# Veterans Affairs Canada - have they lost their way?



## gordjenkins (12 Mar 2007)

I have NOT submitted this letter -I want to know if it is just me 
having trouble with Veterans Affairs Canada 
before I submit
Comments please..anyone else ??

*DRAFT*
_
Minister

Where there is smoke there is fire - 
in USA Veterans Admin and Veterans Affairs Canada

A couple of for instances :
Mandate - Veterans Affairs mandate and money has moved from looking after veterans to more of a "Heritage Canada " function -example Ice Sculptures of Vimy and 100 year celebration of Vimy 
Veterans having to do with second best disability equipment instead of the best (Not top of the line) - example hearing aids - veterans now issued clumsy "wrap around ear" devices of 1950 technology -and price instead of "state of the art devices" Even the Hearing Aid audiologists constantly fighting with Veterans Affairs to get service for veterans. 
Veterans having to wait for months and years to have a pension decision reviewed- example it would be interested in the average figure how long it takes for a Pension Advocate to process a claim - most of us veterans are getting old - WW2 /Korean and even early Peacekeeping vets of Congo /Middle East. 
Reverse Onus - and probably the most troubling and most difficult to get a handle on for a veteran is that when applying for a pension the veteran is "guilty until he is proved innocent" - in other words a veteran must prove he did not receive the disability before he joined the military. Should it not be up to the military to prove the vet did not receive during his overseas military duty?
This is but a 
summary 
tip of the iceberg 
with Canadian veterans.

Stay tuned the the tidal wave to hit (after our Afghan vets return )
or
look into the situation quietly now 


Respectfully_


Gordon Jenkins 
Major (retired) Canadian Army Regular


----------



## CE621 (12 Mar 2007)

Apparently VAC is paying some fat salaries for people to issue this old tech.


----------



## GUNS (12 Mar 2007)

VA has gotten to fat with its political appointments. It has lost its focus and its purpose in life. All veterans and serving members should be outraged how VA deals with them.

There are countless stories of veterans being denied assistance because there are no records which indicate that the veteran ever was posted at the military base in question.

One veteran received a letter from VA stating that there are no records of him being at Gagetown. I guess they have no record of me being at Gagetown either. We were posted there the same time.

Its time to put a person with military experience to head up VA, someone who understands and cares.


----------



## gordjenkins (12 Mar 2007)

see next posting


----------



## gordjenkins (12 Mar 2007)

*thank you for off line feed back!!* -still needs work:>)

DRAFT #2

Minister

Where there is smoke there is fire - 
in USA Veterans Admin 
and in Canada also : Veterans Affairs Canada

A couple of for instances :
*Mandate* - Veterans Affairs mandate and money has moved from looking after veterans to more of a "Heritage Canada " function -_example Ice Sculptures /Receptions etc for 90 Anniversary ofVimy  _ 

*Veteransnow with new policy being  with second best disability equipment * instead of the best as previously  (*Not * top of the line) - example hearing aids - veterans now issued clumsy "wrap around ear" devices of 1950 technology -and price instead of "state of the art devices" Even the Hearing Aid audiologists complain of constantly fighting with Veterans Affairs to get service for veterans. 

*Pension Advocates Slow * Veterans have to wait for months and years to have a pension decision reviewed- example it would be interested in the average figure how long it takes for a Pension Advocate to process a claim - most of us veterans are getting old - WW2 /Korean and even early Peacekeeping vets of Congo /Middle East. We will be dead soon. How long Mr Military Ombudsman to process a claim or appeal??  How many Vets have died waiting??

*Reverse Onus on the Veteran to prove * - when applying for a pension the veteran is "guilty until he is proved innocent" - in other words a veteran must prove he did not receive the disability before he joined the military. Should it not be up to the military to prove the vet did not receive the injury or disability during his or her overseas military duty? And if the injury does not appear on yhe Vets military record - dont even bother applying.

This is but one veteran - multiply this Minister by 10 or 100 and there could possibly be a problem at DVA that needs looking at??



Respectfully


Gordon Jenkins 
Major (retired) Canadian Army Regular


----------



## 3rd Herd (12 Mar 2007)

Interesting Gord,
just had my hearing test done today. Had a very long talk with the audiologist afterwards. I got a good one who is well versed in dealling with VAC. Most of the outside medical people I have been seeing recently all say the same thing, they I trust; VAC well lets just say right now if I am in the room with someone from VAC there better be some one else with me. But not all VAC are this sort, it seems the younger ones are easier to deal with but the ones that have been around for too long often are in control.

GUNS,
all I can say is thank god I spent just about all my in service time with one of those little 110 cameras in my top combat pocket. A picture is worth a thousand words, especially after the pull the "we have no record". It also helped that I had my own copies of hospital records (oh sending me back to base ? Do you mind making an extra copy of those records for me?. AND lastly thanks to a bunch on this site who helped me locate other records from non-DND sources as the DND ones had vanished.

And now the waiting game is on.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2007)

They do seem to have a rather diverse service scheme. It took me three months from app, to testing, to new high tech aids that sit behind the ear and aren't visible. No one even knows I'm wearing them.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Mar 2007)

370 days ago, yep I am a geek, I was told that I was a young "wipper snapper" and that they did not have time for the likes of me to attend to my immediate medical need.

This is the VAC that is supposed to care for us, and those that re coming in from the Sand box.

The nurse who attended my home never heard of OSISS!

The have sat fat and lazy for well over 40 years, and a panic has set in.  Time to purge the pigs from the farmhouse.

dileas

tess


----------



## 3rd Herd (14 Mar 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The have sat fat and lazy for well over 40 years, and a panic has set in.  Time to purge the pigs from the farmhouse.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I just relized that 48th, had to go in today and yes your observation of the physical characteristics of the barn yard is 100% correct. Not one in the office is anywhere near being "fit". Last night on the news may have been CTV National they say by 2010 they will have 15 OSSIS clincs established cross Canada, due in part to the ratio of PTSD showing up in the boys down south. As for a purge which is long over due maybe given enough work to do finally they will all stress out and die a natural death.


----------



## Hockeycaper (14 Mar 2007)

Yes they have lost their way.!!!  
I am sure most cases that go in front of the VAC board (like mine) get denied. I felt belittled and pushed aside during my experience. That included the attitude I got from my VAC appointed attorney, who was suppose to "_help me_" with my case. Not to mention the VAC doctor who practically laughed at my med file...apparently it wasn't thick enough for his liking. 

Hopefully some day it will change and they will be there to help soldiers.


----------



## GUNS (14 Mar 2007)

I pity those soldiers who were posted to Gagetown during the Agent Orange spray program and now find themselves with one of the known medical conditions caused by the spraying.

I read some of their stories on their AOAC web site, these former soldiers deserve better treatment.

As one former soldier of the Gagetown spraying said," DND/Government/VA must be waiting for all of us to die off".

Pityfull,just pityfull


----------



## civmick (14 Mar 2007)

I read a couple of months ago about an Iranian teacher who was turned down to be a teacher because she could not show certificates of qualification - those being back in Iran from which she was a refugee.  There was a decision (by Ont Human Rights Comm I think?) that the school board had to give her a hearing at which (somehow) she could give "alternative proof" without the physical certificates.

VAC should be made do the same - if a veteran can swear out an affidavit of service at a particular base and time and that affidavit be verified by other sworn statements by fellow servicemen VAC should be obliged to accept them unless they can prove them to be fake and that no records of any kind are missing from the period in question.


----------



## armyvern (14 Mar 2007)

Cdn. Royal said:
			
		

> Yes they have lost their way.!!!
> I am sure most cases that go in front of the VAC board (like mine) get denied. I felt belittled and pushed aside during my experience.



Ahhh yes, the 'belittling' experience in front of the appeals board.

I remember it quite well.

"Well Cpl XX, your injury is _*obviously*_ (said with GREAT emphasis by the 'experts' at the other end of the table) not related to your service...otherwise *every* (great emphasis by them again) other soldier who had done that job as part of their service would have suffered the same injury." Case Closed.

:


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Mar 2007)

I'm not surprised by this. Any government bureaucracy over time will become self absorbed at the expense of it's customers, the taxpayer. I wager that complaints by veterans to everyone who will listen will turn up the heat. As well, given the current focus of the media on the service and veterans, there must be a "troubleshooter" type of reporter who would love to handle this issue.


----------



## 3rd Herd (14 Mar 2007)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> there must be a "troubleshooter" type of reporter who would love to handle this issue.



Try a good honest editor in chief or a good honest producer. This has been going on for a number of years and the media defiantly does not want to go near this. I would love to have my last sentence proved wrong but I do not think so.


----------



## TCBF (15 Mar 2007)

Why is VAC funding Remembrance?  Should be a Heritage Canada mandate.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Mar 2007)

I have a final appeal going on at Head Office, PEI. I broke each foot at different times doing the battle fitness test. I get 1% for each foot ( after appealing) which equals nothing until you hit 3%. Seems to me that you are on your feet all the time and feet are essential. This has been going on since Jan 04. The final appeal started Nov 06, and will be heard 29 Mar 07, with a result 60 to 90 days later. The Advocate in PEI does not hold out much of a hope I will get an increase. He basically said, it depends what side of the bed the Board got up on that day. When I stated that I thought that the Board was to give the benefit of doubt to the Vet, he sighed, and said that in his experience, it is 1 in 100 that the Vet gets the benefit of doubt, AND it seems that VAC is getting cheaper and cheaper. He also stated that their final appeal case load is enormous. Wonder why? How many VAC personnel ever spent a day in combat boots? I hurt my case because IAW the CDS direction, I did the BFT, and passed this year (at 59 YOA). I was specifically asked the question  "Are you going to do the battle fitness test?" at the first appeal (quoting the CDS direction - seems they follow what is going on!). While VAC hears all the time that military personnel suck it up and get on with it, this is held against you. I retire in Aug 07 with almost 45 years, so I am going to actively take on VAC as I will have the time. VAC considers you guilty of defrauding the government, until you can prove you are Innocent. Reverse onus as previously stated.


----------



## Hockeycaper (15 Mar 2007)

Rifleman62
Good luck and lets hope they get up on the right side of the bed.


----------



## gordjenkins (20 Mar 2007)

Re: Veterans Affairs Canada - have they lost their way? 
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2007, 05:55:00 PM » Quote  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thank you for off line feed back!! -still needs work:>)

DRAFT #3

*Minister Veterans Affairs Canada*

_Where there is smoke there is fire - _ in USA Veterans Admin 
and in Canada also : Veterans Affairs Canada

A couple of for instances :
Mandate - Veterans Affairs mandate and money has moved from looking after veterans to more of a "Heritage Canada " function -example Ice Sculptures /Receptions etc for 90 Anniversary of Vimy  

Veteransnow with new policy being  with second best disability equipment instead of the best as previously  (Not top of the line) - example hearing aids - veterans now issued clumsy "wrap around ear" devices of 1950 technology -and price instead of "state of the art devices" Even the Hearing Aid audiologists complain of constantly fighting with Veterans Affairs to get service for veterans. 

