by Catherine Delahunty
Four years ago, Bay of Plenty meatworker Johnny Taewa tragically died of the occupational disease leptospirosis.
After a lengthy battle, ACC eventually accepted cover for Johnny’s death and agreed to pay weekly compensation to his widow Cathy. ACC weekly compensation payments upon death can be aggregated into a lump-sum payment – an option that Cathy Taewa chose to take up. After all, she had lots of debt to clear and only one income coming in.
Shortly after, Cathy herself became ill and attempted to apply for a Work and Income benefit. She was then told she was not only ineligible for a benefit, but wouldn’t be eligible for five years because the lump sum payment she had received, and largely expended clearing debt, was treated as income.
She has had to struggle on attempting to work when she is not fit to work ever since, and at times has even become suicidal.
The way Cathy has been treated seems to be a particularly cruel and unfair interface between the ACC and benefit systems. So I have a few questions for ACC Minister Nick Smith and Social Development Minister Paula Bennett:
- Why was Cathy not told by ACC that future disqualification from receiving a welfare benefit was a potential consequence of her accepting the lump sum payment?
- Why was Cathy’s aggregated lump sum compensation as low as $35,000 when she could have received weekly compensation at a rate of 48% of her late husband’s pre-injury earnings for five years (or longer if she still had dependent children) had she chosen to not aggregate the payments?
- Why does a lump sum payment of $35,000, which would likely have been less than one year of her late husband’s wage, disqualify her from benefit for five years?
- Is it fair and reasonable for Work and Income to penalise Cathy for deprivation of income when, at the time she made the decision to aggregate the compensation payments, she could not possibly have anticipated getting sick herself and requiring benefit assistance?
- Is it fair and reasonable for Work and Income to penalise Cathy for deprivation of income when she was never told by ACC of the potential consequences for future benefit entitlement of her aggregating the weekly compensation payment?
Even though Paula Bennett was very forthcoming last year in putting personal information about beneficiaries into the public domain when it suited her politically, I’m not holding my breath for answers.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Catherine Delahunty on Tue, February 2nd, 2010
Tags: ACC, Cathy Taewa, Nick Smith, Paula Bennett, Work and Income
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
12 
27 (-15)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
12 
28 (-16)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
16 (-13)
Like or Dislike:
87 
7 (+80)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
30 (-26)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
5 
18 (-13)
@Trevor29
I suspect you are right. The relevant legislation is Schedule 1, Clause 67 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001:
Note subclause 2 – “…if requested by the spouse or partner…”.
Of course, if a spouse or partner isn’t told they can request the actuarial calculations, they are unlikely to make the request for them so won’t know how the sum offered was calculated.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11 (-6)
Why did Cathy and her late husband not take out life insurance?
Had he done so Cathy would not have had to stick her hand out for more of my money (no doubt she and her family are already stealing off me by way of WWF) when her late husband lost his life.
The only answer Cathy should receive from our government is “no more”.
p.s. Well said Sianna Taewa, but do not expect anything but negative karma from the people here, they are more than happy to use the death of your father for their own selfish political gain, NEVER be conned into thinking that Comrade Delahunty and co actually care.
Like or Dislike:
67 
30 (+37)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
6 
24 (-18)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
13 
24 (-11)
“It was an occupational disease he died from bruv. That would have given rise to a substantial damages claim against the employer pre-ACC.”
And of course you have proof of this?
Even if it is, it still should not be my problem, employers have insurance (or should have) and they can battle it out with any affected employee’s, this should not be something that the tax payer has to fork out for over and over again.
How is saying that this man should have had life insurance benefit bashing Toad?
Once again you guys jump on the band wagon to suit your own nasty little political gain, even when presented with the truth by a member of the Taewa family you continue pushing this issue.
Like or Dislike:
41 
14 (+27)
bro, leptospirosis is a Scheduled Occupational Disease under the IPRC Act in respect of people working with animals or their carcasses.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11 (-6)
So what?, the real issue here is that another Kiwi did not take responsibility for their own family.
