In February last year, he submitted an ACC claim through the uro-oncology department at Taranaki Base Hospital, seeking cover for “malignant neoplasia of the prostate” as a work-related gradual injury, due to exposure to dioxins and 2,4, 5- Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid in the form of pesticides.

A letter from his oncologist in support of his obtaining coverage, dated October 9, noted that the cancer had “unfortunately been relatively resistant to treatment and his prognosis is poor, certainly less than 12 months.”

ACC first rejected coverage, saying there was insufficient evidence to attribute the cancer to his work.

But that decision was overturned by an independent reviewer in September.

“While I accept that the findings are contradictory, reasonable evidence appears to be presented for a positive link between pesticide application and prostate cancer,” he wrote.

After that, ACC got an initial impairment rating of 55%, which would have meant a payout of $66,146.

This would have barely covered the debt caused by years of inability to work, Remiens said, and they challenged the decision.

Two weeks later, ACC raised its impairment rate to 78%, marking a payment of $160,842 (an increase of more than $96,000) it had since received.

The maximum impairment rating (and the one typically given to terminally ill applicants, Remiens said) was 80%, for a payout of $173,180.

“Even after all this battle, they still set him $13,000 short of the maximum,” he said.

The most egregious failure, Remiens said, was the lack of explanation for the change.

ACC deputy executive director of service delivery Michael Frampton said in a statement that the impairment rating was updated “after receiving further information.”

Remiens said that was not enough.

“They don’t explain why that is, there’s no consistency, there’s no rationale that can be applied to other customers, we can’t use this to provide an accurate estimate for someone else, because it’s essentially arbitrary,” he said. saying.

“I accept that they have discretion, but that discretion must be exercised within logical limits.”

Remiens said this type of situation was unfortunately common.

“This happens so often that inconsistency is becoming the main problem, because we may have a client who is feeling generous that day and gets their 80%, no problem.

“And then we have another client like (this one), who inexplicably receives 55 one day, followed by 78 the other day, and then is invited to be reevaluated, essentially, upon his death, when of course he cannot be evaluated. .”

-RNZ