Who conducts the Reviews?

Employees of the Dispute Resolutions Services Limited also known as the DRSL. 

Where are Reviews conducted?

DRSL hire meeting facilities around various locations. More information on DRSL venues and main centre contact details can be found here.

Does ACC attend the Review?

Yes ACC does. ACC staff can be there in person or by teleconference. 

Do I have to attend the Review? 

No you can file written submissions or have an advocate represent you without you being there. However it is always good to attend as this allows the Reviewer to see you and minimises ACC's opportunities to misrepresent you. 

ACC are offering mediation should I agree?

I would advise against ACC offers of mediation. ACC is not going to give in at mediation. ACC uses mediation as an opportunity to evaluate you and any potential arguments they may find inconvenient. ACC also uses mediation to try and push their line as much as possible. If you agree to mediation you have to attend. If you attend by yourself you will be pressured as much as ACC can slip past the mediator. If you have an advocate then you will have to pay that advocate and you cannot recover costs on mediation. Mediation offers the advantage to ACC and for what? ACC is never going to give in until they are made to. 

I have heard the Reviewers support ACC and are corrupt. Should I be concerned?

No. The Reviewers are not corrupt. There are several reasons why a rightfully entitled claimant can lose at Review but corruption in the DRSL is not one of them. There is one dynamic that can be encountered in a claim that the claimant needs to be aware of. In politics there is a name for a certain method of saying certain things without actually saying them. This is called "dog whistle" politics. The dog whistle ACC and a handful of assessors prefer to use is the malingerer whistle. Careful analysis of reports can turn up this hidden message. Essentially the Reviewer is given the message that the claimant is a malingerer. This is very effective. There is little in the way of open accusation so technically there is nothing to refute. Evidence put forward for the claimant is spurned as a manipulation. No one will actually come out and say it but the underlying message is clear. This is a cheap trick that pays good dividends and you the claimant must be aware of any dog whistling occurring on their file. When the dog whistle is successful the claimant ends up with an erroneous decision. The claimant often sees this as "corruption" which is a word that is certain to raise the hackles of the judiciary. The Reviewer sees it as protecting the public purse from a malingerer which is in fact not corruption. The complications this little scenario can generate are incalculable. So in short there is no Reviewer who will deliberately find against a claimant for corrupt purpose but if the Reviewer believes that the claimant is a malingerer well that is a different story. 

But aren't some of the Reviewers ex-ACC staff members? 

Some of the Reviewers are ex-ACC staff but it would be wrong to assume that ex-ACC staff hold any particular fondness for ACC. ACC does not treat its staff much better than the claimants quite often. The Reviewers are impartial.