Pension Advocates Slow Veterans have to wait for months and years to have a pension decision reviewed- example it would be interested in the average figure how long it takes for a Pension Advocate to process a claim - most of us veterans are getting old - WW2 /Korean and even early Peacekeeping vets of Congo /Middle East. We will be dead soon. How long Mr Military Ombudsman to process a claim or appeal??  How many Vets have died waiting??

Reverse Onus on the Veteran to prove - when applying for a pension the veteran is "guilty until he is proved innocent" - in other words a veteran must prove he did not receive the disability before he joined the military. Should it not be up to the military to prove the vet did not receive the injury or disability during his or her overseas military duty? And if the injury does not appear on the Vets military record - don't even bother applying.

This is but one veteran - multiply this Minister by 10 or 100 and there could possibly be a problem at DVA that needs looking at?? Why is not more money going to veterans rather than "heritage" - there is a Department for heritage!



Respectfully


Gordon Jenkins 
Major (retired) Canadian Army Regular


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Mar 2007)

It may be useful to wait until the Veteran's Ombudsman is up an running. The 2007 budget allocated funds for the creation of this office.


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2007)

Funny thing this VA thing
I have seen the paperwork of a large number of Reg & Res personnel who have played the PTSD card & have gone past go, got a get out of jail card, collected their $$$ and have gone on their merry way....
Funny thing is that they were in places like the Golan and the Sinai - after the shooting stopped and there had been relative peace for some +/- 15 years.  

Many have parlayed a cat 5(f) release into a cat 3(b) golden handshake... cool huh?

Rifleman62... you should tell them that their attitude is driving you completely loony & right round the bend.... (I'd believe ya!)


----------



## the 48th regulator (20 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Funny thing this VA thing
> I have seen the paperwork of a large number of Reg & Res personnel who have played the PTSD card & have gone past go, got a get out of jail card, collected their $$$ and have gone on their merry way....
> Funny thing is that they were in places like the Golan and the Sinai - after the shooting stopped and there had been relative peace for some +/- 15 years.
> 
> ...



Interesting.  After these characters have played the card, how do they cope with the medication and visits to the psychiatrist and the Psychologists?  I mean, if they are taking the medication, their system must be all screwed up, wouldn't you agree?  I guess if they feel it is worth it for the golden handshake, all is well, it only screws them up further.  I would have to say that those involved in the myriad of tests, should be investigated by someone, since you have seen a large number of people playing the card.

Wonder if what the public would say about that, once the media gets a hold of this.....

dileas

tess


dileas

tess


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2007)

Medications - couldn't tell you what medication they are taking
The selected segments of the DVA letters I have been provided with talk about % dissabilities of 20 to 40%.
Have had a few that managed to get DVA to give them a pension even before the CF was advised... 
You communicate with these guys and they are incoherent and all over the place.  Start talking about money and..... they are soooo lucid it isn't funny.
Are they faking ? Probably not at least not to any great extent... but modern society will do that to you as well...


----------



## the 48th regulator (20 Mar 2007)

Well when you allude to some golden handshake, I assume you are in the know with regards to PTSD, and have made a professional assessment.  You obviously feel that your experience supercedes those of the professionals.

Quick question, do you know the myriad of tests involved with regard to people being assessed for PTSD?

dileas

tess


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Mar 2007)

I had a very quick scan of one piece of info on the Veteran's Ombudsman. The establishment of the position is for personnel (Vets - all of us) who are out of the military to have access to an Ombudsman, as, upon release you can no longer access the CF Ombudsman. The Veteran's Ombudsman will not deal with appeals, claim submissions, etc. It will be interesting to see the terms of reference for the position. Lets hope that the person selected has military experience. Any ideas?  BGen(ret)  Jim  Cox?


----------



## Roy Harding (20 Mar 2007)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ...  BGen(ret)  Jim  Cox?



If so - I'll make sure my socks match (precisely)  before the interview.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Funny thing this VA thing
> I have seen the paperwork of a large number of Reg & Res personnel who have played the PTSD card & have gone past go, got a get out of jail card, collected their $$$ and have gone on their merry way....
> Funny thing is that they were in places like the Golan and the Sinai - after the shooting stopped and there had been relative peace for some +/- 15 years.
> 
> ...



Geo, while the Conduct Guidelines indicate talking authoritatively on topics (seeing material, working in a particular discipline/position, etc...), they do not condone what appears to be the addition of a clear element of opinion that many of us reading your post can't help but interpret as an effort to broad-brush or stereotype PTSD sufferers.  That's not conducive to a healthy discussion of the topic.  At the end of the day, whether you personally agree with the decision or not, the Crown deemed fit to approve compensation for the people whose files you are reading.  To comment on those cases negatively without general recourse to your statements is not appropriate.


The Army.ca staff


----------



## 3rd Horseman (20 Mar 2007)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Lets hope that the person selected has military experience. Any ideas?  BGen(ret)  Jim  Cox?



 Jimmy Cox.......I hope not. That is the last choice I would make, although he trained the best Bn to go to war he was cruel to his troops, those who suffered under his command know. AS the Inspector Gadget he was useless....matching socks thread colours brings back sad memories of what was a great Bn.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Mar 2007)

Ah, I see Roy and the 3rd know him. Me too. Just threw the name out. Who would be a good choice? You need: military experience, been high enough in the food chain to know how it works, but not be tainted, and .... How about O"Conner? Does he fit? How about a US citizen?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Mar 2007)

I think me sounds good....ya thats the ticket. I will be calling Greg in the morning if I dont get the job then I will be sure to make Cox never get it.


----------



## Roy Harding (21 Mar 2007)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ah, I see Roy and the 3rd know him. Me too. Just threw the name out. Who would be a good choice? You need: military experience, been high enough in the food chain to know how it works, but not be tainted, and .... How about O"Conner? Does he fit? How about a US citizen?



How 'bout MGen (Ret'd) Lew MacKenzie?


----------



## geo (21 Mar 2007)

G2G & 48th
Mea culpa - to a certain extent.
I do understand what PTSD is about, I do not begrudge anyone for the pension that they have been awarded by DVA - I have absolutely no interest in meriting one for myself, under any circumstance.
Those friends I have that do suffer from PTSD, and there are several, were AND ARE wonderful people who have a long road ahead of them as they work at putting their lives back together again - thank the lord that they have the support they do have.

My post may have appeared to be broad brushed, it wasn't nor was it intended to be.  

If I offended anyone - my apologies

Chimo!


----------



## 3rd Herd (21 Mar 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> If so - I'll make sure my socks match (precisely)  before the interview.



Add in the pressed green boxer shorts and ironed double crease in the back of your shirt. you will then do fine. ;D


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (21 Mar 2007)

For Ombudsman to the VA.

Jimmy Cox, absolutely not. 

Lew MacKenzie, Definitely. Served under him in Yugo and i would follow that man to hell and back. He is a no nonsense type of leader and was great to the troops. When ever he came through the lines he wanted and expected to hear your opinions and problems and it didn't matter if you were the lowest private, he would listen and if someone had a problem, it was sorted out. Great leader.


----------



## 3rd Herd (21 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> G2G & 48th
> Mea culpa - to a certain extent.
> I do understand what PTSD is about, I do not begrudge anyone for the pension that they have been awarded by DVA - I have absolutely no interest in meriting one for myself, under any circumstance.
> Those friends I have that do suffer from PTSD, and there are several, were AND ARE wonderful people who have a long road ahead of them as they work at putting their lives back together again - thank the lord that they have the support they do have.
> ...



Geo,
no apologies necessary. 
1) Medication- there is awhole spectrum of stuff they try and prescribe. You have to stay on it for three to four months before any effect is felt. If not they try something different and you wait another three to four months. Then something else and another three to four month trial. The side effects of some of the drugs are as bad as the PTSD itself. Myself and a few others I know have gotten off the drug regime and are using physical exercises( long walks up mountains, down beaches etc) but the caveat here is you have to be able to do it. Physical injuries limit this in some respect.

2) Support- yes it is getting better. Is it what it should be, not even close yet. Mostly I think be case yet again the medical professionals here are again behind the learning curve. Often what we have figured out what works for us is "not suitable" as the professionals have not finished studying and researching it to death.

3)PTSD- from the studies recently done PTSD is the new buzz word for I believe three or four different psychological conditions. In my case I am PTSD. Two years of me paying a shrink and psychologist out of my own pocket to get the testing done and some initial counselling. As for the finnical aspect you can do math, a psychologist is 120.00 per hour minimum, two to three times a week when you are in one of the valleys, times 52 weeks in a year. Add in the costs of the weekly to monthly visits to the shrink again per hour, Top it off with the costs of what chemicals he/she has decided to put you on. You can also figure in loss wages from what ever job you happen to have when you have a periodic meltdown. Most disability plans do not cover this as it is a "preexisting injury". Also you have the loss of hours worked due to the visits back to the medical professionals.

4) Testing- A battery of tests, if done in one session would take you eight to ten hours straight. Not only due they test for PTSD but they also test you in some of the symptom areas. For example depression, anxiety, the desire to kill some ignorant SOB that really deserves it. Also covered is alcoholism which is intresting as again recent studies and I mean real recent studies have shown that we are no more predisposed in this area than the general public. In addition to the alcoholism is the drug abuse(this one always kills me given all the crap they legally perscribe). Then we move on to personality testing, pain syndrome and the list goes on. Then ever so often you are back in to do the whole process all over again.

5) Most of us that have it can spot fellow suffers in a room full of people. We recognize similar traits, habits, mannerisms kinda hard to fool us. Oh yeah and the vivid dreams, flashbacks that you get from time to time make a John Carpenter movie look like a Walt Disney production. It is interesting going to into work after an interesting night at the 'movies'.

48th if I have missed anything feel free to add.

RANT OVER

ps: please excuse the spelling I am a little pissed right now


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Mar 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> How 'bout MGen (Ret'd) Lew MacKenzie?



Roy that is a great choice! It will be harder on the malingerer's though.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (21 Mar 2007)

Either him or Senator Dallaire (medically released for PTSD suffered in Rwanda) another good candidate.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Mar 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Geo,
> no apologies necessary.



I will second that or does that make sense for the 3rd to second the 3rds comment?
GEO.....as I am a PTSD sufferer, I know what you were getting at.


----------



## geo (21 Mar 2007)

3rd 2

Chimo!


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Mar 2007)

Gen Lew would be an obvious choice. As an aside he races cars with my son-in-laws brother. But, since he ran as a PC, I doubt he could be nominated without the Liberals going ballistic. Come on, who out there should get the job. In a earlier post I suggested possibly a US citizen. Who??


