ACC payout for radiation victim likely to be ‘peanuts’
After years of agony, a radiationpoisoning sufferer expects his long-awaited compensation bid will amount to ‘‘peanuts’’ in what is another blow to his cause.
Rubbing salt into the wound, one Government agency will hand the money over, while another takes it away.
Former Palmerston North manufacturing worker Bryon O’regan has suffered bouts of debilitating nausea and diarrhoea ever since he was poisoned in 1979.
Nearly 40 years on, he is now expecting a compensation package from ACC for a fraction of that time.
But celebrations are on hold as ACC says any money will be paid to Work and Income first, with O’regan to receive whatever is left.
That’s because he was on a benefit from 2008, when a court judgment ruled his suffering was caused by the hospital-induced radiation poisoning.
O’regan now expects whatever comes his way for those years to be ‘‘peanuts’’.
He was so frustrated with the process and its delays that he was doubtful he would ever see any compensation.
‘‘I just have to resign myself to it.
‘‘All they are doing is working out more rorts to avoid paying... I’m just going around in circles.’’
This comes after being made to jump through hoops to prove his employment at a company that has long since shut, for which records were no longer kept by the Inland Revenue Department.
ACC has agreed to pay O’regan compensation for 2008-2011, but only for time he was off work.
The corporation is yet to look into the pre-2008 compensation bid, but O’regan has a court order on his side saying he would be entitled to recompense.
However, ACC rules say he must have proof of income.
With no records available he was told he needed to find a former co-worker from Ace Bags, where he worked at the time of his hospital treatment, to back his story and who could provide their own paperwork as proof.
Palmerston North MP Iain Lees-galloway said ACC needed to stop making O’regan jump over hurdles.
‘‘If ACC’S package is simply paying Work and Income and leaving him with the crumbs that would not be sufficient.’’
ACC spokeswoman Stephanie Melville said it was ‘‘just waiting on information from WINZ’’ before it looked at identifying periods of incapacity before 2008.
‘‘We’re working from the front back, as it’s easier to get the most recent information to determine which non-work periods are as a direct result of the covered injury, and may be eligible for weekly compensation.’’