months because of continuing problems with his injury.
RW - As a child he was sexually abused in the 1970s and 80s. He later found work but had to stop in 2007 because of issues stemming from the abuse.
RN - Suffered severe sexual abuse from the age of 12. She did not report the events at the time and first sought treatment for the consequences at the age of 28. As she was over 18 when the abuse was reported, she does not receive weekly compensation.
SA - Suffered sexual, physiological and physical abuse at the hands of her husband between 1994 and 2006. She began working in 2007 and was diagnosed with post-traumatic and major stress disorders in 2009.
CORAL WAITERE - Unemployed between 1999 and 2005, but later found employment at the Nelson Nursing Service. The day before she started work she suffered a severe electrical shock.
VALERIE MURRAY - Injured while a schoolgirl in 1976. She began working in 1979 and, more than 20 years later, had to stop as a result of the injury. Initially she was granted weekly compensation based on her income, but ACC reconsidered and reduced her compensation by $231 per week to that of a "potential earner".

04 June 2013

ACC denied: Relationship not sexual abuse

An article from the Dominion Post by Shane Cowlishaw

A sexual abuse victim who entered into a relationship with her counsellor has been denied ACC cover because she was deemed fit to make appropriate sexual decisions.
The 37-year-old Wellington woman was refused cover for mental injury in 2010 after the corporation ruled that while the relationship had exacerbated her symptoms, it did not meet the criteria for a sexual-abuse event. A person is eligible for ACC cover for a mental injury when caused by an act performed by another person that amounts to an offence under the Crimes Act. The woman has a horrific history of sexual abuse and already has ACC cover for three separate claims relating to events when she was a child and during a later relationship.
After seeking assistance from a counsellor in 2005 for mental trauma relating to those events, a relationship developed during the sessions that led to the couple having sex. This continued for a year, with the male counsellor continuing to provide professional services while maintaining a sexual relationship. When the relationship ended, the distraught woman complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner and it is understood the counsellor is no longer practising.
After assessing the woman in 2010, a psychiatrist found the sexual relationship had contributed to her emotional distress and trauma.
"I am clear in my mind that she was inherently at risk and vulnerable to be psychologically traumatised and affected by a sexual relationship with a therapist."
However, the psychiatrist decided that the woman was able to function reasonably normally and her "capacity to understand the nature of sexual conduct" had not been impaired.
The woman appealed against the ACC decision, but in his decision Judge Martin Beattie disagreed and dismissed the case. There was no evidence the woman was a person of "significant impairment" at the time of the sexual relationship, meaning she had the ability to consent or refuse, he said.
Speaking to The Dominion Post, the woman - who cannot be named - said she was unhappy with the decision and would take her case to the Court of Appeal. She believed she had been suffering from erotic transference related to her previous abuse, a condition where emotions are shifted on to therapists.
"I wasn't coming on to my counsellor, I said I think I have transference, I'm not attracted to you, but he decided it was a come-on."
Police had told her there was not enough evidence to prosecute the man, but it had affected her more than the previous abuse.
"I would rate this as the worst experience, which doesn't make sense but it's called statutory rape in other countries."

18 February 2013

ACC apologises for blaming client

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

ACC has apologised to a rape victim after a manager in charge of sensitive claims tried to blame her when a report containing medical information was altered. Instead, it was ACC that had censored important details from a psychiatrist's report about the rape and incest client.
When the client asked ACC last month to immediately correct the doctored document, the corporation said it would get back to her in 10 days' time. On Friday, ACC said its sensitive claims unit branch medical adviser, Peter Dodwell, would send a written apology to the rape victim for causing distress by trying to blame her for altering the medical report. The apology was received later the same day.
The senior ACC staffers involved in the botch-up were Dr Dodwell, and ACC team manager Karmal Mark. Dr Dodwell was asked by ACC to assess a medication claim from the client for treatment for complex mental health issues arising from her accepted ACC claim following years of systemic sexual abuse. But half of the psychiatrist's report was deleted by ACC and the psychiatrist's signature was cut and pasted from another page. The word "abridged" was inserted above Ms Mark's contact details before the report was sent to Dr Dodwell.
The censored material included descriptions of complex conditions that the client suffers from, the fact she required a combination of treatments, and that treatment was beyond a GP's expertise.
After receiving the report, Dr Dodwell wrote: "A line appears to have been deleted ... presumably by the claimant.
"Censorship of medical reports by a claimant is not acceptable and appears to breach the trust ACC demonstrated in allowing the claimant to bar direct contact with treatment providers."
The psychiatrist "clearly wrote something he considered significant to her management", Dr Dodwell said.
When The Dominion Post questioned ACC about the altered report, they delayed replying while they went back to the psychiatrist to confirm his original report was different to the abridged version. The psychiatrist confirmed the full report was his, not the abridged version, and told ACC: "I have now confirmed this on three occasions to ACC. I trust three confirmations are adequate".
Finally, on Friday the corporation confirmed to The Dominion Post that a letter of apology would be sent to the client.
The sensitive claims unit client said it was typical of ACC to make thinly veiled accusations of what could amount to criminal behaviour against clients but she provided documents showing ACC changed the report, not her.
The debacle "is more than outrageous, it is criminal and yet they have had the audacity to blame me for tampering with a medical report".
"I'm appalled, disgusted and very distressed and angry. I am so damn angry about it ... this is quite simply not acceptable," the woman said.
The woman is involved in a separate battle, with ACC having previously accused her of forgery. She said she would vigorously defend the case in court.
In an email, ACC complaints investigator Julie Phillips told the client she needed evidence and information from both sides for her inquiry. The client - who wishes to remain anonymous and has permanent name suppression - said that was rich considering ACC did not bother contacting her to ask if she had changed the medical report before making serious allegations.
Before being appointed medical adviser for the ACC unit dealing with its most sensitive cases, Dr Dodwell was sacked from his job in Australia. In March 2008, he was dismissed from his role as chief medical officer at HealthQuest, a medical screening body for bureaucrats, after he passed on information about a teacher applying for a job. An investigation by a former New South Wales deputy police commissioner David Madden said Dr Dodwell tried to adversely affect a decision to employ the teacher by saying she was being investigated by police for defamatory website postings about him.
"The way in which he [Dodwell] went about informing the Department of Education was inappropriate and not reasonable behaviour of a public official," the Madden report said.