----------



## battleaxe (22 Mar 2007)

They're completely lost...in a maze of bureaucracy.

First there was VAC, then the Bureau of Pensions Advocates to deal with VAC mismanagement (it's sad that the appeal process has become an expected part of the disability claim process), now there's to be an Ombudsman to watch over the entire mess.

There are many people receiving money and earning wages on the backs and suffering of wounded soldiers- it's just not the soldiers themselves.  

When you have watchdogs guarding your watchdogs, you just know that something is wrong.

And,  IMHO, it's just starting- the problems with the New Charter are just beginning to crop up.  

For example- with the lump sum award- how are they going to figure things out if a disabiity worsens over time.  Under the old system, the amount of disability income could increase or decrease according to the extent of the disability at any given time. This, of course, never happened- nothing is ever easy with VAC- but, with a monthly payment, it was expected that there could be temporary high assessments and changes in payouts based on changes in levels of disability.

How will this happen with the lump sum awards?  VAC has already recognized the problem, I think, because many people are now being told that, while their claims have been accepted,  the award entitlements will not be granted until their conditions have stabilized and 
treatment is complete.

Sounds fair, except that, in many cases, this may not happen for years.  A lot of financial damage and debt can be incurred while military personnel are waiting for VAC to determine if it is the right time for the money to be awarded.

One other thing I've noticed in my dealings with others is that it sometimes seems that the most disabled are getting the lowest payouts from VAC.  Those who have had their LTD benefits extended past the normal 24 months upon release- indicating a high level of disability as the insurance company won't easily extend benefits past the 24 months (being an insurance company and all)- are coming back with disability assessments from VAC in the very low range- 10% or less.

Anybody else dealing with this seeming paradox?  SISIP assesses you as totally disabled, and VAC as %10 or minimally disabled?

It seems quite odd.  

I have noticed that these low assessments tend to occur with cases that deal with neurological problems-brain damage, nerve damage etc, and assessments for these things have always been difficult- there are (were I should maybe say, they seem to be improving) fewer VAC guidelines and standards for assessing neurological problems than for the more common muscle and joint problems that occur in the military.

However, I have begun to wonder if the low assessments have anything to do with the fact that VAC knows that SISIP is paying for the care of these veterans, and simply does not want to offer disability money that they know, with the clawback policy as it currently is, will simply go straight into the coffers of the insurance company.

Is that a little bit too much of a conspiracy theory?  Just my ramblings...but it's something to think about. 

Bren


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Mar 2007)

battleaxe, you make some excellent points. I am aware of a similar case as you describe - a soldier waiting for a body part shot off to regrow so that he can be assessed by VAC and possibly get some dollars under the new Charter. I am still checking it out, but my understanding, as previously posted, the Veteran's Ombudsman, will not in his terms of reference, be able to look at disability awards, the process, and the appeals. What the duties will be after that is taken out of the equation, remains to be seen. Might be a figurehead with a budget. Still checking.
I have always stated that the definition of a Veteran was changed only to accommodate a government department and the public service jobs therein. The WWI vets were gone, WWII and Korea Vets were going fast, there was not a vast inventory of Vets left to "serve". So VAC could be downsized. Then a brilliant mind saw the light. Lets make everyone in the military, past and present, Reg and Res a Vet (they left out Cadets, but watch and shoot). We would have a enormous inventory to justify our existence. And so it was done. The government PR on this was of course, Wow look what a great government we are, we are looking after our Vets because we honor them, respect them, and know it is our duty as a government, representing all the citizens of Canada to ensure their sacrifice is acknowledged.
Yes it is really sad that when you deal with VAC on your claim, you can almost guarantee that the VAC Pension Officer will tell you that you will have to appeal. An do not ever forget, that in your claim you will have medical evidence from medical doctors (General Practitioners and Specialists), therapists, etc. Your medical evidence will be analyzed by staff, and at the appeal stage by VAC personnel who ARE NOT medical practitioners. Oh, there may be a VAC MD or Nurse who does an assessment, but not when the assessment goes for entitlement or to any level of appeal. So again we have non medical practitioners over ruling LICENCED medical practitioners. Do you not wonder why something is rotten at VAC? And you are correct. If the assessment/entitlement was done with some level of honesty, integrity and the benefit of the doubt to the Vet (as it is supposed to be), there would be jobs lost. But, we cannot cut jobs at VAC can we. The whole purpose of making everyone and their uncle a Vet was to preserve jobs and a method of operation to justify the jobs.

Rifleman62 You must take caution with your tone.


----------



## battleaxe (22 Mar 2007)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I am still checking it out, but my understanding, as previously posted, the Veteran's Ombudsman, will not in his terms of reference, be able to look at disability awards, the process, and the appeals. What the duties will be after that is taken out of the equation, remains to be seen.



I'll be checking this out as well.  If he has no say in disability awards, the VAC process, and the appeals system- there will be little need for an Ombudsman- as the majority of the problems with the whole VAC process is about these very things.
Actually, what other problems could there be?

Bren


----------



## gordjenkins (23 Mar 2007)

Odd
there is absolutely nothing about an *Ombudsman* 
past /present or future 
on Veterans Affairs Canada Web page ??

 www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/


----------



## battleaxe (23 Mar 2007)

It's in the works. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs brought the idea to Parliament just last month.

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=193800

It's funny that there is nothing on the VAC website about it.  They're probably in denial.

And this thought just popped into my head (so, I'll be looking into it later but thought I'd ask now), who will an eventual Ombudsman work for? Where in the grand scheme of things will he sit on an organizational chart (if the position is every created)?

Many feel that Bureau of Pensions Advocates lawyers are in a position of conflict because they fall within VAC.  An Ombudsman will, IMO, have to have a clear separation from VAC itself if he/she is to be seen as a true advocate and to have credibility. 

I'm sure they're all busy working these things out.  Just hope they don't take too long about it.

Bren


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Mar 2007)

A Bit lengthy. Here is the only info I have. They are extracts. I do not know where the news people got their info. May be speculation on their part. May be from questions they asked at a press conference. At the bottom, the history of this affair. Do not expect VAC to go all out producing this. It will take time – 2/3 years??? Kicking and screaming. 

Speaking notes for The Honourable Greg Thompson, PC, MP Minister of Veterans Affairs to the Armed Forces Electronics and Communications Association Ottawa Chapter PD Luncheon
Ottawa, Ontario. December 5, 2006

And, at the same time, our new government is working on other initiatives to better the lives of our Veterans. 
Two of the key initiatives are a Veterans Bill of Rights and a Veterans Ombudsman. Both were promises we made in the last election, and we are committed to delivering on them.
A Bill of Rights will ensure that our Veterans are always treated with the respect and dignity they've earned. 
This Bill of Rights will not be a long, drawn out paper. Instead, it will be a clear, concise and comprehensive document that demonstrates our Veterans have their country's full support.
Appointing an Ombudsman, meanwhile, will help make sure we keep the faith and trust of the Veterans we serve. It is important that we build on the relationship here with Veterans and those who feel the system is not meeting their needs.
I know the men and women at Veterans Affairs are committed to this.
In fact, according to client satisfaction surveys, 84 per cent of our clients are satisfied with the service they receive from Veterans Affairs. And, with an ombudsman, we will do even better.

Speaking Notes for The Honourable Greg Thompson, P.C., M.P. Minister of Veterans Affairs Appearance before The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Concerning Bill of Rights
Ottawa, ON. February 20, 2007

I realize that this Committee has recently devoted considerable time to the study of the Veterans Ombudsman. I am delighted to tell you today that I am awaiting the recommendations of the Committee on this important issue.
Today, however, I would like to discuss the Bill of Rights. 
As Members of Parliament, we receive calls from those who feel that they have not been treated fairly or in a respectful manner by the federal government. Those calls could have come from our Veterans who felt that they did not receive benefits to which they may have been entitled. 
That's why, we promised, during the last federal election, to establish a Veterans Bill of Rights, a Bill of Rights that will ensure that our Veterans are always treated with the respect and dignity they've earned. 
The Committee has been briefed by Department officials on the work that they have done over the past year. 
In plain language, in a visible and transparent manner, a Veterans Bill of Rights will reaffirm our unceasing commitment to treat them with respect, dignity, fairness and courtesy.
I also believe that the Veterans Bill of Rights is very timely because it will support the implementation of the New Veterans Charter. 
As we well know, the new Charter is a comprehensive package of programs that is designed to provide younger Veterans and their families with the means to make a successful transition to civilian life. 
Today, as we better understand the more complex needs of our clients, their confidence in our programs is especially critical.
I believe that the Veterans Bill of Rights will serve to reassure those clients that the Department is there for them.
The Bill of Rights will provide Veterans with an additional mechanism to ensure that their needs are being met and they will have an opportunity to take a complaint to an Ombudsman if their rights are not upheld. 

NEWS RELEASE
VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TABLES REPORT TO PARLIAMENT CALLING FOR THE CREATION OF A VETERANS OMBUDSMAN 

"I’m proud to announce the tabling of a report produced by the Veterans Affairs Committee calling for the creation of a Veterans Ombudsman,” said Rob Anders, MP for Calgary West and Committee Chair. "The tabling of this report is a testimony of how parliamentarians can work together.”
Ottawa, February 22, 2007 - Today, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs tabled in Parliament a report entitled “A Helping Hand for Veterans: Mandate for a Veterans Ombudsman.” The Committee began its study in Spring 2006 in order to contribute to the development of the mandate of the Veterans Ombudsman, which the government intends to create along with a Veterans Bill of Rights. 
The Committee’s report recommends that the Veterans Ombudsman should have the mandate to review all issues pertaining to the care and support of all Veterans, their families, and any client of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also recommends that the Veterans Ombudsman should have all the powers, resources, and staff necessary to carry out the mandate in an independent and impartial fashion. The Committee calls for a Veterans Ombudsman who reports to Parliament with the same powers and responsibilities as other Parliamentary Ombudsmen such as the Privacy Commissioner, the Commissioner for Official Languages, and the Information Commissioner.
Over the years, many veterans and others have argued in favour of an Ombudsman focussed only on Veteran’s issues. As an independent and impartial third party, a Veterans Ombudsman could investigate complaints concerning the processing of applications for disability compensation or the delivery of Veterans services and propose ways to settle disputes. The Committee heard testimony from a broad spectrum of Veterans groups, individual Veterans, and officials and believes that its recommendations will ensure an effective and independent Veterans Ombudsman who will meet the needs of Veterans.
Questions remain about how much teeth the new veterans ombudsman will actually have, but that did not prevent Flaherty from evoking the legacy of the historic First World War battle of Vimy Ridge in the French countryside, where 3,500 Canadian soldiers were killed driving German forces from the trenches - the moment that historians say marked Canada's coming of age as a sovereign country.
"In proposing these measures, we are ever mindful of the torch being passed from yesterday's veterans to today's heroes," Flaherty said in his budget speech.

