|
|
| (150 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| I have seen Ceballos only once at [[PIC Assessment Conference 2023-06-28]]. I was surprised how excited he was to urge QBE barrister to put forward statements that would require me to have teleportation device and time travel. The barrister did not go so low and ignored Ceballos urges even with full support of PIC member. My solicitor [[Peter James Livers solicitor | Peter Livers]] sit quietly all this time, despite my previous request to dispute all incorrect information provided by Ceballos and Livers promise to do so during conference. | | I have seen Ceballos only once at [[PIC Assessment Conference 2023-06-28]]. I was surprised how excited he was to urge QBE barrister to put forward statements that would require me to have teleportation device and time travel. The barrister did not go so low and ignored Ceballos urges even with full support of PIC member. My solicitor [[Peter James Livers solicitor | Peter Livers]] sit quietly all this time, despite my previous request to dispute all incorrect information provided by Ceballos and Livers promise to do so during conference. |
|
| |
|
| Not so long ago I learned that [[Writing a complaint to Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner#Complaint about lawyer who did not represented you | complaints about lawyers to OLSC]] is not limited to the ones who represented you. So, I started working on complaint about Ceballos. | | Not so long ago I learned that [[Writing a complaint to Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner#Complaint about lawyer who did not represented you | complaints about lawyers to OLSC]] is not limited to the ones who represented you. So, I submitted a complaint about Ceballos. |
| | |
| == Complaint to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner about Timothy Ceballos ==
| |
| This is a complaint to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner about solicitor Timothy Ceballos. I believe he intentionally provided incorrect statements to the Personal Injury Commision stating them to be true. I believe he is not a fit person to be a solicitor in NSW.
| |
| | |
| ==Complaint Details==
| |
| ===Have you tried to resolve matter with the lawyer?===
| |
| | |
| No.
| |
| | |
| ===If yes, how? If not, why not?===
| |
| | |
| I had no direct contact with Ceballos. Ceballos represented QBE, the opposing team and I had no direct contact with him. However, I have provided detailed information about Ceballos incorrect statements to my lawyers (I had 3 sets of lawyers representing me). I had different promises but basically no actions:
| |
| # Potts and Pryde told me that he can write whatever he pleases no matter how absurdly incorrect it is.
| |
| # Leonard wrote to me that it is important to correct it "''The correction of the insurer's errors or wrongs, in the review application, is most important''", but basically took no action.
| |
| # Livers promised to include it in his particulars and during the PIC assessment conference, but did nothing.
| |
| I have provided detailed information about the actions of other lawyers in separate complaints.
| |
| | |
| I do not think I can achieve anything by contacting directly Ceballos now, because:
| |
| # Ceballos' actions were deliberate and calculated. He is fully aware that is doing and has a clear goal: to damage my claim and make the process of claim as difficult and painful as he only could.
| |
| # Ceballos is fully aware of the effect it had on me, from medical records that he quotes himself. I even wrote in the last formal communication how it affected me and Ceballos chose not to respond (see "2023-08-27 Accepting APP-10268809 award.pdf"). Even that could not make any impact on compensation.
| |
| # I have no power to influence Ceballos directly to take any actions regarding incorrect statements he provided.
| |
| # Even if I do not have any direct evidence, the absurdity of some incorrect statements he has provided and his behaviour during the PIC assessment conference makes me believe that he relies on the same behaviour regularly and he has no intention to change.
| |
| | |
| ===Please provide a summary of your complaint and include the following details:===
| |
| * ''' ''What happened? Who was involved?'' '''
| |
| * ''' ''Details of significant events, such as dates of meetings and court hearings.'' '''
| |
| * ''' ''What are your concerns?'' '''
| |
| | |
| Till recently, after writing complaints about my previous solicitors, I did not know or realised importance of some Ceballos actions, especially the link between the actions of my solicitors and Ceballos. This is because of I did not have enough information, importance of some actions was not clear and because of PTSD from the injury and subsequent dealing with QBE insurance and lawyers involved in the claim.
| |
| | |
| Ceballos represented QBE insurance from the start when Law Partners (Potts) started representing me in 2018. I have only few records of communications between Ceballos and Law Partners also because of potential time limitations I will focus mainly only on the communications over last 3 years. However, in my view, Ceballos, Potts and Pryde actions make more sense if I assume that there was collusion between them to have my compensation at some low level that was high enough for Law Partners to claim high fees, but without going to any independent assessment. This would allow Law Partners to claim high fees while doing very little work without the need to inform me about my rights. At the same time QBE (Ceballos) would settle a claim at compensation that would be less than they can expect from independent assessment. That would also avoid risk of paying compensation that would be based on realistic loss of income and several times more than latter was offered by Ceballos and Law Partners. However, it also gives Law Partners good fees without a risk of not getting large compensation due to some complications related to income.
| |
| | |
| This explains why Law Partners avoided mentioning PTSD diagnosis and instead promoted depression. PTSD established direct link with road traffic injury and sets much better grounds for claim. However, with depression diagnosis I am more dependable on Ceballos and Law Partners agreement. More about Law Partners not collecting information and representing me properly in complains about Potts and Pryde.
| |
| | |
| At the end of 2019 and start of 2020 Law Partners arranged few pointless meetings, where the exaggeration of the legal fees seems to be the only reason for them. After this Law Partners started pushing me to accept QBE offer even if before they said it is not acceptable.
| |
| | |
| Ceballos arranged their medical assessment with Moodley in March 2020. The report had many absurdly incorrect statements (see "2020-03-18 Moodley report errors.pdf"). I was shocked to read some of them as it was easy to prove that they were factually incorrect. The report has no credibility when almost every paragraph has some factual errors. Why would you order such report? Unless you already have a promise that it will not be challenged.
| |
| | |
| It come to a bigger shock when Law Partners refused to challenge Moodley report. They insisted that this report changes everything and if I go to independent assessment I will get way less than QBE is offering. I still asked to go for independent assessment. Instead Law Partners hit me with very exaggerated bill, demanding to accept these fees and removal of 30% cap. With so exaggerated fees, a promise to increase them significantly more and very poorly done work I had no chance to go further with Law Partners.
| |
| | |
| Ceballos submitted application for assessment of damages. It had lots of incorrect statements.
| |
| | |
| Law Partners used this application to push me to settle or I lose my claim completely, instead of submitting my application, that they claim they have prepared.
| |
| | |
| I went to Moya de Luca-Leonard to represent me instead of Law Partners. At first Leonard did well by putting Ceballos application on-hold and asking for independent medical assessment. Assessment confirmed PTSD and impact over required 10% whole person impairment limit to get compensation for pain and suffering.
| |
| | |
| On 2021-04-14 Ceballos submitted request for review for medical assessment. His request had a lot of incorrect statements.
| |
| | |
| I expected Leonard to dispute them. However, her behaviour changed and she provided vague objection to review request. Review was granted. Leonard has not dispute any incorrect incorrect information provided directly by Ceballos or through Moodley report. Instead she started pushing for settlement. Incorrect information had an effect on review. After this she resigned instead trying to fix situation and go for independent assessment as I requested. She blamed previous lawyers and my lack of understanding how heavily my chances affected by corruption (political influence").
