ACC defends decision in wasp death

30/06/2012 8:39:17 p.m.

David wrote:

Um Mike... what utter rubbish again... ACC fraud isnt high as you say it is. Infact benefit crime of any sort has been measured around the world as being low to minimal and is estimated to be around 1-5 percent of all recipients. Maori are the indiginous race in New Zealand... and I think its about time the racist rednecks who complain about them getting compensation need to grow up. You people are the kind of people we avoid being friends with, that we talk about... we say things like "hey Pete.... remember that racist redneck called Mike". Reverse racism is still racism... it was an american who originally said there is nothing more unequal than treating unequals as equals, his name was Thomas Jefferson.

30/06/2012 9:43:14 a.m.

cato wrote:

Can anyone point me in the right direction to speak to the ACC Pakeha advisor?

30/06/2012 8:53:11 a.m.

Mike wrote:

ACC has in this case taken a narrower view than they had to. I would expect the initial case manager to throw the case out, but for it to be approved when bumped up higher. We do need ACC to be difficult to get as we have so much ACC fraud in NZ and doctors are so easy to get to sign off on ACC funding. But still, ACC should have covered this when bumped past the intial case manager.

If someone was shot and their heart stopped, would this be covered? I remember reading something along those lines in a book, started off saying a guy had died from heart failure ... then expanded on it to explain a bullet had helped cause the stoppage ... something about a hole through the heart, so it stopped beating. Im guessing the same ACC people would claim it was again natural causes?

ACC has the flex to do more and the stings were the direct cause and they could have signed off on it this way but chose not to. Now if there was no wasps and the guy died from a heart attack, he would not be covered under ACC, but the wasps changed everything. Wasps = external so by that alone it meets the requirement of ACC. There have been cases in the past ACC has covered wasp/bee stings so this is a case of ACC being picky and I cant see why? A normal person starts getting to the life threatened stage with 100+ stings. What has been described is many more than this.

Using racist funding to pay out while claiming not paying out? Thats disgusting! We need to get rid of all racist laws/funding in NZ.

The family should have received ACC and not koha.

30/06/2012 6:46:20 a.m.

alison wrote:

I have to admit I too thought why is acc not being asked how many pakeha get a koha and advisor. Im pleased they have paid the money to the family but feel its just another acc blunder. Whats Judith collins take on this? would be interesting

29/06/2012 8:46:58 p.m.

D. Payne wrote:

Re: Wasp story: How many pakeha New Zealanders get koha from ACC when they have a challenging family situation? Why does ACC need a Maori advisor as opposed to an advisor for all people? It was obviously an accident and the family should have had ACC support regardless of ethnicity.