Link to A Helping Hand for Veterans: Mandate for a Veterans Ombudsman: 
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=194500

Committee urges creation of military-vet ombudsman. Updated Thu. Feb. 22 2007 11:07 AM ET Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- A Commons committee is calling on the federal government to break new ground by appointing an ombudsman for military veterans as quickly as possible.
An ombudsman would give veterans a much-need advocate to help them obtain the best services possible, committee chairman Rob Anders said Thursday, adding Canada will be a "pioneer'' once it appoints a veterans' ombudsman.
Veterans in many countries have access to an ombudsman to help them obtain benefits and services they're denied because of misunderstandings, bureaucratic delays, or lack of information, Anders said.
A specialist is needed to help veterans negotiate the complex legislation governing disability benefits and regulations concerning access to programs and services, he wrote.
"Veterans often do need help to get what they need,'' Anders, a Conservative MP from Calgary, wrote in a 27-page report entitled A Helping Hand for Veterans: Mandate for a Veterans' Ombudsman.
"Canadian veterans should not be denied access to the help of an ombudsman because there is no such office with a country-wide mandate dealing with federal government programs and services. It is time to fill the void by appointing an independent, impartial, and effective veterans' ombudsman.''
The all-party committee was unanimous in its conclusions, tabling 22 recommendations on the issue in Parliament on Thursday.
The report says the veterans' ombudsman should be appointed for five-year terms and report to Parliament annually.
The ombudsman's mandate would include oversight of "all issues pertaining to the care, support and benefits'' of veterans and their families.
"An ombudsman would give our veterans an advocate,'' Anders wrote.”Someone to help them obtain the best services possible.''
The position, the first recommendation of the newly created committee, would not replace the Veterans Appeal and Review Board.

Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service (Ottawa Citizen) Published: Monday, March 19, 2007. 

The budget earmarked $19 million to establish an ombudsman who will report to the minister of veterans affairs, and another $20 million in subsequent years, to ensure the system lives up to a new Veterans Bill of Rights that entrenches respect and dignity for veterans and their families. 
The new veterans' ombudsman attempts to close a loophole that previously excluded modern-day troops from seeking redress from the military after they had left the Forces. The Canadian Forces has its own ombudsman to whom active members of the military can turn, and who has periodically investigated veterans' issues after receiving special permission. 
But many critics, including the first Canadian Forces ombudsman, Andre Marin, have repeatedly called for the creation of a separate ombudsman for veterans to address concerns of a group many say has fallen though the cracks.
The new veterans' watchdog will still lack some of the bite of his military counterpart: the office will not have the power to make enforceable rulings, and will offer only recommendations to the minister of veteran’s affairs on how to correct problems that its investigations uncover.
Moreover, the new ombudsman will not have the authority to overturn rulings by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the final arbiter of all complaints involving the particular benefits of individual veterans.

Past History:
National Council of Veteran Associations supports Veterans' Ombudsman 

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2007/20/c4650.html


----------



## Old RCEME (24 Mar 2007)

Rifleman62: Your advocate sounds like a real wimp. I've been dealing with DVA since 1956, and have gone through many reviews,what you get depends a lot on your advocate. never got to review with out one, and one you trust. They get a bit bent out of shape when you want a new advocate. I remember about 30 years ago at a review with two old biddys from PEI who thought that Saskatoon in November was the end of the known world. The said ,very condescendingly that they would recommend a MODEST increase in my hearing pension  The advocate wrote 5% and then spent 15 minutes telling why it should at least be 25%. Much the same thing for my injury. Got 45% retro for a Year. The wife and I had a nice trip to Mexico.My biggest bitch with DVA now is the fact that I live in a small town 100 Click from the city. So I have t call a call centre in Winnipeg when I need a counselor and almost never get to speak with any one who knows my case. I have to drive to the city to see a counselor and that is not medical travel, so I cant get milage.By the way the have to give you a dif advocate if you dont like the first one Old Rceme


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Mar 2007)

Old RCEME,

Possibly. The first level appeal Advocate surprised the heck out of me, when Mr Self Important (one of the Board, retired Air Force), said well advocate what do you want, or words to that effect. My Advocate said 1%. That floored me. He never discused it with me before hand. This was my first appeal, and I did not know what to expect. Two broken feet = 1% each!!! Unfortunately the advocate has been around a long time. His heart is in the right place, but I think he gets intimidated, especially by Mr Self Important, who must like our city - he visits a lot. 
The Advocate at PEI sounds worn out. I was absolutely shocked what he produced  from Nov to Feb for the final appeal.  Several pages triple spaced, no thrust, no gonads, no nothing. A lousy piece of staff work that a new OCdt could produce with a minimum of prodding. Not happy.The only reason I know what he produced is I asked him this week for an electronic copy of the appeal. 29 Mar is dooms day. I have spoken to him many times plus at least 10 emails. My last email said " I  have spoken to you several times, as well as writing to you on several occasions with regard to ...... Please amend the appeal to reflect this.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Mar 2007)

It would be interesting to find out how the Advocates at VAC are assessed for their annual PER. I am not exactly sure the relationship re VAC/Bureau of Pension Advocates, other than they are supposed to be separate entities. But optics - their office is co-located with VAC amongst other things. When I worked for the Federal Business Development Bank, my PER was based mainly on how many loans I completed. What is the criteria for Pension Advocates. I am not saying that their PER is based on how "successful - and in whose eyes" their case load is. I do not think there is collusion, but there has to be some conflict of interest. Would be interesting to find out.
All the personnel that I have dealt with a VAC were very good people trying to help. With every organization, some are better in their jobs than others. I think VAC personnel are trying to do their best, but are stuck with VAC Bureaucracy, which is, at its core  the ethos of bureaucracy: incompetence combined with a refusal to see a problem, admit responsibility or to undertake remedial action. It must be bad for the employees moral. They are probably just as frustrated as we are. All too often, we hear they understand our ethos of suck it up buttercup, all too often they know we will have to appeal. So where is the problem at VAC? One department has to be Entitlements. The Assessment dept is also there to some degree. The composition, experience (including lack of military, and specifically lack of combat arms experience) of Appeal Boards absolutely, and positively.
This is what I got, word for word, from my query to the Advocate in PEI when I asked him what exactly VAC requires before an Appeal Board:

"There is no manual.  The preparation of a case before this tribunal would more or less follow the same process as civilian trials or cases--evidence is gathered, as best as is possible in each individual case, to show that the client has a right to such and such a remedy, which in our case, is a disability pension.  In our system the applicant has the burden of showing that his disability is probably service-related and the evidence must establish this.  That is the burden of proof.  In that burden assistance is obtained from the applicable legislation which requires the Board to (1) accept uncontradicted evidence that is credible (2) draw from the evidence and circumstances of the case every reasonable inference in favour of the applicant and (3) in weighing the evidence, resolve any doubt in favour of the applicant.  The advocate reviews the case and the grounds given for a refusal of a pension or for giving only partial entitlement, and advises the client as to the evidence that would assist in addressing those grounds and in establishing a probable case.  The applicant obtains this evidence (with the assistance of the advocate if needed) and the case proceeds when the evidence is obtained.  Naturally, the better the evidence the better the chance of proving the case.  However, many times all the evidence is not obtainable for whatever reason and the case proceeds on what already exists on the record.  Sometimes no additional evidence is required; the case proceeds on what has already been put forward and the argument is made that the lower decision-maker simply made the wrong decision based on that evidence. That's it in a nutshell."

Some interesting choice of words. Do you think this is the way that VAC at any level operates?


----------



## armyvern (24 Mar 2007)

Perhaps anyone considered for a position at VAC should have to undergo a few months "OJT" in a military capacity, just so they fully grasp the actualities of what military daily life and work entails.

Being in contact with quite a few pers working in VAC, each one with prior military service speaks of their frustration level at work. Not because of the 'work-related' frustrations, but of continually overhearing inaccurate statements of whether something is "service related," debates over same, and a bunch of co-workers who are making decisions (often wrongly) about whether something is or is not service-related. They are frustrated that those who have never had the honour of wearing this country's uniform are making decisions about what injuries can possibly occur while one wears that uniform.  

Yep, it's one big vast beaurcray, where people who have never done your job (for the overwhelming majority of them) get to tell you tell you what can/or can't happen to you while performing that job. The general assumption is that whoever applies IS trying to scam the system.


----------



## gordjenkins (24 Mar 2007)

super post
_Yep, it's one big vast beaurcray, where people who have never done your job (for the overwhelming majority of them) get to tell you tell you what can/or can't happen to you while performing that job. The general assumption is that whoever applies IS trying to scam the system.[/i\\

When I first posted this item I thought it was "just me" - then my first Email (not post) was exactly what you just saif - in different words - from a senior person over at VAC .Said "worst years of his life" 
The big question now is



we have a problem (not just me)



what can be done about it - VAC picks us off one at a time


_


----------



## 3rd Herd (24 Mar 2007)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> what can be done about it  - VAC picks us off one at a time



Gord, this to my mind all most the same as the TV commercial in which they try to figure out how the center of the Cadburry bar is filled. There are a multitude of "official and non official" organizations that I have seen all complaining or bitching about this issue. A couple will not even talk to each other, others are fed with others. And it is questionable if some are actually veterans organizations anymore. Beginning the list with Royal Canadian Legion, Regimental Associations, Army Navy Air Force Association, Peacekeepers Association, War Amps, Korean War Veterans.......... and until WE all can come to form some sort of consensus then yes it is a one by one battle.

For your interest:

The Voice of VAC: http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=salute/july2004/voice 

Veterans Voice: http://www.VeteranVoice.info/ (THE BEST SITE AROUND FOR VETERAN INFORMATION ISSUSES)

Librarian,
yes it is the same here. Four in this office who should all be awarded some sort of commendation for service beyond the call of duty just for putting up with the daily trials and tribulations.


----------



## battleaxe (26 Mar 2007)

As with anything involving DND/VAC,  often the best and fastest way to get anything done and resolved, it seems, is to get the media involved.

I haven't gone a month in the last year without seeing something about the poor treatment of veterans in the paper or on the news. 

Does it help at all? This is what I want to know from those who have managed to get their stories into the media.

For those in the east who can tune into Global Maritimes- there's another service member trying tonight...Michele Mischler will be doing a story tonight (6 and 11 p.m.) about a pilot who has become disabled due to a fall and who is having a nightmare of a time with VAC.

FYI.