18 January 2013

Judge admits law unfair to abuse victim

An article from the Dominion Post by Shaun Cowlishaw

A mother who suffered more than a decade of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her husband has been denied ACC cover because of a technicality.
The Christchurch woman, who cannot be named, married in 1994 and her husband soon began to display abusive behaviour. That escalated into continual sexual, psychological and physical abuse until she left him 12 years later.
The couple's three children were also subjected to sexual abuse and in 2009 the man was sentenced to five years in jail for offences against the family.
Speaking to The Dominion Post, the woman said the details at the trial of her former husband's abuse were so horrific that she suffered a breakdown soon after and was diagnosed with severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
She was granted cover for mental injury but ACC declined to continue weekly compensation because it claimed she was a non-earner when she began counselling in 2007.
In a written district court decision, Judge David Ongley dismissed the woman's appeal despite describing her situation as a "plainly unfair result".
The situation had been caused by the "collision" of two rules affecting entitlement to weekly compensation, he said.
One rule stated that the claimant had to be an earner at the date of injury and incapacity.
But a second rule meant that the date of the injury, in the case of mental injury caused by certain criminal acts, is the date on which the claimant received treatment for that injury.
The woman's application for weekly compensation could only prove that she worked until March 13, 2007, while her first date for counselling for symptoms of mental illness was on April 30, 2007.
With her two daughters still at home, the woman said the decision would have a crippling effect on a strained family.
"I'm sick of having to pay for other people's mistakes, I'm trying to hold the family together and it's not working out very well and now I have this horrible financial burden."
Judge Ongley noted that in many cases someone who suffered mental injury caused by sexual abuse may experience increasingly severe symptoms years after the abuse. That meant it was likely they might be a non-earner when first seeking treatment.
"To add to the unfairness of her situation, it appears that [the woman] had worked to support her family because of the financial irresponsibility of her husband, and that she was not working at various times because she was dealing with problems that her children had suffered from family abuse by their father, including alleged sexual abuse."
But Judge Ongley accepted that ACC had made all the inquiries that could be expected in light of the information presented.
Leading ACC lawyer John Miller, who represented the woman in her appeal, said about 200 people were in a similar position. The situation had been caused by a particular High Court decision that ACC ignored until it suddenly decided to enforce it, he said. Mr Miller was preparing a case involving 30 claimants that would challenge that point of law.
ACC declined to comment.

18 September 2012

ACC's suicide snub adds to family pain

An article from the Dominion Post by Marty Sharpe

The number of families of suicide victims granted support from ACC has declined since changes to legislation in 2010.
A woman whose daughter took her own life after suffering an abusive relationship said the changes meant surviving family were not considered victims.
The woman said her 21-year-old daughter took her life in Christchurch in November 2010. She left behind a young son.
The woman, now a sickness beneficiary and living in Wellington, had been struggling to pay the $7000 for her daughter's funeral.
She sought help from ACC but was told the corporation no longer provided cover for families of suicide victims, unless the suicide was due to a mental injury caused by physical injury, sexual abuse or a work-related mental injury.
"I've got it [the funeral bill] down to about $4500 . . . It's just been devastating. It really has. I don't think people know what it's like. Anyone in that situation needs all the help they can get," the woman said.
Figures provided by ACC under the Official Information Act show the number of suicide claims accepted by the corporation dropped from 347 in the 2009-10 year to 127 in 2010-11 and just 51 in the 2011-12 year. The average number of suicides over the past five years was 543.
Between July 2008 and July 2012 the corporation paid $19.8 million to families of suicide victims. This was paid in weekly compensation, childcare, survivor grants and funeral grants.
Labour changed the law in 2008 to class all suicides as accidents.
When former ACC minister Nick Smith changed the law two years ago, he said suicide was not an accident and should be considered a health issue similar to heart disease or cancer. The original act in 1972 excluded suicide, he said.
One of the country's top lawyers specialising in ACC legislation, John Miller, was not surprised at the drop of claims.
"ACC will just knock them back and people will be in such a state they won't often fight it.
"The problem is these people leave dependants. Just because a husband or partner can't cope with bankruptcy or something like that, is it right that they leave the family bereft of income?"
Labour ACC spokesman Andrew Little said anyone who took their life had clearly lost perspective and was incapable of understanding the consequences of their action.
"No family asks for a family member to commit suicide and it can leave them in a very difficult situation. At a time when ACC has made a surplus of over $3 billion, it's not as if this is an area they cannot afford to cover.
"We will review this when back in office," he said.
ACC Minister Judith Collins said the objective of Mr Smith's reform was "to ensure ACC is affordable, sustainable and fair for claimants and levy payers".
"My priorities for ACC are to ensure entitlements are delivered transparently and fairly to those who need them," she said.

