The Proof‎ > ‎

Exhibit B

This is an example of how the ACC uses omission to distort the truth. It also demonstrates how the ACC will misuse any Practitioner if it suits the ACC to do so. 

In the earlier stages of a protracted fight between myself and the ACC, Dr White Clinical Psychologist recommended four Psychiatrists in a report. One of those Psychiatrists was Dr Blue who I saw privately. As far as ACC process went I asked to see Dr Green who was also recommended by Dr White in her report. I was unable to see Dr Green and the reasons why are detailed in EOS. 

Dr Green states "Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I had decided to give myself a break for a while from doing ACC reports as my clinical practice is really busy and am currently focusing mainly on that aspect of my practice. However when I saw that Dr White is the claimants therapist I was ambivalent as I have a great deal of respect for her professional abilities as a clinical psychologist having attended conferences and workshops where she has taught and presented at a very high standard indeed. Thus I needed time to consider the matter. I have finally decided that I need a break from ACC clinical assessments for a while." Dr Green recommends Dr Violet instead. (Dr Violet was not one of the specialists recommended by Dr White just for the record but this did not concern me.) 

At a recent Review (which ACC lost) an ACC Case Manager mentions the contact with Dr Green in her submissions to the Reviewer. In those submissions she states "CM approached Dr Green who declined to accept this referral, and recommended Dr Violet instead." 

As we can clearly see Dr Green provided a detailed and reasoned response to ACC's request to assess me. Can you spot the "subtle" difference between what Dr Green actually said and the reporting of that contact in the ACC's submission for this particular Review?