| |
| | |
| 2023-11-21 I got access to PIC portal and download QBE application for damages on PIC portal APP-10268809. One of the files was insurers submissions by Ceballos. It contains a lot of errors and fraudulent statements.
| |
| | |
| 2023-01-24 I signed authority to act for Peter Livers and he signed agreement that his fees will be limited to regulated costs recoverable from the insurance company.
| |
| | |
| 2023-01-31 I sent an email to Peter Livers with detailed overview of my claim. I start my email with the following "An appointment of a member to assess insurance application for compensation and damages APP-10268809 may force us to act quicker than it may have appeared before. This application contains only issuance submissions with lots of errors that can easily be disproved but at the current time, there is no reply from my side in PIC. I am sure we need to submit our reply (application) before the conference with the PIC member.". In email I provide summary of errors highlighting the most important ones. I also attach detailed list of errors and supporting evidence.
| |
| | |
| 2024-02-26 I wrote to Peter Livers that I am submitting a complaint to HCCC about errors in Moodley report that Ceballos relies in his submissions. I provided summary in my email mentioning some examples of incorrect statements by Moodley some of which made to Ceballos submissions. I asked "I do not know if it can affect my insurance claim, but Timothy relies on this report heavily."
| |
| | |
| 2023-03-14 I met with Livers and to ask what I can write in my statement. I wanted to mention that QBE did not pay for any treatment. They promised to pay, but then did not. QBE took 3 years to reply about liability while even according to them they were required to do that within 3 months. QBE kept sending me to different assessments but refused to share their reports. I was told by Law Partners that a right to share any assessment reports only if it suits them. If QBE is not happy wit the report they can simply send me to another assessor till they will get assessment that suits them he explained to me that I can write in my statement about the impact of the injury, but not about mishandling of my claim by QBE.
| |
| | |
| 2023-04-25 I wrote to Livers asking why he has removed any mentioning of lies provided by Ceballos. It has been re-traumatising experience, and it was important to mention in my statement. So previously I wrote in my statement: 55. Trauma has altered my perception of reality, so that when I read Moodley or Ceballos lies about me it is not just a lie, I feel that it is a threat to my life. I asked Livers: You stroke it out. I understand that this statement is about my life rather than about their misconduct. Seeing danger everywhere is one of the symptoms of PTSD. I just wanted to give an example and explanation of it. Can I rephrase it somehow, so that it remains useful?
| |
| | |
| 2023-04-25 I spoke with Livers, and he advised me to avoid complaint about QBE and previous lawyers. I wrote to Livers highlighting the argument that it is important to mention my struggle with QBE and previous lawyers as it is a part of my trying to get over PTSD. I was worried that leaving it out will make it look that I was not putting all my effort in attempts to get better and as result to return to work force. As all these efforts would go to working full time if I would not been injured and this is big part of loss of income.
| |
| | |
| 2023-04-26 I had conversation with Livers. He convicted me that he will include all the dispute of Ceballos statements in his statement. I also agreed not to include whole complaint that I wrote about Moodley, but instead I will include short summary. I sent summary in email.
| |
| | |
| 2023-04-26 I had to resend documents several times as Livers had some technical issues. Spent whole next day on it. I have started to suspect that he might not even red some information. At the end I have brought him hard copy next day.
| |
| | |
| 2023-05-05 Livers sent me solicitor particulars. I was shocked that it did not contain the information I provided about Ceballos incorrect statements. Livers explained to me on the phone that first Ceballos has to update his particulars and only then we can object to it. Later on I spoke with Livers several times about it and he reassured that he is aware of errors in Ceballos particulars and he will present objections to them all before and during tribunal.
| |
| | |
| 2023-06-14 Livers sent me Ceballos particulars and I resent my comments. Livers convinced me that the best is present them during tribunal as they may not be accepted now otherwise.
| |
| | |
| 2023-06-27 I wrote about errors in Ceballos particulars for loss of income and domestic assistance.
| |
| Files: "2023-06-27 email to Livers - Loss of income - reply.pdf", "2023-06-27 Loss of income.pdf", "2023-06-28 email to Livers - Domestic care and assistance - errors in insurers submissions for.pdf", "2023-06-28 Errors in insurers submissions for Care and Domestic Assistance.pdf"
| |
| | |
| 2023-06-28 The PIC assessment conference went terribly bad. Livers completely misrepresented me by basically doing nothing. More about this later. I am waiting for audio recording of the conference.
| |
| | |
| 2023-06-29 - one week I provided additional information to Livers to forward to the PIC, but he told it is too late. I have provided additional information about treatment expenses that Livers forwarded, but it was not accepted. Mor about it later as I am waiting for response from Medicare.
| |
| | |
| 2023-07-20 Livers sent me PIC determination.
| |
| | |
| 2023-07-20 - a bit more than one month PIC determination was very unfair and had lots of factual errors. I asked Livers to go to court as he promised, but he refused. He said "I will not allow it"> All this completely overwhelmed me. I tried to look for solution but failed. One thing I have not relished that Ceballos and Livers particulars together with PIC determination were providing very incorrect picture and any attempt to find advice about it was doomed to fail. My health deteriorated so much that it become a question of survival. More about this latter.
| |
| | |
| 2023-08-08 I wrote a request to fix obvious errors. Livers insisted that I also have to write that I accept determination. After this it become pointless exercise.
| |
| | |
| 2023-08-27 Not being able to cope and having strong concerns about staying alive I sent confirmation that I accepted corrupted tribunal decision due to health reasons.
| |
| | |
| ===How do you want us to help you to resolve your complaint?===
| |
| | |
| ''Please note: One of our officers may contact you to discuss what we can and we cannot do ''
| |
| | |
| # Investigate false statements provided by Ceballos.
| |
| # I believe that the level of incorrect is so high that he is not fit to be a solicitor. Such person should not be allowed to practice as solicitor in NSW.
| |
| # I do suspect collusion and corruption in Ceballos actions. I hope you will come to same conclusion and take appropriate action.
| |
| # If your powers are limited towards investigating collusion I hope you will forward it to appropriate authorities.
| |
| | |
| | |
| ===What area of legal service does this complaint arise from?===
| |
| | |
| Personal injuries
| |
| | |
| ===Are you disputing the legal costs you have been charged by your lawyer?===
| |
| | |
| No
| |
| | |
| ===Notes===
| |
| Only when I was looking at Livers work I realised that most of the actions of my solicitors that seemed to me as severe misconduct can be the best explained as collusion and the common dominator is Ceballos. I do not have direct evidences and I may not get them. However, that is the explanation that fits well. Such actions break the whole trust in legal systems. This is why I believe that OLSC is the best place to deal with it.
| |
| | |
| Writing this complaint is exceptionally difficult for me. I did not expected that my claim will be determined based on incorrect information. However, this is exactly what has happened. It was dragged and delayed with incorrect statements and then determination relies on it too. That was re-traumatizing time and remember it triggers PTSD symptoms. It is shocking to realize brutal was incorrect information provided by Ceballos and well he used my disability not to be able to defend myself. It took me years of therapy to start unraveling what has happened.