HOW NICK SMITH CHANGED THE RULES
In 2001 the Labour government introduced changes to the Accident Compensation Corporation Act that meant entitlements were paid to families of victims whose suicide was the result of mental illness (ie not necessarily a mental injury). In 2008 this was extended to cover all suicides.
This meant families of suicide victims could receive a funeral grant, a survivor's grant of around $5000, funding for counselling and a share of income-related compensation for dependants.
Two years later National's ACC Minister Nick Smith changed the law, so families of suicide victims only received entitlements if ACC established the person who committed suicide was not able to appreciate the consequences of their action, or that a previously covered mental injury caused, or contributed to, the suicide.

08 September 2012

ACC pays millions to send its 'hatchets'

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

ACC is spending millions of dollars flying doctors around New Zealand to assess long-term clients who have already been assessed by other doctors.
The policy has been slammed by John Miller - one of the country's top lawyers specialising in ACC legislation - who said the so-called “independence” of some assessors was a sham.
ACC lawyers, advocates and claimant groups know those doctors as “hatchet men and women”, Mr Miller said.
“They are not independent, as a substantial part of their income comes from ACC,” he said.
ACC figures reveal the corporation pays millions of dollars a year to a group of “independent assessors”, often flying them to towns or cities where other doctors with suitable qualifications already practise. In some cases the ACC assessors are flown from the South Island to North Island cities.
At least $3 million was spent last year on airfares and assessment fees for a group of less than 12 doctors.
Mr Miller said medical professionals had expressed serious concerns to him about the issue. Because some assessors earned virtually all their income from ACC it was “inevitable” they would tend to “provide reports ACC wants".
“The old saying of ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune' definitely applies with ACC assessors. The use of such assessors actually damages and diminishes ACC's reputation,” Mr Miller said. “ACC knows the assessors who have particular fixed medical views, for example on degeneration . . . and they keep sending injured claimants to be assessed by those assessors as they know they will receive reports they want.”
Mr Miller said ACC advocates know when clients are sent for assessments by “the same usual suspects ... there will be an adverse outcome for the injured claimant”.
ACC has seen a drop in the number of cases it is winning as claimants fight assessments. The corporation won 77 per cent of cases challenged by clients in 2009 but in the year to date that figure has dropped to 56 per cent.
Mr Miller said his firm had experienced cases where independent assessors such as occupational therapists for seriously injured clients refused to provide reports “for us in ACC disputes".
“They fear that it will affect their livelihood from ACC contracts,” he said.
“It confirms in people's minds it is an organisation more concerned with removing claimants from ACC assistance this way rather than being concerned with properly rehabilitating injured claimants off the scheme.”
Mr Miller said the solution would be for ACC to start using a group of trusted assessors who could “be used by both sides."
ACC's claims management acting general manager Phil Riley said ACC chose appropriate providers, but if clients did not want to see them because of genuine concerns, a choice of two alternative providers was offered. If clients chose not to see a local assessor, ACC could arrange for a specialist from another area to travel to their location.
"For practicality purposes, we try to send specialists to other areas when there are a number of clients to see in that area. This is why ACC flies specialist medical professionals to other regions, to hold ‘day clinics' for ACC clients."
ACC paid specialists at market rates, Mr Riley said.
ACC Minister Judith Collins said changes she made to ACC's board include new priorities for the corporation to ensure entitlements were delivered transparently. She said ACC must follow a fair process for assessments and provide best practice and lawful services to preserve public trust.
However ACC would not be a soft touch for people trying to take advantage of it, Ms Collins said.

05 September 2012

ACC caught providing misleading answers again

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

ACC has admitted providing misleading answers to questions about its spending of $450,000 on spin doctors since a mass privacy breach was revealed in March.
Initially, the corporation told The Dominion Post it had not employed any consultant public relations staff since the breach, but had an agreement with consultants Acumen Republic dating back to 2009. It said it had paid Acumen $121,000 since July last year but, when more questions were asked, ACC said it “should have said” Acumen had actually lost its contract in an open tender last year.
A spokeswoman apologised for “any confusion”. Acumen had in fact been brought in and paid $103,000 since March for media and “issues management” advice.
ACC also confirmed it had paid another PR firm, Senate SJH, $347,000 for media and recruitment advice since March.
It is the second time this year that ACC has been caught providing misleading answers to questions from Fairfax reporters. In April, general manager of claims management Denise Cosgrove admitted providing what she said were “cute” answers on the corporation gagging its vocational rehabilitation providers from criticising its new service.
She initially said there were no gagging clauses in its contracts with those providers, but later admitted there were four such clauses in other documents that providers had to sign.
She said her first answer, though technically correct, was “cute".

