ACC's use of this guide
in New Zealand is to put it bluntly an affront to all, as it
stands the guide is at best a good door stop. An article by the
JAMA (Journal American Medical Association) has stated in no
uncertain terms that in its present form it is not
acceptable!
To see the original intention of the 1972 Accident Corporation Compensation Act visit the NZ First Party link here
This article by Act's Richard Prebble, is this the real reason for ACC's abuse of the guide?
They have listed nine revisions that are imperative to the credibility of the guide.
And yet ACC still use it!
This is not about helping the injured in any way, it is more like us verses them mentality, ACC do not care whether or not the injured person is deserving of disability payments, it only sees the cost that has grown since the stopping of lump sum payments, lets face it, a majority of injuries in this country and around the world are back related and this is why the AMA Guide was produced in the first place. The guides system of evaluating back injuries are so stringent that it is next to impossible to obtain a 50% impairment no matter how disabled you are!
The JAMA article concludes that: "The Guide (4th edition) has come under justifiable criticism for setting arbitrary ratings for conditions. The methods used to develop the numerical ratings of impairment must be improved or the credibility of the Guides will be jeopardized." (italics mine)
The Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association has a very scathing article on the use of the guide in Australia.
From the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association:
(1) The AMA Guides say in their introduction that they should not be used to decide claims for benefits.
(2) The AMA Guides are complex, complicated, rigid, fail to take into account significant factors such as adverse changes to lifestyle, pain, and psychological\psychiatric injury, disregard the individual and under-estimate certain well-known consequences of physical injury.
(3) A study of a large number of injured workers in the USA showed that the AMA Guides routinely underestimate the severity of injuries and particularly the effects of an injury on a workers quality of life. For example, back injuries do not receive the attention they deserve, considering the magnitude of such injuries in the workplace.
Disability
According to the fifth edition of the AMA Guides, disability is defined as "an alteration of an individual's capacity to meet personal, social, or occupational demands because of an impairment." The WHO defines disability as an activity limitation that creates a difficulty in the performance, accomplishment, or completion of an activity in the manner or within the range consider normal for a human being. Difficulty encompasses all of the ways in which the performance of the activity may be affected.
It is time to stop this unfair and unjust system of impairment that benefits the insurance industry (ACC) and not the injured. It is time to let the ACC Minister and the Prime Minister know that the guide is not acceptable in its present form, below is an e-mail form that will bring up your e-mail program, just click on e-mail this person after you select.
Do not be afraid to say what you think about this! E-Mail both!
Here is a link to the E-Mail addresses of the present government if you have a local MP mail him\her as well!
This is another attempt by ACC to undermine the right to claim compensation, it also gives rise to the question and I quote " Is ACC being run as a profit making organisation?"
ACC is supposed to be an institution that assists and helps the injured, not put up unproven guides from another country to prevent entitlement.
The AMA Guide to Impairment (4th Edition) has not been proven to be acceptable within the medical community in the country that produced the guide.
In my view this AMA Guide should be shelved and not used until the revisions have been implemented, to this the 5th edition did not implement these recommendations