| |
| | |
| I do not know about capacity of OLSC to investigate collusion, so in this complaint I mostly focus on incorrect statements by Ceballos.
| |
| | |
| ==Background==
| |
| I was cycling in Sydney when a car from oncoming traffic made a right turn straight into me on 2015-03-30. I was sure I was going to die when I saw a car accelerating towards me. I survived, but among other things the fear stayed. Since then, I am struggling with PTSD.
| |
| | |
| I was frustrated with the way QBE (drivers insurance company) was managing the claim:
| |
| # QBE did not pay for any treatment. They promised to pay, but then did not.
| |
| # QBE took 3 years to reply about liability while even according to them they were required to do that within 3 months.
| |
| # QBE kept sending me to different assessments but refused to share their reports.
| |
| | |
| I initially contacted Law Partners to represent me. However, I was unhappy with their representation. I feel that they did not collect or submit important information about my health problems.
| |
| | |
| I was told by Law Partners that a right to share any assessment reports only if it suits them. If QBE is not happy wit the report they can simply send me to another assessor till they will get assessment that suits them he explained to me that I can write in my statement about the impact of the injury, but not about mishandling of my claim by QBE
| |
| | |
| https://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/resources-library/workers-compensation-resources/publications/workers-and-claims/independent-medical-examinations
| |
| | |
| At the end of April 2020, I got a report by Vanitha Moodley (a psychologist hired by QBE solicitors) that had a large number of absurd errors.
| |
| | |
| Due to concerns about Law Partners’ advice about this report, I contacted one solicitor whom I knew. He recommended to me Moya de Luca-Leonard, who helped him in the past with one client who had a personal injury claim, as he worked in a different area of law. At first Leonard organised an assessment by a psychiatrist who specialises in PTSD and submitted the documents I sent to her to PIC. Independent assessment confirmed PTSD and significant impact on my life 19% whole person impairment. However, after this, in her submissions to PIC Leonard withheld information about errors in Moodley report and factually incorrect statements by Ceballos, QBE solicitor. Leonard then pushed me to accept an unfavourable settlement without any compensation for loss of past income. When I asked to submit documents to PIC for independent assessment Leonard resigned.
| |
| | |
| I had to find a new solicitor quickly to prepare and submit documents and represent me at the PIC assessment. Livers offered to represent me based on regulated fees (I did not know what it was). He also said that he has 30 years of experience in personal injury claims and is highly experienced in it. I had 2 highly exaggerated bills from previous solicitors: Law Partners $178,327.22 and Moya de Luca-Leonard $77,071.50. Livers' explanation that his fees will be determined by PIC sounded like a protection at least from fees problems I had with previous lawyers.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Timeline == | | == Timeline == |
| ; 2021-03-17 : PIC medical assessor Dr Wayne Mason issued medical assessment certificate.
| | # [[2024-04-14 Complaint to OLSC about solicitor Timothy Ceballos]]. |
| : File: "2021-03-17 Dr Wayne Mason assessment.pdf"
| | # 2024-04-16 OLSC informed that my complaint will be processed by Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the Law Society of NSW. |
| ; 2021-04-14 : Mr Ceballos wrote to Ms Leonard and PIC appealing independent medical assessment.
| | # 2024-04-29 PSD acknowledged receiving complaint. |
| : Files "2021-04-20-30 emails from-to Moya Ceballos appeal and my comments with evidence of errors.pdf" and "2021-04-14 - Letter to c sols serving PIC Application - appeal to assessment.pdf".
| | # 2024-04-29 I sent all documents referenced in my complaint to PSD. OLSC had these documents, but I was not sure will it be made available to PSD. |
| ; 2021-04-15 - 2021-04-26 : I sent detailed information to Ms Leonard with supporting evidence that Mr Ceballos' appeal is based on factually incorrect statements. See previous complaint about Ms Leonard not disputing incorrect statements in Ceballos appeal.
| | # [[2024-07-19 PSD decision]]. |
| : File : "2024-04-11 Errors in Ceballos appeal of 2021-04-14.pdf" - detailed list of incorrect statements in Ceballos appeal. I combined it into one file.
| | # [[#Analysis of PSD decision | Analysis of PSD decision]]. |
| ; 2021-05-04 : Ms Leonard sent me Campbell reply submissions. Campbell's submission does not dispute any incorrect statements by Ceballos. She only writes how the assessor addressed them. However, it is inaccurate, Mr Ceballos statements are factually incorrect and could not be part of the assessment. Next day Ms Leonard wrote that she will file the reply today and believe that the appeal has no material basis.
| | # 2024-08-16 [[Request to review the Law Society decision]] |
| : File "2021-05-04 lr client email 24 plus submissions - Campbell reply to QBE appeal.pdf"
| |
| ; From this time till next PIC assessment : I reminded Ms Leonard about factual errors in Ceballos and Moodley statements (on few occasions Ms Leonard told me that she knows how and will deal with it), but she took no actions. More about it in previous complaints.
| |
| ; 2023-09-30 : PIC medical review panel issued determination. Leaving diagnosis of PTSD and impact over 10%, but adding new diagnosis about functioning before the injury that seems to be based only on incorrect information from Ceballos and Moodley. After this she resigned, instead of trying to fix situation and go for and independent assessment as I requested. She blamed previous lawyers and my lack of understanding how heavily my chances affected by corruption ("political influence").
| |
| ; 2023-11-21 : I got access to PIC portal and download QBE application for damages on PIC portal APP-10268809. One of the files was insurers submissions by Ceballos. It contains a lot of errors and fraudulent statements.
| |
| : Files: "A1 Insurers submission.pdf"
| |
| ; 2023-01-24 : I signed authority to act for Peter Livers and he signed an agreement that his fees will be limited to regulated costs recoverable from the insurance company.
| |
| ; 2023-01-24 to 2023-08-30 : I provided detailed information about my claim to Livers. All he had to do was to forward it to PIC. He selectively did not forward information about incorrect statements by Ceballos and damaged my claim. Livers also did not include and persuaded me not to include information about QBE not fulfilling their responsibilities (more in section Background). This resulted in much lower compensation that would have been reasonably expected otherwise.
| |
| ; 2023-05-05 : Livers sent me solicitor particulars. I was shocked that it did not contain the information I provided about Ceballos incorrect statements. Livers explained to me on the phone that first Ceballos has to update his particulars and only then we can object to it. Later on I spoke with Livers several times about it and he reassured that he is aware of errors in Ceballos particulars and he will present objections to them all before and during tribunal.
| |
| : Files: "2023-05-05 Solicitor particulars.pdf", "2023-05-05 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - solicitor submissions.pdf"
| |
| ; 2023-06-14 : Livers sent me Ceballos particulars and I resent my comments with list of incorrect Ceballos statements. Livers convinced me that the best is present them during tribunal as they may not be accepted now otherwise.