04 September 2012

Evidence mounts against muddled ACC

An editorial from the Dominion Post

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to breach the privacy of one's clients once may be regarded as a misfortune; to do so twice looks like carelessness.
Except when the clients involved are accident victims who have entrusted sensitive personal information to the state accident insurer, ACC. Then the breaches look less like misfortune and carelessness and more like gross negligence.
The latest breach, revealed in yesterday's Dominion Post, shows the agency has learnt nothing from the earlier privacy breach, also revealed by The Dominion Post, that contributed to former ACC minister Nick Smith resigning and former ACC chairman John Judge and two other ACC board members not having their terms extended.
Then an ACC manager mistakenly attached a spreadsheet containing information about almost 7000 ACC clients to an email sent to Auckland client Bronwyn Pullar. Informed of the breach, ACC wrote to Ms Pullar, asking for the return of the material but, despite not receiving it, took no further action till the breach was made public four months later.
The most recent breach occurred a few weeks after the Pullar breach became public. The circumstances are disturbingly similar. They betray a cavalier disregard for client privacy, slipshod systems and a reluctance on the part of the corporation to admit to making mistakes.
On March 29, ACC mistakenly sent a bundle of documents relating to an elderly Auckland client, Diane Hawke, to another claimant. The recipient did not notice the extraneous material till July when she went through the information sent to her by ACC, but when she did she emailed and called ACC several times. Despite that, Mrs Hawke did not learn of the breach till she spoke, six weeks later, to the woman mistakenly sent the information about her.
The corporation also failed to inform ACC Minister Judith Collins of what she has called a ''totally unacceptable'' mistake - a clear breach of the ''no-surprises'' policy insisted upon by ministers.
The picture that emerges is of an organisation in disarray and more concerned with maintaining the fiction that it knows what it is doing.
Less than two weeks ago, a damning independent report on the Pullar breach highlighted systemic inadequacies within ACC that increased the likelihood of privacy breaches, variable attitudes towards client personal information and a lack of accountability for addressing privacy issues.
The latest breach shows nothing has changed.
The public expect ACC to test the veracity of claims made by clients and to do all that can reasonably be done to rehabilitate them. However, they also expect claimants to be treated with dignity and respect and ACC staff to handle sensitive client information with care, not scatter it about cyberspace like confetti.
If mistakes are made they should be acknowledged, not ignored.
Ms Collins has her work cut out.

© 2012 Fairfax NZ News

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/7603931/Editorial-Evidence-mounts-against-muddled-ACC

03 September 2012

Minister fumes as ACC fails yet again

An article from the Dominion Post by Shane Cowlishaw

ACC'S privacy practices have again been exposed after it sent information about an elderly client to the wrong person, and then took six weeks to tell her about it.
The corporation also failed to inform ACC Minister Judith Collins about the breach. She was unaware of it until told on Friday by The Dominion Post.
Mrs Collins has weekly meetings with the organisation and has demanded a zero-tolerance approach to privacy violations. She said the latest breach was "totally unacceptable" and called for a full explanation from outgoing chief executive Ralph Stewart.
The information, which included details about Auckland resident Diane Hawke's injury, compensation and complaints about ACC, was sent to a client in the corporation's sensitive claims unit in a bundle of documents at the end of March - just weeks after the privacy breach involving whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar was revealed.
All correspondence with sensitive claims unit clients is supposed to go through more thorough security checks.
The mistake was not discovered until July, when the recipient, who has had her own privacy breached by ACC several times, finally found time to look at all the information she was sent. Incensed, she emailed and called ACC several times. She was shocked to discover six weeks later that Mrs Hawke had still not been told of the breach.
Both Mrs Hawke and the sensitive claims unit client were among the 7000 people whose details were inadvertently sent to Ms Pullar.
The fallout from Ms Pullar's revelations claimed the scalps of Cabinet minister Nick Smith, ACC chairman John Judge and several board members.
Last week a damning independent report into the breach vindicated Ms Pullar and highlighted a poor privacy culture at ACC.
The sensitive claimant said she was "mortified" at receiving Mrs Hawke's details, but her shock quickly turned to anger when she learnt how ACC had handled it.
"Look, I was just shattered that their strategy in the media is ‘We take it seriously'. This took them six weeks to get serious about. It's a bad, sick joke, and it's simply not good enough."
The breach raised several issues, including how historical information from a standard ACC claimant had been mixed up in current documents prepared for one handled by the sensitive claims unit, she said.
Mrs Hawke, who has been sent another person's details in the past, said she was angry to learn about the delay in informing her. "I thought ... here we go again, because I have no confidence in their privacy or anything else."
Ms Collins said Mr Stewart would report on how the breach happened and what was done to ensure it never happens again.
ACC spokeswoman Stephanie Melville said the six-week delay was too long, and ACC apologised. An inquiry was under way and no decision had been made on possible compensation. The findings of the privacy commissioner's report had been accepted and all recommendations would be implemented in full, she said.

TIMELINE
March 29: ACC sends the sensitive claimant a bundle of documents relating to her case.
July 11: Claimant, who regularly receives large volumes of documents from ACC, notices the March package contains nine pages of Diane Hawke's information, dated 2008.
July 11: Sensitive claimant emails her case manager over breach.
July 12, 16: Claimant rings ACC complaints office and customer support service manager Kerry Dow over breach.
July 18-22: She and Mr Dow exchange emails about breach and whether the documents have been destroyed.
August 15: After speaking to Mrs Hawke, sensitive claimant learns ACC has yet to tell her of the breach. She calls ACC again.
August 16: Mr Dow calls Mrs Hawke to tell her of the breach and emails sensitive claimant, informing her he has done so.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7597898/Minister-fumes-as-ACC-fails-yet-again