Had this man taken our life insurance then he would not have left any debts for his partner to cover.
I have to ask you Toad, have you not seen the comments of Sianna Taewa? they clearly state that “Cathy” is not much more than a bludger, yet for some reason you continue to push her case.
Like or Dislike:
52 
11 (+41)
Nothing anyone says on here will upset me. What Cathy is doin upsets me. If you follow this link it outlines the court hearing and decision made as Cathy took matters further to get yet another lump sum payment. She also tried to succeed my dads maori land claims as well, as I was notified by another family member. She was unable to because he was still married to my mother. I believe that my dad was unaware of his entitlements when he was alive therefore never applied for anything as this disease took hold of him quite quickly in the end. My dad was a simple man and a chronic asthmatic. Unfortunately for Cathy they never took out a life insurance plan. I’ve been in australia for a bit over two years now and as a taxpayer and fulltime worker myself I am horrified that people go to such lengths to suck every last coin out of a loved one.
Like or Dislike:
79 
1 (+78)
Hmm broken link. Bummer
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
79 
0 (+79)
Try http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_communications/documents/reports_results/prd_ctrb122314.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I believe that my dad was unaware of his entitlements when he was alive therefore never applied for anything as this disease took hold of him quite quickly in the end.”
The court case decision supports this view. The next question is why wasn’t John Taewa aware of his entitlements and was he badly advised by ACC or other authorities at the time?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Im sorry I have no idea why that is. That is something only Cathy has the answers to. Whenever we spent time with him he would never talk about things like that. I wish he would have. Maybe I could have helped. Even so I would only be able to do as much as she would allow anyway.
Like or Dislike:
33 
0 (+33)
Agreed, Trevor, and this raises the question of whether ACC complied with section 50(1) of the Act which states:
It may be the case that Mr Taewa was informed of his possible entitlement to lump sum compensation and chose not to apply. However, it may also be the case that he was not informed. If the latter, ACC or an accredited employer would have been in breach of their statutory duty, and breach of statutory duty is a cause of action for damages in tort.
Incidentally, the lump sum compensation that is referred to in District Court decision 199/2009 is a completely different entitlement to the aggregated spousal weekly compensation entitlement that Catherine referred to at the start of this thread.
I also find the legislative provision prohibiting eligibility for lump sum compensation to the estate of someone who has cover but dies because of their injury before they can be assessed for lump sum compensation somewhat iniquitous. Why is an assessment needed in such instances? If someone dies from their injury, their level of whole person impairment upon which lump sum compensation would be calculated is obviously 100%.
Like or Dislike:
3 
11 (-8)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
11 (-11)
Trevor, I would presume that it is section 74(1)(d) Social Security Act:
They will presumably be arguing that in accepting an aggregated payment which she used to clear debt she has deprived herself of income from the spousal weekly compensation that she could otherwise be receiving.
Pity no-one told her at the time.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
6 
40 (-34)
There should be a system to mitigate the circumstance of a partner on the lump sum support option – should they later require benefits themselves.
How is this related to redundancy payments and eligibility to the dole if the person does not move into another job? Don’t people keep their redundancy if they find new work. Once they were denied the dole for awhile, but is that still the case?
Is there not some comparison here?
Given the obvious large saving made in paying out the lump sum, surely benefit eligibility should be maintained. Even if not, the $35,000 amount is only 3 years of SB, which speaks to inherent policy weakness in this circumstance.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
64 
1 (+63)
If John Taewa was not being paid by ACC during his illness, then I presume that he would have been eligible for the sickness benefit (unless Cathy’s income was too high?). Was any such payments made, and if not, is Cathy still eligible to receive any payments for this period?