Bren


----------



## 3rd Horseman (26 Mar 2007)

Battleaxe,

   I don't think it helps at all currently. The reason is that most all the media spot lights on DVA issues are from what I see as very weak arguments and questionably claims. What we need in the media is the most disturbing claims to get attention so the public is shocked. Those questionable claims may be valid but they are in the grey zone and Joe public cant understand or just sees it as a non issue. A claim that has eroded our credability as DVA claimants is the Agent Orange claim which has been shown at every turn to be without merit.
  Possibly some of the big claims are not getting action due to the quick response by DVA to accept the claim once it potentially goes to the media. I don't know just a thought.

 We need DVA to fix the problem they created when they accepted DVA claims while still serving for non combat related injuries. That is the issue that has driven the feeding frenzy for DVA money be it just or not. IMHO that has been the problem all along and it needs to be repelled and fast.


----------



## Sandy Skipton (26 Mar 2007)

Excuse me, 3rd Horseman, but it is not your place to reject the Agent Orange situation... I guess that will be up to the Canadian Court system or the Minister of Veterans Affairs.... btw, the DVA problems have  been evident for a very long time....  DVA has been rejecting claims for many many years... I am sure others can vouch for that.


----------



## battleaxe (27 Mar 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Battleaxe,
> 
> We need DVA to fix the problem they created when they accepted DVA claims while still serving for non combat related injuries. That is the issue that has driven the feeding frenzy for DVA money be it just or not. IMHO that has been the problem all along and it needs to be repelled and fast.



3rd,

I'm just going to ask for clarification here on whether you have an issue with people getting DVA pensions while still serving or if you think they should only be compensated if they are injured in a combat role.

On the first point, and this is my opinion only (I don't expect it to be a popular one, really), I think the decision to offer monthly disability pensions to still serving members was a bad decision.  "Feeding frenzy" is indeed an apt description for what transpired after that policy was implemented.
(That policy has changed- many are still in under the old policy, however).
The policy undermines the credibility of the whole program- many people will (and do) argue that people who are able to work full time, and draw full benefits (ie, do not suffer financially from their disability) have no right to disability compensation.  The public will have a hard time buying it- and with all of these cases being brought to the media- they will be weighing in on the issue.  I've seen civilians on this website already asking those very questions in the past.
The policy also causes problems within the workplace.  It has created a working environment where some people do less work (due to employment limitations) for more money (wages + DVA pension).  Not good for morale.
My opinion only- disability compensation/pension should be a release issue- offered only upon release-when the disability could have financial implications and affect future employability.   

As for the non-combat issue- I'd just like to add  something.  

Would it be appropriate to think of DVA as the military's version of Workers' Compensation?  

For most workers in the civilian world, if one is injured on the job- no matter what the job- they are compensated for their injuries (medical benefits and non-economic loss payouts similar to our current DVA lump sum benefit). 

Just an example:  http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/lp/lo/fwcs/guide.shtml&hs=fxf.

 In the CF, we don't qualify for any of the provincial Workers' Comp programs or any of the benefits under the the Government Employees Compensation Act.

All that military personnel-irregardless of trade or element- have for work-related disabiity compensation is VAC. All military personnel should have access to the programs and benefits it provides. This puts everyone in the CF at least on par with what other government workers (who are further from anything combat related than even many Air Force or Navy personnel) are offered for injury compensation.

Any thoughts?

Bren


----------



## 3rd Horseman (27 Mar 2007)

Battleaxe,

     You make good points. To fully detail my position it is important to understand the moneys received by the injured. I think we all make a mistake and erode our cases when we call DVA a pension for disability. It is a Gift of Canada for pain and suffering....not a disability pension. That being said my understanding of the plan we are under is three pots of money as follows:
DVA - Pain and suffering
SISIP LTD - Economic loss
CPP - Disability Economic loss

   I agree with you and my position was that I don't support pain and suffering grants ie DVA pension to serving members who are not injured in combat. Non combat injuries should be dealt with though the normal work accident system and if one is still fully employed then the compensation money kicks in on retirement like in the past. Now the new system is not fully clear yet as it is ever changing. I am not fully clear on the new plan so I stand to be corrected on the new vets charter. I did not think we needed a new vets charter that changed the compensation what we needed was the Government to change SISIP LTD that in my opinion was the location of the issue. 
  You are right the inequity in a fully employed person getting a top of pay is not good and I don't support it. For an actual example... top incentive Capt at 85% DVA still full time serving one makes more than the Base Comd (ALA yr 2000). For a wounded soldier in action that can be accepted but not for a sports accident IMHO.
   The plan changed in 99 when all could claim the DVA money while serving, I liked that before 99 only the SDA injuries got the money it kinda made it special for the war wounded.

  Correct me if I'm wrong BA but the link you gave for non eco payments for the injured don't actually pay non economic injuries if you are getting full pay. They just cover the medical .

  In conclusion I think that the old DVA system was just fine less the payments for non combat injury. I think LTD SISP is the problem and it was not overhauled when the DVA charter was, that will prove to be a mistake IMHO.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Mar 2007)

The story battleaxe posted:

Injured ex-pilot fighting for help from Veterans Affairs

Andre Daoust is tired of waiting. 
More than a year after the 45-year-old Dartmouth man slipped on black ice and severely injured his knee while at work, Veterans Affairs Canada still hasn't approved his disability pension. 
The former air force pilot, who can't fly or even drive now, and walks with a cane, said Monday he has been corresponding with the federal department for months without results. 
In fact, Veterans Affairs initially approved his claim but then sent him a letter "denying everything," Mr. Daoust said. He said he has done everything he can to prove that his injury is legitimate so he can get financial support. 
But after submitting all the paperwork the government requested - including results from MRI scans and documents proving that the fall happened at work - he's still fighting. 
"I think what it is, is there's a lot of money involved and they're just trying to back away from everything," he said. 
When Mr. Daoust slipped and fell in December 2005, his "left leg bent inwards," he said, causing his left knee to swell up in "extreme pain." He went back to work but not only did the pain persist in his left knee but his compensating "right knee started to hurt" and his back started to suffer a couple of months later. 
Subsequently, his doctor put him on sick leave and he has been off work ever since. 
Mr. Daoust said doctors diagnosed a Baker's cyst in his left knee, bone discolouration in his right knee and displaced discs in his lower back. 
"I have had an assessment done . . . on things that have to be done to the house such as a walk-in shower, a banister to the steps outside, bars for the tub and bars for the toilet," Mr. Daoust said. "Nothing was ever done and that was months and months ago." 
Beverly Daoust said she and her husband call Veterans Affairs every day for an update but "they will not call us back." 
Mr. Daoust has already received some financial help for hearing problems resulting from a poor flying helmet and for post-traumatic stress disorder after the September 1998 crash of Swissair Flight 111 off Peggys Cove. 
"This has nothing to do with those issues; this is a bad fall at work," Ms. Daoust said. "The man is 45 and crippled. 
"Andre used to speed-walk every day, bike and we used to go dancing," she said. "Now he's lucky to get into a shower or walk to the van with my assistance and with a cane." 
Mr. Daoust, who completed two UN tours in Haiti, is being released from the military in October because of his medical disabilities, she said. 
Peter Stoffer, the NDP MP for Sackville-Eastern Shore, called Mr. Daoust's situation "an absolute disgrace." 
"He's proven his case over and over again," Mr. Stoffer said Monday night. "He suffered an injury in the line of duty, that injury has caused him tremendous problems, he's done everything the DVA has asked him to." 
Mr. Stoffer said he has gone to Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson on behalf of Mr. Daoust. 
A spokesperson for Veterans Affairs Canada could not be reached Monday night.


----------



## gordjenkins (27 Mar 2007)

_As with anything involving DND/VAC,  often the best and fastest way to get anything done and resolved, it seems, is to get the media involved._

*Anyone thought about this approach
and
better still
got any media contacts??*


----------



## 3rd Horseman (28 Mar 2007)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> and for post-traumatic stress disorder after the September 1998 crash of Swissair Flight 111 off Peggys Cove.



  Gordjenkins,

   The media is a help but you have to pick the right fight to be taken seriously.
    In the case above I might suggest that this line I have separated from the main text is possibly a red flag to DVA.
  In this case detailed by Battleaxe should most of these issues not be covered by SISIP LTD? DVA is not a disability pension it is a Gift of Canada for pain and suffering. I hope that it will fall in place in time for this guy if he proves his case but the immediate medical needs he has should be covered by CF medical system and once out with loss of income SISIP LTD. Just by the nature of the beast (DVA) it will take longer to get and should not be relied upon to be an instant issue if you are still serving because other systems are supposed to take care of those needs.


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> DVA is not a disability pension it is a Gift of Canada for pain and suffering.



I've seen you make this comment a couple times now, and while I agree with your opinion (and the CF Ombudsman's opinion at http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/updates/vet_e.asp) that VAC doesn't give out "disability pensions" in the same sense that SISIP LTD does, the opinion is just that - opinion.  Nothing has been done so far to change the status of VAC disability pensions, so calling them "gifts for pain and suffering" is kind of moot until their status does get changed.


----------



## Centurian1985 (28 Mar 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Gift of Canada for pain and suffering.



Are you joking, or do you seriously consider it a 'gift'?  Its supposed to be compensation for the lost ability to earn an equitable income.


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Are you joking, or do you seriously consider it a 'gift'?  Its supposed to be compensation for the lost ability to earn an equitable income.



In all fairness, even the CF Ombudsman is of the opinion that it's a "gift" as compensation for pain and suffering.  There are lots of disabilities that are pensionable under VAC that wouldn't hinder a person's ability to earn an equitable income.


----------



## Centurian1985 (28 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> In all fairness, even the CF Ombudsman is of the opinion that it's a "gift" as compensation for pain and suffering.  There are lots of disabilities that are pensionable under VAC that wouldn't hinder a person's ability to earn an equitable income.



Well, I agree the right sentiment is there, but using the term 'gift' can be taken the wrong way by some groups, especially those of the more rabid anti-military variety.


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

I just re-read the Ombudsman's take on the issue, and he doesn't mention the word "gift", so maybe that would indeed be an inappropriate word.  He sums it up nicely here:



> In light of the above, it is clear – and, indeed, indisputable – that Pension Act disability pensions are not meant to be income replacement. As I indicated above, they must be characterized as amounts paid for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Mar 2007)

As callous as it sounds, and I did real a bit, the word gift falls in line for what it is

Gift Definition


Possibly a legalese way of removing onus that they are entitled to pay immediately without their form of due process

dileas

tess


----------



## Centurian1985 (28 Mar 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> As callous as it sounds, and I did real a bit, the word gift falls in line for what it is
> Gift Definition
> Possibly a legalese way of removing onus that they are entitled to pay immediately without their form of due process



Hmmm.... a good argument, but...

Gift definition:
1. something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present.  
Agreed
2. the act of giving.  
Agreed
3. something bestowed or acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without its being earned.
I'm not so sure about that...Seems like it doesnt get awarded without some level of effort...     
4. a special ability or capacity; natural endowment; talent: the gift of saying the right thing at the right time.  
–verb (used with object) 
I wish!
5. to present with as a gift; bestow gifts upon; endow with.  
Agreed
6. to present (someone) with a gift: just the thing to gift the newlyweds.  
maybe agree...