© 2012 Fairfax NZ News

24 August 2012

Culture of fear at ACC

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

Further action could yet be taken against senior ACC managers who failed to act on whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar's first warnings of a massive privacy breach.
As a damning independent report into the breach was published yesterday, ACC Minister Judith Collins has revealed that senior management were operating in a culture of fear at the time.
The report vindicates Ms Pullar, who revealed the breach after making repeated complaints to ACC management, board and staff members about privacy and other alleged breaches of the corporation's codes and laws.
Ms Pullar, an ACC client, was inadvertently sent private details of 6500 fellow clients. The information contained names and details of hundreds of people from ACC's sensitive claims unit, including rape and incest victims.
Since The Dominion Post revealed the privacy breach in March, the fallout from the scandal has included the resignations of Cabinet minister Nick Smith and chief executive Ralph Stewart, and the departure from ACC's board of chairman John Judge and directors John McCliskie and Rob Campbell.
Ms Collins said yesterday she had been told by Mr Stewart that, when he arrived in August last year, "even senior management worked in a culture of fear ... people felt they could not tell others about what had happened".
Asked whether she believed ACC should take action against senior managers involved in the case, she said it was difficult to comment on individual staff.
Interim ACC chairwoman Paula Rebstock said yesterday that she could not talk about individual managers either, but ACC would look at performance issues and take appropriate action. The corporation accepted it had a poor culture on privacy and would accept a string of recommendations to change that culture, she said.
Ms Collins said she expressed concerns about ACC's culture to Mr Judge on more than one occasion, and said she wanted clients treated with respect, courtesy and professionalism. The board did not seem to understand "just how important privacy was", and in June she dumped Mr Judge, Mr McCliskie and Mr Campbell by not renewing their directorships. She said it was a serious error of leadership by the board not to tell Mr Stewart of a list of serious allegations made by Ms Pullar at a meeting with ACC senior managers Philip Murch and Hans Verberne in December.
An ACC report of that meeting, given to Ms Collins three days after The Dominion Post exposed the privacy breach, said Ms Pullar threatened to go to the media and would withhold details of the breach unless she was given a guaranteed benefit. But a tape recording Ms Pullar made at the meeting showed the allegations were false, as was the statement by ACC that no specific details on the breach were given to the managers.
The report to Ms Collins also said that, given the serious nature of the breach, the details should have been escalated to more senior ACC management but were not.
Inquiries by police and the auditor-general later showed that statement was also wrong, and that the two managers at the meeting informed two superior managers and the board secretary about it.
Ms Rebstock said yesterday that, if any allegations in the report to Ms Collins were incorrect, "we will correct it". The original report was still on ACC's website yesterday.
Ms Pullar said she was pleased the report had vindicated concerns she had been trying to raise for years, and she was heartened that Ms Collins said all its recommendations were accepted. She said changes would provide better and fairer outcomes for everyone dealing with ACC.

23 August 2012

Damning report expected on ACC

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

An independent investigation into ACC, prompted by revelations of a mass privacy breach, is expected to condemn the corporation's culture and processes.
A report due out today is expected to bolster widespread criticism of ACC's repeated breaches of thousands of its clients' privacy since the mass breach was exposed by The Dominion Post. It is also expected to criticise ACC's leadership, privacy systems and the corporation's technology for dealing with highly sensitive information.
Fallout from the March privacy breach has included the resignations of Cabinet minister Nick Smith and ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart, and the departure from the corporation's board of chairman John Judge and directors John McCliskie and Rob Campbell.
The report is being made public on the same day that another by the Auditor-General's Office, on how ACC manages risk at board level, is tabled in Parliament.
Both investigations arose after an ACC client - later identified as Bronwyn Pullar - revealed she had been sent private details of 6500 fellow clients. The information contained names and details of hundreds of people from ACC's sensitive claims unit, including rape and incest victims.
In the ensuing fallout, The Dominion Post revealed that ACC grossly misrepresented what happened at a crucial December meeting between Ms Pullar, her supporter Michelle Boag, and two senior ACC managers.
In a report to ACC Minister Judith Collins, the corporation said Ms Pullar threatened at the meeting to go to the media and to withhold details of the mass breach unless she was given a two-year guaranteed benefit. The corporation laid a blackmail complaint with police.
But a tape recording of the meeting, made by Ms Pullar and provided to ACC, made a mockery of the blackmail allegations. It showed no such threats or demands were made, and that Ms Pullar was already on weekly ACC compensation. After police were provided with a copy of the recording, they dismissed the complaint, saying no offence had been disclosed.
Today's reports are not expected to end the scandal, as Ms Collins has taken defamation action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little for suggesting her office was involved in leaking an email identifying Ms Pullar as the whistleblower.
The privacy report has been compiled by former Australian federal privacy commissioner Malcolm Crompton and accountancy firm KPMG. Ms Collins has seen the draft and has said she agrees with it. Ms Pullar and Ms Boag would not comment because they said they did not yet know what was in the final report.

09 July 2012

Cool response to ACC payout offer

An article from the Dominion Post by Shane Cowlishaw

ACC has paid out almost $50,000 for eight privacy breaches in the past three years.
It refused to reveal the amount of each payment, other than to say that none was for more than $15,000. The payments contrast with offers of just $250 each to clients of the sensitive claims unit whose privacy has been breached in recent cases.
The corporation's privacy practices have been under the spotlight since The Dominion Post revealed in March that ACC had mistakenly released the names and details of 6500 claimants, including 250 sensitive-claims clients who are victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes. The blowout has seen the departure of ACC chairman John Judge, chief executive Ralph Stewart and board members John McCliskie, Rob Campbell and Murray Hilder. Both the privacy commissioner and auditor-general are investigating the breach.
Details provided under the Official Information Act show that, from 2009-11, ACC made eight payments totalling $48,897 for privacy breaches. It declined to provide a summary of each breach, although it agreed to provide a generic description.
Last month, ACC sent apology letters to those sensitive-claims clients who had expressed their anger at the recent breach and offered $250 if they agreed to stay silent. One client, who received her letter only last week, said she found the offer insulting. ACC had breached her privacy several times in the past and had been forced to pay her a "significant" amount, but despite this it kept happening.
"It's just crap, and it reeks of ACC trying to cover its rear end.
"I think for those that maybe this is a first time it may be reasonable. However ... I don't give a toss what they say about how much or how little the information is, the fact is my name and details were going around the countryside."
Lawyer John Miller, who specialises in ACC cases, said while the recent privacy breach may have been towards the lower end of the scale, many people knew that some clients had received thousands of dollars in other cases. It was hard to know if the $250 was simply a starting negotiating price from ACC, but regardless he believed the offer was a "derisory" sum that "just adds fuel to the fire".
"Rather than low amounts of money, it's often better sending a substantial gift basket with someone coming around apologising."
An ACC spokesman said it would be wrong to comment publicly on any details of financial settlements provided to clients. Details about how many $250 offers had been made and and accepted could not be provided at this stage, he said.