Given that John Taewa worked in the food preparation industry, would he have been allowed to work after a diagnosis of leptospirosis? If not, why would any additional assessment by ACC be needed?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cathy was ruled eligible to receive weekly compensation and opted to convert this to a lump sum. We have not been informed of the details of this original weekly compensation, such as the rate of payment or the duration, but surely this is very relevant considering that it was foregoing this weekly compenstion that is being used to justify not paying the sickness benefit to Cathy now? In particular, would that payment have been made for 5 years?
Had Cathy not opted to receive the compensation as a lump sum but was still receiving it as weekly compensation, would she now be eligible for the sickness benefit (or a portion of it)?
Given that ACC have accepted cover for Johnny’s death, have they made any payments towards medical costs or funeral expenses etc, or is this considered part of the compensation payment? If the latter, then should it be treated as income to Cathy, or should it be treated as a reimbursement and therefore outside the “view” of Work & Income? If neither, then should they have paid for treatment or funeral expenses?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
It is rather amusing though to see the blame shift to current ministers. I though do not believe this shows a lack of awareness of the previous ministers as a single case is would be shrouded in paper work. I do believe that to use it as ammo is a statement of your ignorance.
Like or Dislike:
39 
2 (+37)
Like or Dislike:
22 
3 (+19)
Like or Dislike:
23 
4 (+19)
Frog: Above comnet was not made by me – please no not publish anything under tis name until it is sorted – please contact me immediately by phome or e-mail
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Bob – Catherine is merely asking questions of the current ministers to highlight an issue, and is not blaming them. Hopefully these ministers will ask the questions of their respective ministries and the case will be reviewed with one or more of several possible outcomes:
- a senior manager will look at an aspect of Cathy’s case and say “Cathy should apply under … as she is elegible for…”;
- a senior manager will look at an aspect of Cathy’s case and say “this rule wasn’t correctly applied and Cathy is elegible for…”;
- a senior manager will decide “these rules were applied correctly but the outcome was not that intended by the respective legislations and so I will use my discretion to…”;
- the ministers will use their discretion;
- the ministers will conclude that Cathy’s case has exposed an unintended consequence of a piece of legislation (or similar) and will work to correct that legislation, and possibly backdating the fix.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
19 (-16)
@Mark (the real one) 10:55 AM
The bogus Mark’s 8:18 comment was in the moderation queue and I approved it without realising the email address was not yours. System is working fine – just a sloppy frog. Off for some self-flagellation now.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Yes….just like those evil anti union national standards in education discussion of this issue also must be kept from “the people” least they start to question and…..gasp!…form an opinion of their OWN!
Horror! :-O
“An informed populace is a pain in the arse!”
(Some lefty pollie,some time)
Like or Dislike:
14 
7 (+7)
I have read all the messages above and comment as follows. I am a Taewa and am fully aware of the feelings Sianna and Shannon have for the circumstances in which Cathy continually milks her loss. As proud people, I commend Sianna and Shannon for their courage and level of professionalism about this bantering that keeps entering their lives. They loved their father, they gained nothing from his loss nor did they want anything even though they both raise young children and could certainly have done with a little of that lump sum that Cathy took. Shame on you Cathy for still squeezing the system for all you can get. Let John rest, he may not have left anything behind, but as a partner to him for many years, you are as responsible as he was for taking care of your own future finances. Its always the ones who don’t think ahead that we taxpayers will forever have to fork out for. Let Johns children have their memories without you constantly appearing in their lives with this detrimental rubbish. We Taewas all know the truth about you and as far as the well meaning people on this site making valid comments about the holes in the system, there are holes in all the systems when it comes to welfare and Cathy is certainly not a statistic that should be considered welfare. You took your money Cathy, then you spent it and now you want more – perhaps the government should consider training to all beneficiaries on how to manage their money better, this would be money well spent. And for all those doubters about whether ACC informed Cathy, well shes a very shrewd woman who is still trying to find loopholes to make a buck out of. Believe you me, I haven’t met too many career beneficiaries who don’t know exactly what they are entitled to and Cathy would have known everything.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)