| |
| : File: "2023-06-14 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - Cebalos particulars.pdf"
| |
| ; 2023-06-28 : The PIC assessment conference went terribly bad. Livers completely misrepresented me by basically doing nothing. More about this later. I am waiting for audio recording of the conference.
| |
| ; 2o23-06-29 - one week : I provided additional information to Livers to forward to the PIC, but he told it is too late. I have provided additional information about treatment expenses that Livers forwarded, but it was not accepted. More about it later as I am waiting for response from Medicare.
| |
| ; 2023-07-20 : Livers sent me PIC determination.
| |
| : File: "2023-07-20 PIC determination.pdf"
| |
| ; 2023-07-20 - a bit more than one month : PIC determination was very unfair and had lots of factual errors. I asked Livers to go to court as he promised, but he refused. He said "I will not allow it"> All this completely overwhelmed me. I tried to look for solution but failed. One thing I have not relished that Ceballos and Livers particulars together with PIC determination were providing very incorrect picture and any attempt to find advice about it was doomed to fail. My health demerited so much that it become a question of survival. More about this latter.
| |
| ; 2023-08-08 : I wrote a request to fix obvious errors. Livers insisted that I also have to write that I accept determination. After this it become pointless exercise.
| |
| : File: "2023-08-08 An Application to Correct The Obvious Errors in Certificate of Determination.pdf"
| |
| ; 2023-08-27 : Not being able to cope and having strong concerns about staying alive I sent confirmation that I accepted corrupted tribunal decision due to health reasons.
| |
| : File: "2023-08-27 Accepting APP-10268809 award.pdf"
| |
| | |
| == My complaint against Timothy Ceballos ==
| |
| Ceballos knowingly provided incorrect information to PIC while claiming that this information is correct.
| |
| # On 2021-04-14 Ceballos submitted File "2021-04-14 - Letter to c sols serving PIC Application - appeal to assessment.pdf" has Ceballos incorrect statements about Dr Mason assessment and file "2024-04-11 Errors in Ceballos appeal.pdf" has a list of incorrect statements by Ceballos. | |
| # 2023-06-14 Livers sent me Ceballos particulars and I resent my comments. Livers convinced me that the best is present them during tribunal as they may not be accepted now otherwise. File: "2023-06-14 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - Cebalos particulars.pdf"
| |
| | |
| === Obviously incorrect statements ===
| |
| === Intentionally misleading statements ===
| |
| 4.1.5 Assessor Mason has failed to consider the following relevant issues, which was clearly ventilated in the insurer’s reply to the application for permanent impairment dispute:
| |
| • The prior psychological histories contained in the clinical notes of Mr Steve Sutton, treating psychologist, and Argyle Street Medical Centre;
| |
| I do believe that my mental history was properly included. Assessor even included the review of Mr Steve Sutton report section 6 subsection A3 page 7. I have visited Argyle Street Medical Centre only to get the referral to see Mr Sutton - I think it was 2 visits.
| |
|
| |
| • The claimant ceased work in 2011 due to his depression;
| |
| I did stop working in 2011 for personal reasons and depression was part of it. Yet again, it is addressed in assessment, while it does not affect the injury I suffered. My past including events of 2011 are included in history section 6 page 2. Also in several other relevant places including section 15 subsection A1 page 6.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant has not provided any independent evidence to suggests that he was actively looking for work at the time of the motor accident;
| |
| I do not think it has any relevance to my mental health assessment. However, the evidence has been provided and the insurer has it.
| |
| | |
| • The issue of inconsistency. The claimant told Dr Khan that he was a self-employed software developer at the time of the accident. This is inconsistent with the history recorded by Mr Sutton on 21 March 2019 where the claimant says “he reports that this situation has prevented him from being able to focus on anything or be able to continue look for work – which he was doing at the time of the accident”;
| |
| The only inconsistency is in this Ceballos statement. I did not see Mr Sutton on 21/03/2019.
| |
| Ceballos states that while being (self-)employed you can not look for a job. This is incorrect. The fact that I was looking for a job while being self-employed; is completely natural.
| |
| | |
| There is very similar text about significance of road traffic injury on my mental health in Mr Sutton notes from 21/03/2018:
| |
| “He further reports that he feels the insurance company’s behaviour has been harassing and bullying – and this has actually been a re-traumatising experience given his ongoing fear and anxiety – making it even harder for him to face and deal with the whole issue – saying that there is now freezing fear just thinking about it – which causes his brain to just shut down to cope. He reports that this situation has prevented him from being able to focus on anything or be able to continue look work – which he was doing at time of accident – after getting over issue re his daughter and settling into new relationship.”
| |
| Same session notes ends with diagnosis: “Previous diagnosis of unresolved PTSD certainly appears confirmed. Needs work to help him finally deal with legal issues and get on with life.”
| |
| All this is covered in the report that was included in the assessment.
| |
| Dr. Khan is the surgeon who provided an assessment of the physical or the road traffic injury. However the mental health history was discussed in more detail by Assessor Mason. The statement by Ceballos is incorrect and not relevant.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant has not provided any independent evidence of income derived as a self- employed software developer in the 3 years period prior to the accident;
| |
| There is no dispute about the lack of income before the road injury. However, it is natural to have no income when you take time out from work for personal reasons and even more when you are investing in a new product. For other products you need to invest more, but lucky for software it is mostly time.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant was able to obtain employment after the accident. He was working 35 hours per week with the Lithuanian community at the time of the medical examination with Dr Samson Roberts on 4 February 2019;
| |
| This is not true. I did not get employed after the road traffic injury. Ceballos statement has no basis. I made attempts to work on tiny projects for the community and failed them miserably. All this was addressed properly in Dr Roberts assessment with the same conclusion as Mr Wayne Mason. Dr Roberts wrote:
| |
| “In regard to employability Mr Stonis comments on having worked 35 hours that he tries but he is ineffective due to poor focus, I have considered him a Class 4 in this regard which based on current functioning would be 17% impairment to which I would add 1% for treatment because the treatment appears to have been relatively ineffectual which would be 18% permanent impairment”.
| |
| There was an upcoming referendum in Lithuania to allow double citizenship. It is very important for emigrants like me as if I want to take Australian citizenship I need to give up Lithuanian. I found out that there is a possibility to have a voting station in Sydney. I wanted to organise a petition to support it. I tried a few sites, but was not able to set up a petition properly. Then I thought maybe I will create my own tiny page to register interest in voting, but I was not able to do anything useful either. This was what I told Dr Roberts. To tell the truth it was very embarrassing to admit, that I am completely useless.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant married his wife in September 2018, being a period after the accident;
| |
| I met Justė, my wife, in 2011. We applied for the de facto partner visa in October 2014 before the road traffic injury and were granted the visa in August 2015. So, the relationship developed and all decisions were taken before. Due to traditions and culture there is a strong pressure to register it properly. We've been waiting hoping that I will get better soon. However, Justė wanted to register it and stop waiting.
| |
| I can send emails confirming visa application dates, but I am not sure is it needed.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant travelled for a holiday to Lithuania in 2017 and 2018, being a period after the accident.