Privacy Breach Payouts (2009-2011)
Generic details of eight breaches provided by ACC:
2 – Released claim information to an unauthorised third party.
2 – Delay in providing personal information to a client.
1 – Requesting information from a medical provider that was not limited to the client's claim.
1 – Withheld personal information incorrectly and delayed in providing personal information to a client.
1 – Failed to provide personal information to a client.
1 – Released claim information to medical providers who were not relevant for the purpose of an assessment.

29 June 2012

ACC confirms testing for claimants

An article from the Dominion Post by Vernon Small

ACC's methods are again under the spotlight after it confirmed using "neuropsychological and psychological assessments" to help decide if claimants were being straightforward. That came to light yesterday after claims it uses "lie detector tests" to see if claimants are telling the truth.
Claimant Margaret Read told Radio New Zealand that ACC would not believe her statements of brain and spinal injuries, nor evidence from specialists, and applied a lie detector test.
An ACC spokeswoman declined to comment on an individual case, but said the no-fault insurer did not use lie detector tests.
Asked if any of its processes could be interpreted as a lie detector test, she said that was subjective. "What seems to be being referred to is the use of measures in neuropsychological and psychological assessments to provide some indication as to whether the client is presenting in a straightforward manner; that is, not under- or over-reporting their symptoms," she said.
"Neuropsychological assessments administer tests which look at the client's cognitive functioning (thinking functions such as language, attention, speed of thinking, memory, flexibility in thinking and problem solving skills)."
They were used to help indicate whether "clients are either minimising or exaggerating their emotional symptoms such as anxiety and depressive symptoms". This was also to determine whether the assessment results truly reflected a client's current emotional functioning.
When a client displayed evidence of a lack of effort, under-reporting or exaggeration of symptoms, ACC would try to determine why "and then provide the appropriate help the client needs to progress in their rehabilitation".
Labour ACC spokesman Andrew Little said he was "gob-smacked" by the practice, which was evidence of the distrust ACC had for claimants. "It sounds like lie-detecting to me."
Claimants' medical state was what mattered, not their personality. "They seem to be using criteria other than `is this person injured as a result of an accident?'."
Ms Read said she was asked to take a lie detector test to prove she did have spinal and brain injuries, which she passed. ACC still did not believe her and she took her battle to the courts.
"You feel absolutely shattered into tiny pieces, you keep saying `but I'm the person who's injured – why do I feel I'm being punished, why am I being bullied'."
ACC later backed down, and awarded Ms Read compensation. Taking the lie detector test had made her feel like a criminal, she said.
Lawyer John Miller, who specialises in ACC cases, said he was not aware of anyone undergoing lie detector tests at ACC. But part of the problem was that it was like an insurance company, asking so many questions people felt they were suspected of making things up, he said.
The attitude from ACC was that it was trying to minimise people's entitlements, rather than help them. "It's terrible if you're injured being at the mercy of some claims officer's views of you," he said.
ACC dealt quickly and efficiently with most people, but his clients were those at the hard end of the spectrum. "The more difficult claimants find they are treated badly by ACC and are perceived as exaggerating."
People viewed health problems they could not see with suspicion, and ACC claims officers were no different, he said.
An independent report into ACC privacy and security practices, sparked by the leak of confidential information to whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar, has been put back by two months. The inquiry, commissioned by the Privacy Commissioner and the ACC board, now has a deadline of August 23, instead of the end of this month, ACC interim chairwoman Paula Rebstock said yesterday.
The delay was caused by the volume of information that needed to be gathered and assessed.

28 June 2012

New contract to 'rebalance' ACC targets

An article from the Dominion Post by Andrea Vance

ACC Minister Judith Collins will set out tough new expectations in a new contract with the troubled corporation – to be tabled in Parliament today.
The document is a rolling three-year service and purchase agreement between the Government and the state insurer. It is understood to be a long way from an agreement signed in June 2010 by former minister Nick Smith, which focused on financial performance, and will "rebalance" its objectives.
Dr Smith and board chairman John Judge – who was let go this month – agreed ACC would get rid of 1150 long-term clients a year.
Ms Collins, who is in China, has said she wants to drive a "culture change" to restore public confidence in the corporation. In April, she said: "ACC must follow a fair process for assessing their eligibility and ensuring they receive fair entitlements."
The corporation has been attacked this year for operating a policy in which thousands of long-term clients – branded "low-hanging fruit" – were shed. The strategy paid staff bonuses to get clients off its lists. And the poor treatment of clients culminated in the Bronwyn Pullar saga – which claimed the scalps of Dr Smith, Mr Judge, chief executive Ralph Stewart and three other board members.
ACC called police after Ms Pullar went public with a mass privacy breach of the details of 6000 claimants. Police found no case to answer.
Green Party ACC spokesman Kevin Hague told Parliament yesterday that adjudicator Dispute Resolution Services had upheld almost half of the appeals lodged by long-term claimants kicked off ACC's books in 2012. He also revealed that the district court had also overturned half of ACC decisions upheld by Dispute Resolution Services.
Prime Minister John Key said that "over the past six years the average percentage of disputed decisions found in the corporation's favour is 71.8 per cent".
To say that "because a few cases go against the corporation, everything is broken there, is just simply incorrect".
Opposition parties yesterday criticised ACC for offering compensation worth $250 to victims of the data leak. Labour's ACC spokesman Andrew Little said the offer heaped "injustice upon injustice".

