Sheena Jack’s letter was stupid and filled with lies.
****
Margaret on the 19th of August 2016 in the Canadian Rocky Mountains.
****
Another photo of Margaret on the 19th of August 2016 in the Canadian Rocky Mountains.
****
It was obvious that I would get only more meaningless words and a continued refusal to obey the law out of HCF CEO Sheena Jack. I believed the policy of refusing to pay the Lift claims had been implemented because of direct orders from Sheena Jack. I believed the HCF policy of “disappearing” claims involving Lift Cancer had probably been implemented because of direct orders from Sheena Jack.
It was obviously pointless asking Sheena Jack to stop breaking the law.
****
I had to write yet again to HCF Chairman Mark Johnson.
****
My letter to Mark Johnson dated 5 May 2022 contained 13 pages. Here are some highlights from that letter.
I believe there is a real possibility you did not receive my letter to you dated 11 April. If you didn’t, I will send you another copy. The letter from Sheen Jack reinforces my belief that HCF has been knowingly involved in the commission of multiple offences against the requirements of a whole array of legislative requirements. The “apology” from Sheena Jack is rejected. It was not sincere and Sheen Jack must have been personally involved in the actions taken by HCF. HCF and the Ombudsman did a “dirty deal” the effect of which was that the Ombudsman would terminate my complaints so long as HCF made me a payment of an amount agreed between HCF and the Ombudsman. In agreeing to not carry out its statutory duties, the Ombudsman agreed that it would stop performing its statutory functions so long as a payment of money was made at the request of the Ombudsman to a third party – me and my wife Margaret. I was not consulted and the “go way money” accepted by the Ombudsman was paid into my account without my knowledge before I was even told that the deal had been done. The legal explanation put forward by Sheena Jack to justify its refusal to obey the law was complete rubbish. I had made formal complaints to government agencies about the conduct of HCF and the crimes committed by HCF are in the process of being revealed by the searchlight of the law and public opinion. HCF would be convicted through the legal process of a large number of wide ranging offences against an array of legislative provisions. It appeared to me that the actions of HCF might have been orchestrated to comply with advice provided by its lawyers as to how HCF could breach the law and best protect itself from the consequences of doing that HCF needs to take active steps to immediately stop any continuation of its breaches of the law and assist the appropriate government agencies in carrying out a thorough investigation into what has happened. I believed there was a high probability that other health funds have acted in a similar manner and that they have done so in full knowledge that their “competitors” have acted in a similar manner. As part of a “damage control” exercise, the Directors of HCF ought to consider the following actions. Immediate suspension of Ms Jack pending an investigation by external investigators of what HCF has done and the extent of its breaches of legislative requirements. If investigation reveals – as I thought likely – that Ms Jack has been a central figure in unlawful actions by HCF, she ought to be dismissed. A full confession should be made immediately to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. If HCF confesses to the ACCC before any other funds, it might be able to obtain a lesser penalty than it might otherwise sustain. HCF should give deep consideration to what form of redress it should make to the victims of its unlawful conduct. Those victims include Lift Cancer Care Services and the cancer patients whose claims for treatment have been treated with contempt by HCF. Those victims include other health service providers who have been denied payment for services provided to their patients solely because HCF has decided to ignore its legal obligations in relation to those providers. Some of those victims may well now be dead. Some of the health providers have probably been driven into bankruptcy. The list of victims was likely to be extensive. Any redress for the victims of HCF misconduct should be compensated not just by payment of the money that should always have been paid, but by payment of specific compensation based on the fact that they have been victims of crime. If victims are dead, efforts should be made to identify their next of kin so that the appropriate compensation can be paid to the estate of the dead victims. If a preliminary check of HCF records reveals that the legal advisers to HCF have been involved in assisting in what has been going on (in effect, assisting HCF to commit crimes) the relevant documents containing any such legal advice should be provided immediately to the ACCC. Until Mark Johnson and his fellow Directors are convinced on the basis of persuasive evidence that no impropriety should be attributed to the HCF legal advisers, any future legal advice in relation to these matters should be obtained from legal advisers who might not subsequently be found to have played a role in what has gone on.
I concluded by saying it was essential that HCF immediately stop acting unlawfully, own up to what it had done and take all possible steps to compensate those who have suffered because of HCF’s unlawful conduct. |
****
The complete letter to Mark Johnson is accessible through this link. If somehow you cannot view it, please email us at ‘admin@hankinredden.com.au’ and we can send you the document directly.
****
Response from Mark Johnson 9 May 2022
I received an email reply from Mark Johnson at 11:40 am on Monday 9 May 2022. It said this.
Dear Mr Hankin, Many thanks for your letter. I can confirm the Board is aware of your concerns and that they were discussed at our most recent Board meeting. I am considering the detail in your note and will reply more fulsomely later this week. Kind regards Mark G Johnson |
****
I received a letter from Mark Johnson on the 13t of May 2022 attached to an email which the computer says I received at 2:53 pm on 13 May 2022. In effect, the Johnson letter confirmed that senior management of HCF had been directed to obey the law – even though the letter claimed HCF had not broken the law.
HCF was reluctantly about to start obeying the law.
****
I was on the verge of winning the struggle with HCF. Margaret’s death soon drew much closer.
No comments:
Post a Comment