| |
| The purpose of the visit wasn't a holiday - it was to visit my mother who is in very poor health. She is bound to bed. I have to see her at least once a year. Unfortunately, every time I am scared that this well might be the last time I see her.
| |
| I also traveled around the world in 2012. By far the best trip in my life. However, I am not sure why Cellabos brings it as it was discussed during assessment.
| |
| • The issue of inconsistency. Dr Khan recorded a history that the claimant recovered from his depression in 2012 (page 3 of his medical report). This is inconsistent to the entries recorded in the clinical notes from Argyle Street Medical Centre and Mr Sutton;
| |
| While Dr Khan properly shortly recorded mental health history (even while his focus was physical health) as main consultations by Mr Sutton was in 2011 and ended in 04/04/2012 (I was feeling much better then and was ready to finally travel as I dreamed for so many years) as is recorded in Mr Sutton notes and report and also in Assessor Mason report.
| |
| | |
| • The issue of inconsistency. According to the GP Mental Health Plan dated 8 April 2015, the claimant denied any history of anti-depressant medication. This is inconsistent with the history recorded in the clinical notes of Argyle Street Medical Centre where the claimant was prescribed with Cymbalta in 2011.
| |
| Cellabos' statement is incorrect.
| |
| I was prescribed Cymbalta in 2011. GP gave me one leaf of tablets recommending that I take one a day. However, I was having a very painful headache the next day. So, I stopped. I told it to the GP during my next visit and he recommended not to take it. It is recorded in clinical notes Cellabos is referring to. (MAS 2R page 254, 255).
| |
| Mental health plan has no information about drugs I have tried once 5 years ago, it contains information only I was using at the time of the visit. During my visit to GP in 2015 I have told about the drug I tried in 2011 (I could not remember the name). GP dismissed it as irrelevant.
| |
| | |
| 4.1.6 The failure of Assessor Mason to consider and address the above issues in his decision is a failure to provide the insurer with procedural fairness.
| |
| | |
| The statements by Cellabos are incorrect, inconsistent and irrelevant about mental health history that was considered in detail by the assessor.
| |
| | |
| 4.1.7 It is submitted that Assessor Mason has failed to carry out the following:
| |
| • Reference that he considered and reviewed the documents in the permanent impairment dispute in his decision;
| |
| | |
| Assessor Mason provided an overview of relevant documentation and the remarks provided by Cellabos are incorrect as highlighted above.
| |
| | |
| • Determine what weight should be given to the information before him, including the documents in the permanent impairment dispute;
| |
| | |
| I believe Assessor give proper weight to information, while Ceballos statement are incorrect and bares no weight.
| |
| | |
| • The reasons he may or may not have accepted certain matters submitted by the parties following review of all documents provided by the parties relating to the claimant;
| |
| | |
| It would be an error to give any consideration to Ceballos statement that GP should have modified the Mental Health Plan form to include information about try to use medication 5 years ago. (See comments above section 4.1.5)
| |
| | |
| • The reasons why he did not consider a matter to be relevant to the evaluation of permanent impairment on review of all documents provided by the parties relating to the claimant.
| |
| | |
| Same as above.
| |
| | |
| 4.1.8 The matter should be referred to the medical review panel to re-examine the claimant following consideration of all the documents and submissions provided by the parties relating to the claimant.
| |
| | |
| Ceballos is asking to review the assessment based only on his dislike of the result. He did not provide any new information to consider.
| |
| | |
| 5. ADAPTATION
| |
| 5.1.1 Assessor Mason recorded the following under Adaptation: “Mr Stonis said he is unable to work in his previous occupation as a software developer. My impression of him during the interview was not one of a person who has completed a PHD in computer science. He appears to struggle with basic concepts. He reported he does very little in the maintenance of the household and relies heavily on his wife”.
| |
| | |
| This is true.
| |
| | |
| 5.1.2 The above history assumes that the claimant was engaged in full time employment as a software developer at the time of the accident.
| |
| | |
| I was working on my own project and was strongly considering seeking employment elsewhere. I was not sure that continuing working on my own project was the best way to go forward as at that time I had already properly updated my technical skills to the newest technologies.
| |
| The implication by Ceballos that I was fully employed by another company at that time is inconsistent with his own statements including the following one and incorrect.
| |
| | |
| 5.1.3 The claimant ceased work in 2011 due to his depression. He was not engaged in paid employment at the time of the motor accident on 30 March 2015.
| |
| | |
| I stopped working for personal reasons in 2011 and depression was one of them. However, it was in 2011. I had lots of time to get over depression (as mentioned in Mr Suttons report), get my life in balance (including extensive travels, time for hobbies and use all legal ways to solve issues with daughter), establish stable relationship with Juste (applied for de faction visa in 2014) and start working on my project. If there would be no road traffic injury I would have another twist in my career working as a consultant and by now I would have my own company and would be selling my own products.
| |
| | |
| 5.1.4 The Medical Guidance Note No 7 Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, Assessment of the Area of function ‘Adaptation’ states the following:
| |
| When using Table 7.6 of the MAA Guidelines, consideration should be given to the claimant's usual pre-injury roles and functions such as paid employment, caring for others, housekeeping, managing personal/family finances, voluntary work, education/study and the discharge of other obligations and responsibilities.
| |
| As provided at clause 7.20 of the MAA Guidelines, the Assessor should consider the extent to which the claimant's pre-injury roles and functions have changed as a result of the psychiatric injury, and explain the claimant's current ability to cope with/attend to their usual pre-injury roles and functions, providing relevant examples.
| |
| 5.1.5 It is submitted that Assessor Mason has not properly assessed the category of Adaptation as he based his opinion that the claimant was engaged in employment as a software developer prior to the accident instead of his pre-injury role and function of looking for work.
| |
| | |
| Ceballos bases his argument on his assumption that looking for a work is more intense and labor demanding than working on your own product that you plan to be selling. This is not true. Investing in your own product requires weighing your options carefully. You have to not only be able to produce a product and successfully sell it but also take into account many other criterias that you have no control (like changing market). The horrible difference between how I am now and what I was before the injury is something I can not accept or come in terms to. I keep telling that I am getting better because this is the only option I have. The another (and I do not want to write about it) is death.
| |
| I avoid thinking how much I lost because of this road traffic injury because it is too much.
| |
| | |
| 5.1.6 He has not addressed in his reasons how the claimant’s pre-injury function of looking for work has changed as a result of the psychiatric injury, in circumstances where he continues to look for work and recently obtained project work with the Lithuanian Community.
| |
| | |
| This is simply not true. I got no project to work on with the Lithuanain Community. I tried to work on small tasks like setting up petition and failed.
| |
| | |
| 5.1.7 The insurer refers to page 6 of the Certificate where the following history was recorded: “He is not able to work on his current project, which is to develop a contact website for the Lithuanian community in Australia”.
| |
| | |
| I never got that project. I have a hope to be able to start working on it. I hope that soon I will feel better and be able to do something useful. It has been like this for 4 years and therefore my current project. On the very rare occasion when I thought that I am feeling a bit better I tried to update my own web site that I had before the injury (it is based on the same technology) and broke it down (it no longer works). But can not let go the distant hope.