27 June 2012

ACC's $250 compo for breaches 'pathetic' - victim

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

ACC has sent letters of apology to rape and incest victims whose privacy was breached – offering them $250 if they agree to stay silent.
The breach exposed by the Bronwyn Pullar scandal in March included names and details of 6500 ACC claimants and 250 sensitive-claims clients who are victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes.
"When I got the letter and offer I just thought it was pathetic," one sensitive claims client said yesterday. "I just wanted to vomit. It's another slap in the face after all the things they've done."
The woman said it was a sick irony that ACC wanted confidentiality agreements when it was its own sloppy breach of confidentiality that caused the scandal in the first place.
The four-page letter from ACC privacy officer Miriama Henderson says: "We deeply regret that on this occasion we failed to provide the level of service you could rightly expect from us and wish to ensure you receive appropriate remedy for what happened."
It asks the clients for their bank account details and says an "integral element" of accepting the $250 is that the clients agree to "maintain the strictest confidentiality about the terms of the agreement and settlement of all aspects of it".
ACC said it was offering the money because the breach involved details of the clients being in the sensitive claims unit and that may have caused distress. It finished by saying ACC "has your best interests at heart" and was committed to moving forward positively "following this regrettable incident".
But the letters have drawn fire from several ACC clients in internet discussions and from the woman who provided a copy of her letter to The Dominion Post. Several have said they will not sign a secrecy agreement with ACC.
The sensitive claims unit client said ACC repeatedly breached name suppression in the privacy breach by sending names and details of sexual-violence victims to at least 50 ACC staff who should not have received them. Her letter from ACC says the corporation now removes the names of clients from spreadsheets before sending them out.
"After all the bullying, revictimising, disentitlement and waiting to go to court [to challenge ACC's decision to cut off her claim], they won't be having my signature," the woman said.
"Strictest confidentiality. They'd need a lawyer to explain the definition of that to them."

25 June 2012

ACC's quota deal with Smith revealed

An article from the Dominion Post by Phil Kitchin

ACC'S policy of ridding itself of thousands of long-term clients is laid bare in agreements the corporation signed with the Government revealing that a far tougher quota system was adopted two years ago.
Senior ACC managers have since spoken of their success at cutting long-term clients from the books at a conference in Australia, saying the "low-hanging fruit" was gone but the job would get harder.
General manager of claims management Denise Cosgrove told the actuary conference in Brisbane in November that ACC has now shifted its focus to high-cost claims and had "an absolute strategy" but was keeping it secret.
"But that's what we are developing this year. The dollar amount we can achieve in savings from the long-term tail service, so that's how we can drive some of these improvements," she said.
"You might sit there and say, 'Well yeah, sure, that's just all the low-hanging fruit and the easy gains. How are you going to sustain that momentum?' And I get that constant message from the board every day."
In June 2010, then ACC minister Nick Smith and outgoing ACC chairman John Judge signed a three-year agreement that stated as a "priority" that the corporation would get rid of 1150 long-term clients a year. It had 13,157 such clients when the service and purchase agreement was signed. For the first year of the agreement, ACC beat its target by "exiting" 1542 clients. The agreement was then amended, and last year aimed to reduce long-term client numbers by 406. ACC again beat that figure by cutting 843.
Ms Cosgrove told the group of insurers and actuaries in Brisbane that ACC had "an absolute strategy ... and we're not reporting it as a public measure yet". Its focus was now on high-cost claims because the "actuarial release" would be stronger.
The policy has drawn criticism from ACC clients, advocates and politicians.
Greens ACC spokesman Kevin Hague said the agreements showed ACC's board was under pressure to "literally remove thousands of claimants from the corporation".
The pressure from Dr Smith led to the board pressuring frontline staff and managers into adopting "highly unacceptable practices" such as bonus payments for getting clients off its lists, he said.
ACC had not yet signed an agreement with current ACC Minister Judith Collins, which would give her an opportunity to show her stated intent to "drive a culture change in ACC to restore public trust and confidence" in it.
"If, instead, the agreement she signs looks more or less the same as those of her predecessor, then her words will be seen as hollow," Mr Hague said.
An ACC spokeswoman said the long-term claims pool had decreased in recent years because there were fewer claims entering it and more leaving it.

22 June 2012

Little always wrong on ACC claims - Collins

An article from the Dominion Post by Andrea Vance

Cabinet minister Judith Collins says Labour MP Andrew Little's claim that she ordered ACC bosses to "go after" Michelle Boag are "wrong".
Mr Little used the protection of parliamentary privilege to say Ms Collins summoned chairman John Judge and chief executive Ralph Stewart to her office in Auckland and pressured them to complain to police about whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar. Ms Boag, a former National Party president, is Ms Pullar's advocate.
Ms Collins has repeatedly denied the claim she urged ACC executives to set the police on to Ms Pullar – who revealed a mass privacy breach involving more than 6000 claimants to The Dominion Post in March.
Ms Collins yesterday insisted: "He's just wrong and wrong and wrong. I'm just going to say this about Mr Little. He's just wrong. And again. He's always wrong."
She said of the fact that Mr Little had used parliamentary privilege, "that says everything".
The pair are locked in a defamation battle over previous claims made by Mr Little.
She also brushed off his claims that she is "a sociopath".
"I think he is under stress at the moment. And I forgive him."
ACC has been in turmoil since police threw out the complaint against Ms Pullar and Ms Boag. Mr Stewart and Mr Judge have resigned, two other board members have also left while another, Murray Hilder, confirmed on Wednesday he had quit rather than accept another term.

© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7149764/Little-always-wrong-on-ACC-claims-Collins

20 June 2012

ACC minister rejects funding change

An article from the Dominion Post by Vernon Small

ACC Minister Judith Collins has finally rejected a return to "pay-as-you-go" funding for the state-owned insurer, after earlier refusing to rule it out as part of a review of funding options.
"Pay as you go is not for us, no," she said today.
Labour spokesman Andrew Little has called for a debate about dumping the current fully funded model, which would allow levies to drop by up to 25 per cent.
The Greens' Kevin Hague favoured a switch to pay-as-you-go, but was also eyeing up to $15 billion in reserves held by the corporation for other projects.
Collins said the Government did not want to burden future generations with the cost of current accidents.
"I'm surprised that the Greens and Labour, who support the Cullen fund on the same basis as it's pre-funding superannuation, would suddenly decide that they want to burden our future generations with the cost of our injuries."
Some claimants could be with the corporation for up to 80 years, so it was unrealistic. to shift to pay-as-you-go.
She said the corporation was doing well on funding.
"What we're looking at is just looking at some of the levels of pre-funding," she said.
Under the current fully-funded model, ACC sets levies to cover the current and future costs of existing claimants and is aiming to reach its fully funded target by 2019. ACC currently has investments of $19.5b and a net liability of $4.5b.
Hague had said changing the way ACC was funded could give a $1b windfall to workers and businesses and free up the reserves to cut government debt or fund the Christchurch rebuild.
Little favoured leaving the existing reserves with ACC.
In the current year, ACC expects to collect $5b in levies from workers, employers and motor vehicle owners and pay out $2.8b.

ACC privacy breach payout offered

An article from the Dominion Post

ACC has posted letters offering compensation to victims of a mass privacy breach that saw their details mistakenly emailed to another client.
It is understood compensation is being offered to about 250 people whose cases are with ACC's most secure unit - the sensitive claims unit - which holds details of victims of violent and sexual crimes.
The amount offered is believed to be in the "low hundreds" of dollars and is not being extended to others whose cases were deemed to be less sensitive.
A total of 6748 ACC claimaints were on the database that was sent out by mistake to whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar. ACC has apologised for failing to act over the privacy breach after it was exposed in The Dominion Post.
The fiasco has claimed the scalps of ACC chairman John Judge, and board members John McCliskie and Rob Campbell. ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart has also resigned. ACC Minister Judith Collins yesterday confirmed the departure of another board member, Murray Hilder.

© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7134733/ACC-privacy-breach-payout-offered

19 June 2012

Premiums may drop in ACC rethink

An article from the Dominion Post by Vernon Small

ACC is in line for a major shake-up, with the two major parties eyeing changes that could see premiums plunge by up to 25 per cent.
Labour is rethinking its ACC policy, and could scrap the fully funded model to revert to a "pay as you go" approach – and yesterday ACC Minister Judith Collins refused to rule out a similar move.
During last year's levy review, the Cabinet agreed to "a review of the funding policy for the ACC accounts and the reasons for the fluctuations in the projections of the ACC's accounts".
Ms Collins said ministers were looking at the funding policy "which could include the stability of the scheme, good process for levy setting and the impact on the economy".
"We're not ruling out anything at this stage."
Labour leader David Shearer said a possible change had not yet been discussed by caucus. But the party's ACC spokesman, Andrew Little, said it was time for a public debate about funding options, with recent controversy highlighting ACC's overemphasis on lowering costs rather than meeting claimants' needs.
Under full funding the corporation builds up reserves to cover the current and future costs of existing claims, and is aiming to reach that goal by 2019. Under a pay-as-you-go approach, it would need only enough income in a year to cover annual claims, plus a possible buffer for unexpected costs or disasters.
Mr Little said his "back of the envelope" calculation was that levies could be cut by 20 per cent to 25 per cent if there was a move away from full funding. That could see the average levy per motor vehicle drop by about $80.
It could also free up billions of dollars for the Government to invest elsewhere, but it is more likely the existing reserves would remain with ACC.
Mr Little said his personal view was that it should retain its reserves. "It was always expected ACC would build reserves to enable it to meet ... a major civic disaster," he said.
"ACC will still need to have a healthy reserve fund, and it probably has it now."
Mr Little said the pressure for full funding "may contradict the requirement to treatment, compensation and rehabilitation; that might be a contradiction that we need to address".
"It seems to me it is the demands of full funding that lead to the sort of directives from a minister and the conduct of the board and the corporation that leads to the way some long-term claimants are treated and the way that serious and complex claims are being handled."
He had received an "avalanche" of complaints, along the lines of whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar, about the way claimants were treated. "Bronwyn Pullar is a symptom of a significant problem."
ACC's annual report showed it had targeted total claims costs of $3.1b but had undershot that with total claims of $2.6b. It had also exceeded its target of reducing long-term weekly compensation claims by 1150, achieving a cut of 1543.
Its 2011 annual report showed net assets of $17.8b including reserves of $16.6b. Its total outstanding claims liability was $24.5b. Its assets are forecast to reach $24b by the end of this month, against liabilities of $28.5b.