Ah well, I guess 4 out of 6 is close enough for government work.   I withdraw my contention.  


_BTW - 3 three things that affect your rank, good one!_


----------



## battleaxe (28 Mar 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong BA but the link you gave for non eco payments for the injured don't actually pay non economic injuries if you are getting full pay. They just cover the medical .
> 
> In conclusion I think that the old DVA system was just fine less the payments for non combat injury. I think LTD SISP is the problem and it was not overhauled when the DVA charter was, that will prove to be a mistake IMHO.



In response to your query about non-economic loss payments- it is my understanding that they are paid out irregardless of employment status-just like our new VAC lump sum payments.  They are for compensation for how job-related injuries affect a person outside of the workplace. 

Those who work in the public sector may want to add something here, if I'm wrong.  I'd also like to know- as VAC has seemingly brought the CF disability awards system more into line with what civilian employees get through Workers Comp- if civilians experience the same level of frustration and bureaucracy with Workers' Comp as we all do with VAC. Having union respresentation may make a difference?  Just wondering.

I'm not challenging you here or anything- I'd just like to know what changes you would like to see with the SISIP LTD.  I know there have been problems with the Accidental Dismemberment payouts - and I'm providing a link to a recent article that I've also posted in the thread-The Straw that Broke his Back- http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=19519&sc=93 - that mentions this very thing. 

Is it the claw back policy?

I guess it's all about where you're coming from.  SISIP is the only thing keeping me afloat right now- and I've been extended past the first 2 years on that.  VAC has been little to no help- and what help (medical mostly, not financial) I have received, I've had to fight for.

Could you clarify what changes you would specifically like to see, please? Always good to look at a situation from another point of view- it's so easy to get wrapped up in one's own situation.

Bren


----------



## 3rd Horseman (28 Mar 2007)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Are you joking, or do you seriously consider it a 'gift'?  Its supposed to be compensation for the lost ability to earn an equitable income.



  Not joking. The wording comes direct out of the VAC legislation wording. Much like a stipend such as Canada gives to soldiers who won VC or POW in the old days.

   Its supposed to be compensation for the lost ability to earn an equitable income.   

 On this one your incorrect that is what the CF medical pension, CPP disability and SISIP LTD are for. DVA is separate and apart that is why it is non taxable.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (28 Mar 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> Could you clarify what changes you would specifically like to see, please? Always good to look at a situation from another point of view- it's so easy to get wrapped up in one's own situation.


 Does that mean I can give you my "King for a Day" response?


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Mar 2007)

For your info. The following is the links to the members, criteria for members of the VRAB. Read the bio's of those who adjudicate your appeal. Four of the 25 members have military experience: one as a teenager in the Militia, an ex PPCLI Maj; a ex WO Inf, a LCol Air Force Engr. Plus the VRAB consists of a Chairman and Deputy Chairman (with no military experience), When you see their pay, is it a retainer, or is it prorated depending on the number of days they work? There are possibly five vacancies on the VRAB. Not many have ever walked a day in combat boots. And why should anyone put themselves on the line ?  You do not have to put yourself on the line to be a member of VRAB. You have to be connected, no matter what they say about the selection criteria. But, as a member of VRAB,  you can tell someone who has been on the line he his full of it. No wonder there are problems.

http://www.vrab-tacra.gc.ca/EmploymentOpp/Backgrounder.html

The Appointment Process for Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) Members

Three-stage assessment process
The selection process will include an initial screening, a written examination, and an interview, including reference checks.

Screening criteria
Education: Candidates must have graduated with a degree from a recognized university or have an acceptable combination of education, job-related training and/or experience. Preference may be given to candidates with a medical or legal background.
Experience: Candidates must have experience as a decision maker in or presenting cases before a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal or an acceptable combination of relevant experience in other fields, including disability compensation and veterans’ affairs.

Assessment criteria
Knowledge: Candidates must have knowledge of principles of natural justice in a tribunal setting and knowledge of contemporary veterans’ issues as well as knowledge of the interpretation and application of legislation governing veterans’ benefits.
Skills and Abilities: Excellent analytical skills are required as well as the ability to render decisions in accordance with applicable law. Candidates will need excellent interpersonal and communication skills, and must be able to write clear, accurate and concise decisions on behalf of the Board. Judgement and initiative, as well as organizational skills to produce quality and timely decisions, are essential.

Screening and interview committees

Screening committees
Screening committees will include a retired legal or medical community representative, the Chair or Deputy Chair of the VRAB, and a human resources expert. These committees will assess the application form and curriculum vitae of candidates to determine who should proceed to a written assessment of specific skills and abilities. The written assessment results of each candidate will be reviewed by the same committee to determine whether the candidate should be considered further in the selection process.

Interview Committee
Interview committees will include a retired deputy head, or equivalent, and a retired medical or legal expert who are knowledgeable of medical, legal or veterans’ issues, as well as the Chair of the VRAB and a human resources expert. These committees will interview candidates identified by the screening committee to further assess the skills and abilities of each candidate.

Selection of committee members
Members of both screening committees and interview committees will be selected by the Chair of VRAB in consultation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister will be consulted on any changes to the committees and it is anticipated that the membership will change over time to include representation from various locations in Canada. All screening and interview committee members are required to affirm their impartiality in all aspects of the Board Member selection process, and their names will be posted on the VRAB website.

Appointment process
Once the assessments are complete, the Chair of the VRAB will provide a pool of candidates found qualified by the interview committee to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister of Veterans Affairs will draw candidates from the pool that meet the Chair’s recommendations concerning VRAB operational requirements, gender, diversity, geographic needs and linguistic requirements. The Minister will then recommend candidates for appointment to the VRAB to the Governor in Council.


http://www.vrab-tacra.gc.ca/EmploymentOpp/Selection.htm

VETERANS REVIEW and APPEAL BOARD MEMBER SELECTION CRITERIA

Classification:  GC-Q3 ($91,200 - $107,300) 

Position Title:  Member, Veterans Review and Appeal Board 

Portfolio: Veterans Affairs 

Locations:  Charlottetown, Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver 

Education:  Graduation with a degree from a recognized university or an acceptable combination of education, job related training and/or experience.
Preference may be given to candidates with a medical or legal background. 

Experience: Experience as a decision maker in a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal;
or  Experience in presenting cases before a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal;
or An acceptable combination of relevant experience in other fields including disability compensation and veterans' affairs. 

Knowledge: Knowledge of the principles of natural justice in a tribunal setting;  Knowledge of contemporary veterans' issues;
Knowledge of the interpretation and application of legislation governing veterans' benefits, specifically The Pension Act , The Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, and other related statutes. 

Skills and Abilities:  Excellent analytical skills are required as well as the ability to render decisions in accordance with applicable law.  To work effectively as part of an adjudicative panel, the candidates will need excellent interpersonal and communication skills, and must be able to write clear, accurate and concise decisions on behalf of the Board.  Also required is the ability to organize their workload to ensure the rendering of quality decisions in a timely manner.  Judgement and initiative are also required. 

Language Requirement: Proficiency in both official languages is an asset. 

Working Conditions: must be able to relocate to the area of employment or to a location within reasonable commuting distance;  most positions require extensive travel throughout Canada, sometimes for periods of three weeks or more at a time. 

http://www.vrab-tacra.gc.ca/EmploymentOpp/MemberJobDesc.htm

VETERANS REVIEW and APPEAL BOARD MEMBER JOB DESCRIPTION

Primary Focus
Adjudicate review and appeal applications made to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board which may provide financial compensation to eligible claimants
Interpret and apply the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and other related statutes.

Specific Accountabilities
Provide an independent review of disability pension and War Veterans Allowance decisions taken by Veterans Affairs Canada by hearing and adjudicating cases. This involves: 
•	conducting hearings in numerous locations across the country in-person and via video conference; 
•	deciding cases and ensuring the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, Pension Act, War Veterans Allowance Act, and other related statutes are properly interpreted; and,
•	writing clear reasons for decisions within specified time frames. 

Context
The hearing process is non-adversarial. Clients are most often represented at hearings by a lawyer.

Reporting Relationship
Members are independent decision-makers. 

Dimensions 
Decisions rendered by Members have a direct impact on disability pension program expenditures which total $1.2B annually. 
Pension recipients receive life long payments (non-taxable), as well as possible treatment benefits.

Challenges, Issues, and Initiatives 

The medical issues presented are increasingly complex and are not always understood by experts in the medical field. 
Clients appearing before the Board are usually represented by a lawyer. 
Board Members may have to render decisions without an optimal amount of evidence. 
Need to balance the demand of assisting Veterans and service members while respecting the applicable legislation. 


Bio’s of members VRAB (an average of 30 full-time Governor-in-Council appointed Members who represent a diverse experience and background from the public at large)

http://www.vrab-tacra.gc.ca/VRAB-TACRA_Members.htm


----------



## gordjenkins (30 Mar 2007)

_I agree with you and my position was that I don't support pain and suffering grants ie DVA pension to serving members who are not injured in combat._


*That quote is by "The Third Horseman " in Posting  Reply #56 on: March 27, 2007, 10:26:39 AM »
and I really disagree when he says*

 -why?


*Only in combat ?

No sir

* - Because how many peace keeping missions have Canadian soldiers been on ?-
 and how many Canadian soldiers were injured/maimed /disfigured in places such as Cyprus /Bosnia/Gaza -Egypt 
- Airplane crashes/land mines and other secondary injuries suffered as a result of this SDA service?

 Your thesis then  is that the Veterans Affairs Canada  does nor cover Peace keepers Mr Horseman??

I disagree


----------



## Centurian1985 (30 Mar 2007)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> ... and my position was that I don't support pain and suffering grants ie DVA pension to serving members who are not injured in combat.



Why not?


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2007)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Why not?



Good Question.

"Service" in the CF should be the key word.  It is not up to the member where, what, when or how he will be employed, nor is it up to the member how he is injured, maimed or killed in that 'Service'.

The potential for injury or death is always there for members of the CF.  That is the hazards of the job.

As was pointed out earlier, when the Buffalo was shot down over the Sinai and all aboard were killed, does it matter or make any difference whether they were on a "Combat" or a "Peacekeeping" Mission?  The end results are the same.  During the Cold War, just because the 'Balloon didn't go up' doesn't negate the fact that the Troops were on the ground and facing the Threat.  Had there been no TICs in Afghanistan, it could have become the same story as Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sinai, Golan, Germany...........etc.


----------



## gordjenkins (3 Apr 2007)

I wonder if this post had anything to do with announcement ;>)
see below

also interesting Question
- where is DND in all this
 "looking after veterans" ??????