| |
| | |
| 5.1.8 It is submitted that this matter should be referred to the medical review panel to address the extent of the psychiatric injury to the claimant’s pre-injury role of looking for work, which he continues to do.
| |
| | |
| Not true. I am not looking for a work. I am not able to do even tasks that used to be trivial for me. Nor can I maintain any routine.
| |
| | |
| 5.1.9 If this matter was to be referred to the medical review panel, it is submitted that the following issues and histories disclosed in the documents in the application for assessment of damages may assist the medical review panel when assessing Adaptation:
| |
| • Mr Sutton recorded on 21 March 2019 that the claimant says “he reports that this situation has prevented him from being able to focus on anything or be able to continue look for work – which he was doing at the time of the accident”;
| |
| | |
| As shown before this is only part of the quote from the session on another day (I had no appointment with Mr Sutton on 21 March 2019). Where Mr Sutton highlights the huge contrast between my functionality before the injury and after.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant indicated on page 3 of his Wikipedia story that “I was not working at the time of the accident, so it is hard to prove any loss of income”;
| |
| | |
| It is an unfortunate use of Lithuanian word “darbas” that translated to english has 2 meanings: work and employment. I tend to use word work. While I had in mind that I can not show pay slips.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant has not provided any independent evidence of income derived as a selfemployed software developer in the 3 year period prior to the accident;
| |
| | |
| As mentioned so many times I took a break for personal reasons and then was investing in my own product. None of these activities provide income.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant obtained a role with the Lithuanian Community in Australia in November or December 2016 for a period of 5 months – paragraph 63 of his statement dated 29 April 2019;
| |
| | |
| This is an inaccurate recording of my statement by the solicitor at the time. I provided them with information that Lithuanian Community in Sydney applied for funding and with a rejection letter. I can send a copy of a rejection letter. I became aware that I might not be able to do anything useful for this project. So, I tried to work on it by myself with no result. It still remains my current project. Caballos forgot to mention that I failed my attempts. While paragraph 62 talks that it suited for undergraduate level.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant recently obtained work with the Lithuanian Community in Australia;
| |
| | |
| This is not true. I did not and do not work for Lithuanian Community in Australia: the project for the web site did not go ahead and the tiny task with petition was my own initiative that went nowhere.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant obtained a role in Sweden in 2016, allegedly working for a period of 6 weeks – paragraph 65 of his statement dated 29 April 2019;
| |
| | |
| Not true. Cebalos modified the statement so much that now it states basically the opposite. My brother took on a small project and asked for my help. However in 6 weeks I was not able to even set up the environment. “similar demoralising experience back” he presents as a good thing. Also quote “That is something that should have taken a week or even less and which I was unable to complete within 6 weeks” Cebalos presents as actual work.
| |
|
| |
| • The claimant was working 35 hours per week with the Lithuanian Community in Australia at the time of the medical examination with Dr John Roberts on 4 February 2019;
| |
| | |
| This statement has been already described in detail before that Dr John Roberts describes that I was trying to work on a small task - setting up a petition and completely failed at it. How a completely failed plan is an example of work?
| |
| | |
| • The claimant’s ABN was cancelled on 30 June 2011.
| |
| | |
| I have reported and always maintained a statement that I took a break in 2011. Assessor took this into account. This is just another tiny way to confirm it. It is not new information in any way.
| |
| | |
| 5.1.10 The insurer refers to Section 16.14 of the Medical Assessment Guidelines which allows the Proper Officer to provide additional documents to the review panel if satisfied that such material is required, or is likely to assist in the review.
| |
| | |
| 6. SELF CARE AND PERSONAL HYGIENE
| |
| 6.1.1 Assessor Mason assessed Self Care and Personal Hygiene as a Class 3 on the following basis: “Mr Stonis said he showers every second day when reminded by his wife. He has ignored his dental care. He does not change his clothes regularly, again having to be reminded by his wife. He said he eats unhealthy food and he no longer exercises. He has gained 15kg. He said if his wife was not present he would let himself go completely”.
| |
| 6.1.2 It is submitted that Assessor Mason has failed to explain in his decision whether and/or why the impairment was physically or psychologically based.
| |
| | |
| The same report by Dr Khan, that Ceballos cites several times, states that there are physical impairments that would limit basic activities. All this is due to psychological problems.
| |
| | |
| 6.1.3 The Assessor has not explained the impairments from a purely psychological point of view.
| |
| | |
| See comment above.
| |
| | |
| 7. SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
| |
| 7.1.1 Assessor Mason assessed Social and Recreational Activities as a Class 3 on the following basis: “Mr Stonis said he has let everything go and no longer sees contacts from the IT community or people from the Lithuanian community. He said his wife is attempting to force him to do the latter but on few occasions he has trued he has become too anxious and has had to leave. He does not play any sport. He does not go out to restaurants or entertainment venues with his wife”.
| |
| 7.1.2 The insurer refers to Table 12 of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines where the following was noted under “Social and Recreational Activities”: Class 3 - Moderate impairment. Rarely goes to social events and mostly prompted by family or close friends. Unable to go out without a support person. Not active involved, remains quite and withdrawn.
| |
| 7.1.3 It is submitted that Assessor Mason has failed to consider and address in his findings the following histories obtained during the medical examination:
| |
| • The claimant obtained project work with the Lithuanian Community, which likely requires collaboration, meetings and dealings with his client;
| |
| | |
| As shown before it is not true. I did not get the project. This is pure speculation by Ceballos. There was no collaboration, meeting and dealings with client as there is none.
| |
| | |
| • There was no history that the claimant required a support person when he attended the social outing with the Lithuanian community after being prompted by his wife;
| |
| | |
| I do not go on social outings on my own. If Justė can not then I simply do not go. It was always maintained by me and Justė, that she pushes me to go to social events at least sometimes as it is recommended for mental health and we always go together.
| |
| | |
| • The claimant has been able to drive on his own for short distances;
| |
| • He is able to use public transport alone if necessary;
| |
| • He has travelled overseas to Lithuania on his own since the accident.
| |
| | |
| Travelling used to be one of my greatest joys and now it is something I can not do anymore nor I have any interest in. I wanted to go everywhere to see everything. Just thinking about the trip used to be exciting. I enjoyed even small trips. I think I visited every national park in NSW before the injury. Now I am terrified when it comes time to travel to Lithuania. I do not go camping anymore. I avoid even day trips. I create an enormous amount of stress for both me and Justė. Justė keeps complaining that she can not do it like this anymore, it is very stressful.
| |
| I traveled once on my own. It was a big mistake, we were hoping that it would help me feel better as I used to love traveling, but it was worse. I was feeling sick during the trip and after.
| |
| | |
| 7.1.4 It is submitted that the above reported functioning, which the Assessor has accepted as accurate, would indicate a Class 2 mild impairment finding.
| |
| | |
| Ceballos bases his evaluation based purely on his own speculation. However, his speculations are incorrect.
