A woman is claiming ACC cover for mental injury after suffering post-traumatic stress disorder when she discovered her partner was HIV-positive.
In 2004, the woman found out her sexual partner was HIV-positive and endured a traumatic six-month wait to find out if she had also contracted the virus.
Though the test eventually came back negative, the woman became mentally ill and lost her job due to the stress. ACC refused compensation cover.
Appearing in the Court of Appeal yesterday her lawyer, John Miller, argued that the woman was the victim of a crime, not just an accident, according to the Dominion Post.
ACC would cover an injury, such as a bad back, sustained during sex, he said.
Physical injuries are covered, but mental injury was only covered in some situations, ACC's lawyer Alistair Barnett said.
The woman's former partner, Justin Dalley, was convicted of criminal nuisance in 2005 for not telling another sexual partner he was HIV-positive. Victims of certain crimes are covered but others, such as criminal nuisance, are not covered by ACC, Barnett said.
Here is another example where inconsistencies as to what situations ACC applys becomes a Court Case. John Miller points out that a bad back sustained during sex would be covered by ACC but not apparently the accidental trauma of discovering that one might have been infected with HIV. The more of these cases that become public show that there appears to be little commonsense in use of the safety net designed to capture members of the NZ public who suffer mental or physical injury. Also, a puritan like attitude if sex is involved that develops a mentality against victims of certain crimes, or unproven crimes.
Putting aside the specific details of this case or others for the moment, there is no escaping the cost, in 'saving' this money by denial, created difficulty or other means that this insurer uses - is greater than in fact provided the services. Pragmatism isn't at home at ACC, they'll spend a 1,000 to avoid paying 50. From an outsiders point of view it seems, like all insurers, their philosophy is to avoid paying out. I can't see the public benefit in that, particularly being one of those that pays ACC levies, I'd rather see the money spent in the spirit of catching those injured, rather than being used to fight against them using interpretations of the law rather than the spirit of the legislation. People are being paid to deny other nzers their right to ACC cover, people who seemingly harbour some disapproval of victims of abuse in a way that reminds me of the ongoing ordeal of Louise Nicholas who isn't allowed to tell ACC of her stress disorders but must be told by ACC what they are or aren't. Then of course is Jacqui who has written here earlier and who like Louise resists being 'instructed' by ACC personnel who are operating under a design to deny claimants, in certain ACC categories, fairness. And for what? To deny them until they die, as happened to Vivian Harrison, under an equally unmoving Justice Department that allowed her to die without correcting the public record that she, like her husband, had never been involved in anyway in the Crewe murders.
Where's our egalitarian society headed when those physically or mentally injured have a trap door placed under their feet and not a safety net? Why are those entrusted to ensure the application of the spirit of the Act driven by denial to applicants? Why must applicants fight because of events they were not responsible for in anyway? Why don't the public know (this might be available I'm not sure) the actual cost of denying or delaying treatments under ACC compared to what the cost of those treatments would be. Traditionally, cost cutters are tasked with cutting down spending. It seems that ACC need someone to ensure delivery first of services rather than denial first. It's all a mindset, and at the moment the mindset is against those that ACC are legislated to serve.
No comments:
Post a Comment