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)

Like or Dislike: 14  7 (+7)

@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)

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Like or Dislike: 3  19 (-16)

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)

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)

Like or Dislike: 23  4 (+19)

Like or Dislike: 22  3 (+19)

Like or Dislike: 39  2 (+37)

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)

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)

Like or Dislike: 64  1 (+63)

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)

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Like or Dislike: 6  40 (-34)

Trevor, I would presume that it is section 74(1)(d) Social Security Act:

74 Limitation in certain other cases
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act or the Social Welfare (Transitional Provisions) Act 1990 or Part 6 of the War Pensions Act 1954 or the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the chief executive may, in the chief executive’s discretion, refuse to grant any benefit or may terminate or reduce any benefit already granted or may grant a benefit at a reduced rate in any case where the chief executive is satisfied—
(a) That the applicant, or the spouse or partner of the applicant or any person in respect of whom the benefit or any part of the benefit is or would be payable, is not ordinarily resident in New Zealand; or
(b) [Repealed]
(c) [Repealed]
(d) That the applicant has directly or indirectly deprived himself of any income or property which results in his qualifying for that or any other benefit or an increased rate of benefit:
(e) That the applicant has failed to take reasonable steps to obtain any maintenance or has foregone her rights to any maintenance to which she may be entitled in respect of herself under the Family Proceedings Act 1980 or any other 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: 0  11 (-11)

Agreed, Trevor, and this raises the question of whether ACC complied with section 50(1) of the Act which states:

50 Responsibilities of Corporation after claim lodged
(1) On receiving a claim for cover under section 48 from a person, the Corporation must—
(a) decide whether or not it accepts that the person has cover; and
(b) if it accepts that the person has cover,—
(i) provide information about the entitlements to which it considers the claimant may be entitled; and
(ii) facilitate the claimant’s access to those entitlements.

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)

Like or Dislike: 33  0 (+33)

“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)

Try http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_communications/documents/reports_results/prd_ctrb122314.pdf

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)