Dying man receives $62,000 ACC payout

Email
Print

Thu, 19 May 2011 7:00p.m.

John le Normand

John le Normand

By Tristram Clayton

John le Normand's lungs are - to put it bluntly - stuffed.

They are so full of asbestos that even a quick trip to the letterbox requires the help of a wheelchair, and the pushing-power of 10-year-old grandson Liam.

Doctors say he has less than three months to live, but John doesn't care about that. He's going shopping.

The reason he can afford it? An ACC payout he's been fighting for since 2007.

"The letter actually I got on the Thursday night. [I] came out late because I spent some time with the family, and I thought I'd go and look at my letter box. That was nine o’clock at night. I opened it up and there it was stating that I was going to get this money," John said.

John was getting $62,000 from ACC. He said he's rapt.

"That's the most money I've had in a long time. Living on the benefit is a very difficult thing to do - it's almost an impossibility - so this coming through is just giving me some expectation so I can pay some bills and enjoy my family."

For the past four years, John's received just $14 a week from ACC.

ACC justified the sum by saying "Mr. le Normand suffers from multiple significant health issues, most of which are not the result of injury and are therefore not covered by ACC."

But John didn't accept that.

He had medical advice saying work place exposure to asbestosis was a big part of his health problems.

He fought on. Then, last Thursday, ACC agreed.

John thinks they changed their mind so suddenly because of Campbell Live's involvement.

"I think had I not contacted TV3 I'd still be blowing in the wind. In fact I can almost put a guarantee on it. The moment I contacted you guys, they had to answer the questions - answering to a bigger audience."

John says the money will change his life.

"It seems crazy. But a weight lifted - pay that bill, buy that piece of clothing - I cannot emphasis how hard it is to live on the benefit. Politicians aren't listening," he said.

"I lost a lot of time with this sickness since 2007 - couldn't save for any sort of legacy for my children. Now I can leave them something. I can pay for my funeral. I can leave behind happiness. I can have a good time on me too."

Watch the video to see the interview.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

09 Jun 2011 05:34p.m.

JO wrote:

ACC Asbestos Compensation is discusting. These men are usually the hard working labourers of the 1970s who built New Zealand. They worked hard while their bosses got rich and now nobody is responsible for their asbestos poisoning. It is an absolute insult that Asbestos Victims get such paltry sums of money. They deserve to be treated better and should be given much more than a measley $60,000 payout. That's one year's wages in my book.

24 May 2011 12:06p.m.

Peter wrote:

What ACC has failed to identify in this instance is the long held view of the eggshall skull rule applied in tort.

Basically it means you take the victum as you see him/her, that although they may have an array of "medical issues", if it were not for that single event that happened, the claiment would not be in the position that they were in.

John may have smoked, he may even have had COPD, however the event of breathing in asbestos accelerated his condition, and if he had not smoked, he still would have developed his condition by breathing in asbestos.

The same applies to other areas of tort.

In my view Mr.le Normand's $14 a week was a serious error in judgement by the ACC and his reward of $65000 is good, but not anough to compensate the loss of income over the period of his incapasation. It should be 80% of loss of earnings backdated from the date of incapacation

My fear here is that there still is a miscarrage of justice and that ACC has gone for a far cheaper option.

22 May 2011 07:31p.m.

julie wrote:

i have had a hard year thanks to "wrong diagnosis" was told after test done at Hastings hospital.. You have cancer..untreatable..inoperable... TIME!!! months not years to live.. we will start to send the hospis to see you if you like.. and you can see an oncolgist if you wish ..but this will cost you abt $300.00.. This ofcourse didnt all settle into my brain.. went home with one loaded brain.. couple days later went into shock.. my hair started to fall out ..unable to eat..drink... went into kidney failure..told by doctors at hospital ..if kidneys don't to work i might not make it ..second death sentence... with the help of lots of fluids given.. kidneys worked fine.. finally got to see the oncologist.. to be told he had..had a phone from the pathologist , who said ..He thinks he jumped the gun..on my diagnosis.. F.U.C.K i thought..I have been put thru all this emotional hell because he got it wrong... Now it seems yes i do have a cancer but it can be treated.. acc was approached thru the help of a very nice doctor... but! it seems ..no one will take responsibilty for this muck up.. i just about died thru shocl and lost the will to fight.. Acc contacted me..only to say..they cant help.. I have not suffered any physical injuries.thru accident but! hey hair loss ..physical Kidney failure..physical.. theni had to have surgery just to prove a point..if the diagnosis was right in the beginning i would not have to had the surgery... which now causes me a lot of discomfort.. once again a physical injury thanks to mis-diagnosis... and lots of physical discomfort cause by doctors who cant do a procedure..that has left me with pain in ribs both sides.. what is our hospital system coming to.. i think i derseve help from ACC for the emotional..and physical pain i have been put thru..i wouldnt be here today.. i was asked if i had contemplated suicide over this..i replied i will just give up drinking and then i would go into kidney failure and die..