_PM announces veterans' ombudsman, bill of rights
Updated Tue. Apr. 3 2007 1:56 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the introduction of a veterans' bill of rights and ombudsman on Tuesday, days before he flies to France to mark the anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
"Both of these initiatives follow through on a very important promise we made during the election campaign," Harper said at a press conference in Kitchener, Ont.
"Mainly that, if elected, a Conservative government would ensure that Canadian veterans were accorded the respect and honour they deserve by putting in place mechanisms to ensure better responsiveness to their needs and concerns."
The bill of rights takes effect immediately, the prime minister said.
It will allow the government to respond quickly and fairly to any concerns of veterans.
The ombudsman, who will operate at arm's length from the government, will report annually to the veterans' minister and Parliament.
"My hoping is we will start to notice any systemic problems as a consequence of this in the very near future," Harper said.
The ombudsman will play an important role in raising awareness of the needs and concerns of veterans, Harper said.
"Our veterans have given their very best to Canada, and our government is taking yet another step to ensure Canada does its very best for them,'' the prime minister added.
Harper said that the ombudsman's position is currently being advertised and that he hopes to fill it by this spring.
The announcement raises some interesting questions, CTV's Chief Parliamentary Correspondent Craig Oliver said.
"Is he responsible to the minister of defence, or the minister of veterans' affairs, or to parliament, or to the Prime Minister's Office?" Oliver asked._


----------



## 3rd Horseman (3 Apr 2007)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> _I agree with you and my position was that I don't support pain and suffering grants ie DVA pension to serving members who are not injured in combat._
> 
> 
> *That quote is by "The Third Horseman " in Posting  Reply #56 on: March 27, 2007, 10:26:39 AM »
> ...


Gorden.
  I define combat as battle, not just isolated to a declared war or not. Thus UN missions that saw battle, which is most, are included in my comments. A Stan is also a UN mission I dont define peacekeeping as non combat unless you are unarmed observer and even then it can get combatish. No one declares war anymore so any fighting is combat. Hope that clears my position.

Edit - I would also further my point (after chatting with a friend whos brother was shot in training) that training accidents should also have these benifits extended.
Also I like the sound of that "Mr Horseman" maybe I should change my name?   
edit forgot the ,


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Apr 2007)

Joe Sharpe would be a good fit for the new post.

The job description of the Veterans Ombudsman has been posted, as well as the Veterans’ Bill of Rights (which are pretty basic). Note that systemic means universal/total/complete.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=ombudsman/appt#01

Veterans Ombudsman (full-time position)

The Veterans Ombudsman will be charged with the responsibility of responding quickly and fairly to the concerns of Veterans on a wide range of issues. More specifically, the Ombudsman will act as neutral, impartial and objective reviewer of: individual complaints and systemic issues related to programs and services provided or administered by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC); systemic issues related to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) processes; and individual complaints related to the Veterans Bill of Rights. The Ombudsman is also a direct source of information to assist individuals in accessing existing channels of redress within VAC when they have a complaint or concern. The Ombudsman will submit annual and other reports to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and may also report to VAC and VRAB authorities concerning any investigation or other matter that is within the Ombudsman's mandate. 

The successful candidate must have a degree from a recognized university in a relevant discipline or a combination of equivalent education, job-related training and experience. A law degree would be an asset. The preferred candidate must have proven experience in managing financial and human resources, preferably at the senior executive level. Experience in the management of either a complaints function, a review function or an investigative function is essential. The selected candidate must have demonstrated experience in developing and fostering productive partnerships, as well as experience dealing with government, preferably with senior officials. 

The preferred candidate must have knowledge of the mandate of the Veterans Ombudsman. Extensive knowledge of programs, legislation and policies related to Veterans is required. The favoured candidate must have knowledge of the principles of administrative law and natural justice, as well as a good understanding of trends, developments and issues affecting Veterans, including Veterans' health, family and community issues. The selected candidate must have good knowledge of the operations of government. 

The chosen candidate must possess strong leadership and managerial skills and a proven aptitude for appropriate and effective liaison and interaction with stakeholders. The successful candidate must have superior interpersonal skills and will be an individual of integrity, discretion and strong professional ethics. The ability to apply analytical, interpretative and evaluative thinking to situations and the ability to anticipate the short and long-term consequences of his/her strategies are required. In addition, the preferred candidate will have superior communications skills, both written and oral, and the ability to act as spokesperson in dealing with the media, public institutions, governments and other organizations. The selected candidate will not only be objective, impartial and fair, but also flexible and resilient. 
Proficiency in both official languages is preferred.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (4 Apr 2007)

The only thing missing from the criteria is:
Must be a Veteran
Must have been WIA

  We shall see what the result is....could be just another , Nice idea poor execution" Without a vet and a wounded vet at that I think the odds are against this being an effective position.


----------



## tired (19 Jun 2007)

I have two pieces of information that "clients" of Veterans Affairs should  know.

The first regards the critical letters of diagnosis that VAC is always asking for.  Michele Mischler a reporter of Global Maritimes reported on the 1800 and 2300 telecasts of 26 March, 2007, that Canadian Forces doctors have been prohibited from writing letters of diagnosis to Veterans Affairs Canada!  The basis for this prohibition is that the letters would be a “conflict of interest”.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reporter's statment but, because it might be accurate, I thought everyone should know.  The day after the telecasts, I telephoned GLobal to ask for a transcript but they refused to provide one saying that there are potential legal implications so, unless a lawyer makes the request on my behalf, I can't have a transcript.  So when you want to submit an appliation to VAC, ask the MO if this reporter was correct and then post the answer here.  If it is correct, get yourself a referral to a civilian specialist; civilians can write those letters.  Also, when you requisition copies of your medical records, make sure you request copies of your CF 2016, Medical Attendance Record.  It contains a wealth of information!

Michele Mischler's article was about the treatment that Captain Andre Daoust is receiving from Veteran Affairs Canada.  He is still serving but expected to be released due to the extent of his injuries.

The second bit of information is about the VAC Ombudsman.  I e-mailed the Prime Minister's Office saying that my rights, as listed on the Veterans' Bill of Rights, have been violated.  Until a VAC Ombudsman is appointed, to whom should I submit my complaint?  Also, who will the Ombudsman report to?  The answers were:  Complaints should be directed to the Minister of VAC; and, The Ombudsman will be reporting to the Minister of VAC.  So I sent another e-mail asking to whom should complaints be sent when the person I'm complaining about is the Minister (I've written to the Minister asking for help but he has brushed aside my complaints)?  My letter has gone unanswered.


----------



## 284_226 (19 Jun 2007)

tired said:
			
		

> I have two pieces of information that "clients" of Veterans Affairs should  know.
> 
> The first regards the critical letters of diagnosis that VAC is always asking for.  Michele Mischler a reporter of Global Maritimes reported on the 1800 and 2300 telecasts of 26 March, 2007, that Canadian Forces doctors have been prohibited from writing letters of diagnosis to Veterans Affairs Canada!



I can tell you firsthand that this information is correct, as I was contacted by the cell at the Stadacona Hospital that deals with such requests.  They informed me that MOs are not to write letters of diagnosis in support of a VAC claim.  After reminding them that the doctor who would be writing the report was not a MO but a specialist under contract (who is allowed to submit billing to VAC), they handled the request from VAC.



> The basis for this prohibition is that the letters would be a “conflict of interest”.



The explanation given to me was that Medical Officers were finding more and more of their time being taken up by writing these letters, and it became too time consuming to support.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Jun 2007)

You are correct. This is a scan of a letter I got from 23 Health Svcs Wpg (some names removed). 


PROTECTED A

23 CF Health Services Centre
PO Box 17000 Stn Forces
Winnipeg, MB R3J 3Y5

6680-1-B (CO) CF 2034

31 August 2006

Nicole Caron-Goulet, M.D., F.C.F.P. 
Senior District Medical Officer 
Manitoba District - Winnipeg Office 
PO Box 6050
610 - 234 Donald Street
Winnipeg, MB R3C 4G5


Dear Dr. Caron-Goulet:

RE: DISABILITY PENSION AND DISABILITY AWARDS
PENSION STREAMLINING INITIATIVES - CF STILL SERVING CLAIMS


Further to the direction received in the VAC memorandum of 22 March 2006 from Nancy McRae, Director Operational Guidance and Direction, and an e-mail from Violet Parker on 1 May 06, 23 CF Health Services Centre is no longer required to complete correspondence as requested by Veterans Affairs Canada.

It is DND's responsibility to provide medical diagnoses of any health problems facing still serving members. In response to your letter of 11 August 2006 regarding the subject member, 23 CF Health Services Centre will provide the member's medical records for review by your Organization once an authorization to release information form has been received. Please ensure that the member has signed this form within the last 12 months.

If you are unable to find a specific medical diagnosis on the medical records, please inform the client as outlined in the memorandum of 22 March 2006. The DND physicians may then investigate the member's health problem in order to determine a diagnosis. The member can inform you if and when the medical investigation is completed and the member's medical records can be requested by your Organization at that time.

Should you have any questions, please contact ----------, Health Records Management Team Leader at (204) .

Yours truly,



Major .
Commanding 0fficer
(204) 833-2500 ext 4161

cc: -----------

In May I attempted to get another letter for a final appeal. Although I have not received a written reply, the Doc ( same Doc, civilian contractor)reafirmed the policy - negative, no letter, his hands were tied. On 12 May I sent the following email to (some names removed) with the scaned letter. Cmdre Kavanagh was the then CF Surg Gen.
-----Original Message-----

Sent: May 12, 2007 12:29 PM

To: KAVANAGH.MF@forces.gc.ca; Thompson, Greg - M.P.;
Deputy_Minister@vac-acc.gc.ca
Subject: VAC Appeals and Primary Health Care Provider - Still Serving
Members

The attached letter subject is:

DISABILITY PENSION AND DISABILITY AWARDS PENSION STREAMLINING
INITIATIVES - CF STILL SERVING CLAIMS

I do not know the intent of the CF and VAC with regard this issue, but I
do know the results. There is no streamlining, and no initiative. At the
coal face there is consistent run-around and catch 22.

As a still serving member of the CF, CF H Svcs is my primary health care
provider. I cannot see a civilian health care provider except after duty
hours or in an emergency. VAC requests a specific assessment (other than
current medical records) pertaining for example, to a documented injury
that occurred during past CF service, CF H Svcs refuses to comply,
referencing the subject of the att letter.

Where is a still serving member of the CF to obtain this information to
substantiate/amplify a injury claim? CF H Svcs will not comply. All
medical records are held by CF H Svcs. Still serving CF members are
subject to:

MEDICAL SERVICES EXCLUDED FROM ENTITLEMENT

Unless specifically required by the CF, eligible persons will not be
entitled to coverage for the following items:

a. any examination or service which is not curing or preventing illness,
and, in particular:

I. passports, visas, driving licenses, medicals for non-CF related
activities (VAC ??); 

c. any examination, appraisal, testimony, or certification required by a
member or a third party ..... or for any litigation instigated privately
by a member, except in the following circumstances:

ii. a medical-legal examination of a member injured on duty, or related
litigation arising from events occurring while on duty; from events
occurring while on duty.

