A CHARGE OF ACC FRAUD … IS IT FAIR AND REASONABLE?

Date of article: 30 October 2002

Private investigation companies are coming to rely more and more for their income as a result of contracts that they have to investigate ACC recipients on behalf of the Corporation. Did you know that once ACC determines to lay a fraud charge that effectively the private ACC investigator controls the prosecution file from that point on? Recently we represented an ACC recipient at a review hearing who had his weekly compensation suspended because the Corporation had determined to lay fraud charges for carrying out activities contrary to the restrictions specified in his medical certificate.

After two rounds of review by Disputes Resolution Service Limited and one appearance on appeal at the District Court the appeal against the suspension of the weekly compensation was upheld on the grounds that there was no medical evidence to justify the suspension. The District Court also expressed its displeasure at the quality and reasoning employed in the first review decision made by the reviewer employed by Disputes Resolution Service Limited.

Our client has since appeared in the District Court on fraud charges associated with the original suspension. What is outrageous is that the principle of natural justice would indicate that if ACC cannot uphold its decision making process at the lower level of proof of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ at a Disputes Resolution Service Limited review; then ACC can hardly further the prosecution on the higher judicial standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in the District Court.

The trap is however, that the Corporation is able to argue at the District Court the significance of our client counter signing the ACC 18 medical certificate with its associated small print conditions. This raises a hornet’s nest as to the proper purpose of the medical certificate. Why should a recipient be compelled to sign the ACC 18 form when it is a professionally qualified person certifying that the recipient has specific medical conditions that determine the capacity of the recipient to work? More on that in an upcoming article on how in signing the ACC 18 certificate this action actually breaches your right to permit the Corporation to gain information only on a need to know basis rather than by the blanket measure of a recipient signing the Corporation’s information disclosure form.

The outcome of the District Court trial will not be known for another month or so, so keep watching. In the meantime a person who has proved his right to ongoing weekly compensation at the civil standard is subjected to the emotional pressure of awaiting the decision of the District Court on a criminal charge that should never have been laid.

I wonder if the ACC charges fail, whether ACC will offer to pay the legal costs that the ACC recipient has been forced to pay in defending himself given that legal aid is not made available in these circumstances.

Article contributed by: D V [Mike] Dixon-McIver

Advkit Para Legal Services