22 May 2011 04:52p.m.

cato wrote:

Work this out! 2003 I paid for an operation to cure a hiatus hernia. On waking I had two punctured lungs, a punctured diaphragm and the vagus nerve which starts the digestive system had been severed ( this cannot be reversed). I now have to feed through a tube with an electric pump. A further operation was needed to allow my stomach to empty as contents were putrifying in the stomach.
This has left me with a condition known as dumping. This means that anything I take goes straight through an is excreted. Whilst walking through a shopping centre, I had an involuntary bowel movement that left me covered from the knees down in excretia. The precinct was full and I had nowhere to go.
I am unable to travel on buses, trains,planes etc.,. As I must have a toilet available at all times. I am now a virtual prisoner in my own home.
In March 2010 I lodged an appeal against ACC, in December, I got a phone call asking when I was going to lodge my appeal.( They had lost it) I had to re submit everything to ACC. I have not had any word from them since sending in my papers.
I discovered tha ACC use a book : A guide to permanent impairment ( An Ameican publication). This is how they work out the ratings for a client's compensation.
My inability to control my bowel movements is classed as a disability so ACC do not compensate for that.
An example in the ACC handbook guide is this:
A concert pianist loses a little finger in an accident, a gardner loses a little finger in an accident. Which one is entitled to the most compensation?
Answer: They both get the same as the injury is just looked at as the loss of a little finger.
What are they entitled to?
Answer zero! Because the loss is regarded as less than 10% and ACC do not compensate for injuries less than 10%
Another is if you lose one leg you are compensated at a figure that represents a % of 100. If for example that figure is 20% you are given that amount of compensation.
If you are unfortunate to lose your other leg. What compensation do you get?
20% of 100%?
No way, you only get 20% of 80% as you only had an 80% body left.
Is that fair?

20 May 2011 05:16p.m.

Pauleen wrote:

so sad, rest in peace.

20 May 2011 04:18p.m.

STP wrote:

Some insurance company can be very cruel out there if it comes down to pay out the lump sum.

Agreed that ACC should be paying more than $62,000 for John

20 May 2011 09:06a.m.

m.collins wrote:

maybe acc needs to be looked into(just like milk gate) i have been fighting acc for treatment and compensation for months with no treatment on injury. we have been paying replacement staff all this time, out of our pocket.it is inhumaine to treat us like this . if we were a cow the spca would have stepped in.
the thing that made me laugh was the bill to pay our acc levies arrived. should we pay for something we do not received (bad business if you ask me).
why pay insurance if you now you are not going to received it when you need it.

20 May 2011 08:46a.m.

RolanTheRat wrote:

AH ACC stands for ANY CLAIM CHALLENGED.

19 May 2011 10:52p.m.

Norm Patterson wrote:

$62.000 is a pitiful payout for this injury, it should be in the several millions, plus the fact that ACC were not giving him entitlement for all tose years.
ACC is an absolutely SHOCKING organization to deal with, and becoming worse under this government, personal experience!!

19 May 2011 09:20p.m.

Kahl Sharpe wrote:

I too have been fighting ACC since 2008. Not for a lump sum payout, but for treatment for injuries I suffered in an accident in April 2008 and still have not received treatment for. John is 100% correct that ACC is staffed by people trained to spend as much money as it would take to treat a claimants injuries, trying to prove the claimants injuries are not covered by ACC. John is also 100% correct that unless you get the media involved to emphasise your story, you will never get anywhere with ACC. I suffered a spinal injury and injured both of my shoulders in an accident in April 2008. The spinal injury was diagnosed and urgent surgery applied for two months after the accident but I was not operated on until nine months after the accident because of ACC staff claiming the injury did not happen in the accident. My right shoulder was not operated on until 22 months after the accident because ACC first tried to claim I was not suffering from a right shoulder injury. When the right shoulder injury was proven, ACC staff tried to claim it did not happen in the accident. It is now over 3 years after my accident and ACC is now claiming my left shoulder injury happened sometime between my accident and now but was not injured in the accident of April 2008 and therefore they don't have to cover it. Before my accident I was a builder but haven't been able to work since my accident and I still need an operation on my left shoulder before I will be able to rejoin the work force in any capacity. I anticipate I will have to take ACC to court shortly to receive treatment for an accident I suffered over 3 years ago.