| |
| | |
| 8. CONCENTRATION, PERSISTENCE AND PACE
| |
| 8.1.1 Assessor Mason assessed Concentration, Persistence and Pace as a Class 3 on the following basis:
| |
| “Mr Stonis said he is unable to read a book and he cannot concentrate on lines of computer code. He said he is forgetful and does not complete tasks that are important. He said he gets confused about what he is doing and then gives up. His ability to focus during the interview was diminished”.
| |
| 8.1.2 The insurer refers to Table 15 of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines where the following was noted under “Concentration, Persistence and Pace”: Class 3 - Moderate impairment. Unable to read more than newspaper articles. Finds it difficult to follow complex instructions; for example, operating manuals, building plans, make significant repairs to motor vehicle, type detailed documents, follow a pattern for making clothes, tapestry or knitting.
| |
| 8.1.3 It is submitted that Assessor Mason has failed to consider and explain in his decision how the claimant has difficulties in sustaining attention on complex or technical material in circumstances where the claimant recently obtained project work with the Lithuanian Community to develop a contact website. This would have required the claimant to pitch his skills and qualifications to the Lithuanian Community in order to tender for the work. 8.1.4 It is submitted that the above reported functioning, which the Assessor has accepted as accurate, would indicate a Class 2 mild impairment finding.
| |
| | |
| Ceballos bases his argument on his speculation that I have applied for work in Lithuanian Community. However, I did not. There was no tender, no pitching skills and qualification to the Lithuanian Community.
| |
| | |
| RELIEF SOUGHT
| |
| 9.1.1 It is submitted that Assessor Mason’s decision is incorrect in a material respect because he failed to take into account the following histories, which was available to him prior to and during the medical examination:
| |
| i. The claimant’s pre-injury role of looking for work and NOT working as a software developer;
| |
| | |
| I was working on my own investment project and it requires way more effort than looking for work.
| |
|
| |
|
| ii. He has not required a support person to drive on his own, or to use public transport;
| | == Information referenced in my 2014-04-14 complaint about solicitor Timothy Ceballos == |
| | I am writing to provide information referenced in my complaint about solicitor Timothy Ceballos. |
|
| |
|
| There were many occasions when Justė had to drive me because I could not. And on the few occasions when she had to accompany me otherwise on many occasions I simply do not go.
| | * OLSC file number (ID): CAS016895 |
| | * Law Society reference number (ID): PSD2024_58915 |
|
| |
|
| iii. He has travelled overseas on his own since the accident;
| | I had the bad luck to hire the lawyers who I believe misrepresented me. I wrote complaints to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) about them. I was expecting that this complaint will be investigated by OLSC also. I have already provided all the documents that I reference in complaint about Ceballos together with previous complaints. |
|
| |
|
| See comment in 7.1.3. I traveled once on my own. It was a big mistake, we were hoping that it would help me feel better as I used to love traveling, but it was worse. I was feeling sick during the trip and after.
| | I do not know how much information is shared between OLSC and the Law Society, so to make sure that you have all relevant information I will send all the documents mentioned in my complaint. |
|
| |
|
| iv. He was able to concentrate throughout the whole of the medical examination and provide a detailed accurate history of the events since the accident;
| | == Declarations == |
| | The PIC application forms provided by Ceballos has the following declaration (see "2021-04-14 - Letter to c sols serving PIC Application - appeal to assessment.pdf" page 6 and "Online portal application form - APP-10268809.pdf" page 11): |
| | DECLARATION |
| | I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information given in this form is true and correct. I also give consent and authorisation for the collection, use and disclosure and exchange of personal and health information provided in this form. |
| | Submitted By : Timothy Ceballos |
| | However, the submitted information is not true and incorrect and Ceballos must been aware of it. |
|
| |
|
| I am struggling to provide information during assessments. I went through several examinations and already got used to the questions. However, I struggle on these too and may not be able to provide an answer when asked outside. An example would be when only after some time after assessment I understood some questions and tried to contact to give an answer.
| | == Attachments == |
| | === From complaint main text === |
| | Documents directly referenced in main complaint text. |
| | # "Online portal application form - APP-10268809.pdf" |
| | # "A1 Insurers submission.pdf" |
| | # "A3 Clinical Notes Argyle Street Medical Centre.pdf" |
| | # "A4 Clinical Notes of Mr Steven Sutton.pdf" |
| | # "A8 Clinical Notes of Poets Corner Medical Centre.pdf" |
| | # "2018-10-11 Dr Skinder Khan report.pdf" |
| | # "2019-02-04 Dr John Roberts assessment.pdf" |
| | # "2021-04-14 - Letter to c sols serving PIC Application - appeal to assessment.pdf" |
| | # "2019-04-29 Alfonsas Stonis statement.pdf" |
| | # "2021-04-20-30 emails from-to Moya Ceballos appeal and my comments with evidence of errors.pdf" |
| | # "2021-05-04 lr client email 24 plus submissions - Campbell reply to QBE appeal.pdf" |
| | # "2023-05-05 Solicitor particulars.pdf" |
| | # "2023-05-05 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - solicitor submissions.pdf" |
| | # "2023-06-13 Ceballos particulars - 0845_001.pdf" |
| | # "2023-06-14 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - Ceballos particulars.pdf" |
| | # "2023-07-20 PIC determination.pdf" |
| | # "2023-08-08 An Application to Correct The Obvious Errors in Certificate of Determination.pdf" |
| | # "2023-08-27 Accepting APP-10268809 award.pdf" |
| | # "2024-04-11 Errors in Ceballos appeal.pdf" |
|
| |
|
| v. He recently obtained project work with the Lithuanian Community to develop a contact website, and was likely required to pitch his skills and qualifications to the Lithuanian Community in order to tender for the work;
| | I include 2 of my further statements that are mentioned indirectly and in the detailed lists of errors. Statement of 2023-04-26 has a list of all documents that have been provided to Ceballos through the PIC portal, but most of them have been sent to Ceballos by emails and previous communications through the PIC. However, Ceballos in his submissions states that he has not received these documents. |
| | # 2022-06-27 Alfonsas Stonis further statement.pdf |
| | # 2023-04-26 Alfonsas Stonis further statement.pdf |
|
| |
|
| Ceballos bases his argument on his speculation that I have applied for work in Lithuanian Community. However, I did not. There was no tender, no pitching skills and qualification to the Lithuanian Community.
| | == Information not included in this data batch == |
| | There are many documents for background and communications with QBE or my solicitors. If needed I can provide it. I am trying to limit the amount of the documents to the ones I am directly quoting as there are already many documents and in some cases only a small portion of that document is needed. |
|
| |
|
| vi. He has not explained the impairments from a purely psychological point of view in the PIRS category of Self Care and Personal Hygiene.
| | Due to my cognitive constraints it is difficult for me to provide information in a timely manner. I am trying to provide information ahead, before you requested it. There were also email size restrictions. I have not reviewed yet main two document where I list errors in document supplied by Ceballos: |
| | # Incorrect statements in appeal |
| | # Incorrect statements in application for damages and PIC assessment conference |
|
| |
|
| Ceballos himself cited a physical assessment that there is no impairment to the basic functioning.