Would extract c. ii. from the CF H Svcs web page not include complying
with VAC requests?  Litigation is a claimant utilizing a lawyer from the
VAC Bureau of Pension Advocates as a representative at the Veterans
Review and Appeal Board. 

I will retire in Aug 07 with 45 years of service to Canada. This whole
process of dealing with VAC has been degrading and frustrating. I am
disgusted with jumping through VACs' hoops at every turn, the enormity
of the bureaucracy, and exhausting time line. Compounding this is
obtaining medical information from the CF.

Cmdre Kavanagh, I request that unequivocally, the CF policy with regard
to cooperation with still serving CF mbrs/VAC/CF H Svcs be communicated
to all CF mbrs.

Minister Thompson, Deputy Minister Tining, my one point, at this time is
to request VAC consider the situation that still serving CF mbrs are in,
and the benefit of the doubt be given to the Veteran. Other points to
follow when my appeal process, Jan 04 to ?? is completed.

Received several replys ( emails, phone) from the Ministers office, including a statement that a reply would be sent in 3 weeks.
On 15 Jun I sent the following to the same cast of characters, incl the new CF Surg Gen, BGen Jaeger:

It has been 34 days, and a reply has not been received. I was contacted by VAC who stated I would receive a reply in 3 weeks. Reply not received. Nothing from the military.

I am still in the catch 22 situation, as are many other serving members. 

What will be done to resolve this? Time marches on.

Received a phone call from the CF Surg Gen office. The Surg Gen will not change the policy I was told. (and there are good reasons namely lack of Doctors in the CF, which we all know about.) Also received emails from Ministers office. Reply coming.

This is long (cut and paste). VAC knows about this as all of the staff and Advocates have been briefed. So I will wait to see what the Ministers office will say. I DO NOT blame the CF Health Svcs. They have have a focus/mission. My opinion.


----------



## Greymatters (20 Jun 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> The explanation given to me was that Medical Officers were finding more and more of their time being taken up by writing these letters, and it became too time consuming to support.



God forbid we should take up too much of their time dealing with our injuries... this is after all what they are there for.    :

And conflict of interest?  How does confirmation of a diagnosis equal disloyalty to the employer?  This statement implies that it is the Doctors duty to not diagnosis a patient as it might be detrimental to the residing government departments.  Bah! The government knows the doctors have a responsibility to the patient as part of their training and education when they hired them.  Its like saying that Doctors hired by the province shouldnt diagnose patients because the province might have to treat them.  Legal jibber-jabber....


----------



## battleaxe (23 Jun 2007)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I will retire in Aug 07 with 45 years of service to Canada. This whole
> process of dealing with VAC has been degrading and frustrating. I am
> disgusted with jumping through VACs' hoops at every turn, the enormity
> of the bureaucracy, and exhausting time line. Compounding this is
> ...



I thought I'd comment on this quote-it sums up the frustration that so many have.  The part about being given the benefit of the doubt is key.

I know this point has been mentioned elsewhere in this forum but... Subsection 5(3) of the pension act provisions states that, "in weighing uncontradicted, credible evidence, any doubt shall be resolved in the applicant's favour".

VAC demands so much "evidence" and so much medical documentation to support claims that I can buy the argument that it may create an unreasonable demand upon health care professionals-be they CF doctors or civilian.  I can't believe that the new policy is part of a conspiracy or conflict of interest.

The fault rests with VAC and the infernal, neverending requests for more and more "proof". It also is a result of laziness- more to explain my thoughts on that later. 
Since 2001, I've been subjected to one consult after another- all at the request of VAC.  I went from neurosurgeon to neurologist to neuropsych to neuro-opthamologist; even though my MRI shows "uncontradicted credible evidence" of scarring from bleeding in my brain which would explain all the symptoms I experience. 

Why I needed multiple specialists to "back up" my symptoms- after all the initial consults and treatments/hopitalizations were complete-why they needed medical professionals to "back up" my claims- when all the information was on my medical file- just became clear to me as I read the letter provided by Rifleman earlier: One sentence  from that letter:

"If you are unable to find a specific medical diagnosis on the medical records, please inform the client as outlined in the memorandum of 22 March 2006. The DND physicians may then investigate the member's health problem in order to determine a diagnosis. The member can inform you if and when the medical investigation is completed and the member's medical records can be requested by your Organization at that time".

My take on this (could be wrong, of course) is that the CF is tired of doing the work for VAC. Not many people apply for disability awards for conditions that aren't already well established and documented. Again, I'm assuming.  The letter states quite clearly that CF medical will do the work if a diagnosis can't be found.
Another released CF member that I spoke with- released for bad knees- received a letter from VAC requesting a letter from a physician which clearly stated a diagnosis for the claimed condition.  This after four surgeries and numerous consults for the condition- all which were easily found within the medical rescords that he received upon release.

I found the diagnosis-numerous times- within this man's docs- why is it that the VAC medical staff could not?

As for my case- if they had-after 17 years of good service and an MRI and circumstances that explained my symptoms-given me the "benefit of the doubt"- I would not have had to wasted the time of busy specialists.  I had already been to them all and their reports were on file. VAC physicians have medical degrees that qualify them to make medical judegments and decisions. 
If, in the bad knees case I spoke of above, VAC medical personnel (they have physicians there?) had actually read his file, done some logical thinking, deductive reasoning and appropriate decision making- he would not have had to go to another physician to spell it out for them.

I agree that the new policy is wrong. 

When hit with the possibility of release from the CF due to injury/illness, it is reasonable and smart for a CF member to get the ball rolling on VAC disability issues as quickly as possible- in order to lessen the financial impact the disability will have upon release. That the CF and VAC- in the process of their bureaucratic peeing match- are making this process even more difficult for releasing members is simply another kick in the face (unemployment being the first kick- but I won't go there again).  The CF, in providing primary health services for members, can't (morally, I mean-not legally, it seems) just say go find another doc to write your diagnosis letters for you.  It's wrong. 

But...I put the bulk of the blame with VAC.  Their policies and processes are faulty and it would be a shame if the CF had to hire more docs to compensate for their shortcomings. I'm sure that the doctors that the CF does manage to attract could be involved in much more important things than VAC paperwork and making the jobs of VAC staff easier.

Just my thoughts,

Bren


----------



## battleaxe (23 Jun 2007)

tired said:
			
		

> The second bit of information is about the VAC Ombudsman.  I e-mailed the Prime Minister's Office saying that my rights, as listed on the Veterans' Bill of Rights, have been violated.  Until a VAC Ombudsman is appointed, to whom should I submit my complaint?  Also, who will the Ombudsman report to?  The answers were:  Complaints should be directed to the Minister of VAC; and, The Ombudsman will be reporting to the Minister of VAC.  So I sent another e-mail asking to whom should complaints be sent when the person I'm complaining about is the Minister (I've written to the Minister asking for help but he has brushed aside my complaints)?  My letter has gone unanswered.



Conflict of interest? Does this mean he is under the Minister of VAC on an org chart? I think there will be much more confidence in a Veterans Ombudsman if there is no direct link or connection at all between him/her and the VAC Minister- so I'm dissappointed in the response the PMO gave you.

Bren


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Jun 2007)

I posted this info on 6 Dec 06 at http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54367.0.html from the Veterans Voice website http://www.veteranvoice.info/bulletinboard.htm

Veteran's Pension Survey - initial Results 
By the Veterans' Survey Group

Initial stats have indicated that in 92 percent of the cases, Veterans Affairs (VAC) had overruled the diagnosed medical conditions, resulting in military Medical Releases. This is in light that the military (DND) did everything correctly and in accordance with universality of service the medical release was warranted. DND made no mistakes in medically releasing all members (Officers: Major to 2nd Lieutenant and Chief Warrant Officers to Private). DND used both military and civilian physicians, medical specialists and completed all required tests for release. However, it appears that VAC, in particular the Veterans Review Appeals Board (VRAB) either ignored or reversed professional diagnosis.

Where DND did an outstanding job in 99.9 percent of the time, VAC overruled on all cases, by using non-medical VRAB members. VAC completed no medical tests and consulted with no medical specialists (physician's, physiotherapists, etc) nor did they request any medical (or dental) tests on 92 percent of all case files. This is based on 10,000 medical files reviewed between 1982 to September, 2006.   
  
in consultation with all Colleges of Physicians and the Canadian Medical Association, it is illegal to practice medicine without a licence in Canada, even for those persons being appointed on the Recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada such as VRAB members. VRAB members who receive very medium training are then commissioned to overrule military Medical Releases without consulting any medical authority. 

Sr Analyst
VSG

VVi Comment: The Veteran Survey Research form is still available on this site at http://www.veteranvoice.info/vetsurvey.htm . VSG will continue to review survey responses adding to their continuous stats database. All veterans are encouraged to complete a survey form.

From the same website, the latest:

06 June 2007  
VVi Polls Effective 05 June 2007

As a veteran are you satisfied with VAC's services? 

Answers                 Votes  Percent 
1.  Always                  15     2% 
2.  Most of the time    79     9% 
3.  Some of the time 205     24% 
4.  Not often            294     35% 
5.  Never                 248     29% 
  
How would you rate the new Veteran Charter? 

Answers               Votes   Percent 
1.  Good                  10       1% 
2.  Fair                    64       7% 
3.  Poor                 828     92% 
  

NEW POLL AS AT 01 NOV 2006.....Has the VRAB met your needs? 

Answers                                                           Votes      Percent 
1.  No                                                                89            44% 
2.  Yes                                                               23            11% 
3.  I gave up! Too much frustration!                    89             44% 

The key here is that those who decide on your appeal are not MDs, have never served in the military except for three members.

Possibly a letter writing campain requesting a "Special Examinations" or a "Performance Audit " should be sent to :

Office of the Auditor General of Canada
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6 Canada


----------



## 3rd Herd (25 Jun 2007)

Interesting Links:

Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Tuesday, May 15, 2007- PTSD http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/391/ACVA/Evidence/EV2946456/ACVAEV42-E.PDF

Main Site: Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (ACVA) http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeHome.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e22_.1&COM=10802&STAC=2006440

Three most prominent uses of English on the site:
1)Related Documents-There is no data currently available for this item.
2)Meetings-There is no data currently available for this item  
3)News Releases-There is no data currently available for this item.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Jun 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> There is no data currently available for this item.



I hate it when sites say that.  It either shows sloppy IT work (gettting things posted) or sloppy organization work(getting docs produced) - neither is good.


----------