| | I plan to check them to find out what else I may need to supply. Please let me know if you want some documents that I have not supplied. |
|
| |
|
| 9.1.2 Significantly, Assessor Mason has failed to consider and address the material provided the parties in the permanent impairment dispute.
| | == Analysis of PSD decision == |
| | [[2024-07-19 PSD decision]] was a surprise for me. I provided clear evidence of professional misconduct by Ceballos, but they chose to ignore it and take no action. |
|
| |
|
| Ceballos did not present any new material, only his speculations that are incorrect. In some cases Ceballos is so inconsistent that the documents that he cites refferes exactly the opposite.
| | It is a good example of how to oppose an application just to oppose it and make the process difficult. However, they are ment to be objective instead of defending misconduct by any means. |
|
| |
|
| 9.1.3 The assessment of Assessor Mason should be referred to a medical review panel on the grounds that there is reasonable cause to suspect that the Assessment was incorrect in a material respect pursuant to Section 63 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 NSW.
| | I will try new tactics by limiting my response to the most obvious misconduct, instead of providing the whole picture. So, I will split analysis into two parts: |
| | # detail analysis of PSD decision - I hope it will help others dealing with the similar problems. |
| | # short reasoning to review the decision - I will send it to OLSC |
|
| |
|
| There is no reason to review the assessment of Assessor Mason as it is based on relevant medical documents and his own interview. While Ceballos bases his objection on dislike of assessment and empty speculations.
| | === Options === |
| | Email from the Law Society has this information about potential response: |
|
| |
|
| I wish there would be a way to stop Ceballos from bringing such speculations and causing so much stress.
| | <blockquote>''The decision of the Committee is final. However, please note that the NSW Legal Services Commissioner may, at her absolute discretion, conduct an internal review if she considers it appropriate to do so. Please refer to the Complaints Process Information brochure previously provided to you for more information about internal reviews.''</blockquote> |
|
| |
|
| ===== Withheld information that QBE is disputing legal fees and other expenses =====
| |
| During assessment conference I also find out that QBE disputed treatment expenses before assessment, but I was not made aware of it. Later I have learned that there was more information that Livers withheld from me.
| |
|
| |
|
| PIC determination in item 1 references the attached sheet for legal fees calculation. However, Livers never provided it to me. I asked multiple times and on 2023-10-20 I wrote again to provide this sheet. Instead I got some document where insurer was disputing legal fees. It seems this document was provided before PIC assessment, but I was not made aware of it. Liver wrote that there is no other sheet.
| | [[File:Law Society of NSW Complaints-process-information 2020.pdf]] ([https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2020-04/2020_Complaints-process-information.pdf on Law Society web site]) has information what to do if you are unhappy with Law Society decision: |
|
| |
|
| Only later I have noticed one detail, that there is note mentioned from Livers that I do not want barrister representation. I was shocked to find it. I wanted barrister at the PIC assessment conference. This is the only time when it makes sense. Mor about it later when I will write abut misrepresentation by Livers.
| | <blockquote>''The Legal Services Commissioner however may, at his absolute discretion, conduct a review of a decision made to close a complaint if the Legal Services Commissioner considers it appropriate to do so. An application for review must be made within 30 days of the date of notice of the decision.''</blockquote> |
|
| |
|
| ==== Misrepresentation - Professional misconduct - Corruption ====
| | In my case I received Law Society decision on 2024-07-19, so the deadline for request for review is 2014-08-18. It is not specified how to send request for review, so I assume the best option is to email to OLSC at olsc@justice.nsw.gov.au and include Law Society at PSD.Complaints@lawsociety.com.au. |
| It has been 6 months, but I still cannot cope with it. PTSD symptoms take over and my brain shuts down. Right now, I am able to provide only short summary. I hope it is enough for purpose of proving that Ceballos knowingly provided incorrect statements. | |
|
| |
|
| Ceballos provided false information about mental health status, misquoted medical documents and statements and provided false statements reducing severity of injury. Liver knew about it and was provided with evidence of wrong statement by Ceballos. However, Livers falsely promised to provide that information to PIC, instead he led PIC to believe that it is true. He also withheld request for information about representation by barrister, medical and legal expenses. He misled me with advice about non economical loss. This resulted in severe damaged to the compensation claim. After this Livers obstructed me from going to appeal process. | | === Analysis === |
| | # My complaint was considered by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Law Society of NSW (Committee). |
| | # The Committee understood complaint well and chose to ignore Ceballos misconduct deliberately as the response is carefully worded mentioning all details of misconduct of other involved persons and avoiding any mentioning of evidence of Ceballos misconduct. |
|
| |
|
| Actions that can be explained only by corruption:
| | Decision states that it closes complaint "''on the basis that it requires no further investigation ([https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lpul333/s277.html s 277(1)(h)])''". |
| # [[Timothy Ceballos | Ceballos]] (QBE solicitor) submitted lots of absurd lies to PIC about my functioning before and after the injury.
| |
| # I provided detailed evidence to Livers that showed how incorrect Ceballos statements are.
| |
| # Livers promised to include these objections in his submissions, later to present during tribunal.
| |
| # Livers withheld from me the question from PIC about representation by barrister and lied to PIC that I do not want barrister. During assessment conference Livers acted as if he did not now what was happening at all. Having independent barrister would stop Livers from being able to fail my claim.
| |
| # Livers did not provide to PIC any of objections about lies by Ceballos.
| |
| # Livers did not inform about Ceballos disputing legal and medical expenses. This resulted in QBE avoiding paying for most of expenses. Just Medicare expenses by 2020 were $11,245.85. QBE disputed all my out of pocket treatment expenses and more than half of medicare expenses. PIC assessor awarded $10,000 for past and future treatment expenses. This will not be enough even to cover past Medicare expenses.
| |
| # During tribunal Livers insisted that I ask $500,000 for pain and suffering. Previously I asked for $200,000 and insurance agreed. Even Macken, PIC member, said that $500,000 is too high, as just 3 weeks ago he gave quadriplegic only $375,000, and if I leave it this high I will get close to the allowed minimum $100,000. Unfortunately, I trusted Livers and got $150,000.
| |
| # Before tribunal Livers did not update Medicare expenses. He withhold from me information that QBE is disputing medicare expenses. I found out it during tribunal.
| |
| # After the tribunal Livers pushed very hard to accept tribunal decision.
| |
| # Before tribunal Livers recommended and promised to go to court after tribunal decision. However, after the tribunal he did everything in his power to prevent me from appealing tribunal decision.
| |
| Actions that supplement supposition of corruption, but could potentiality be explained by some extreme negligence:
| |
| # Livers did not collect any information required for my claim.
| |
| # Livers dragged time missing important deadlines
| |
| # Livers significantly misled about his expertise or intentionally provided bad advice
| |
| # Livers sent his bill before all procedures related to claim were finished and potentially before some of his misconduct becomes apparent
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Attachments===
| | I am going to submit a [[Request to review the Law Society decision]] to OLSC. |
