# Veterans Affairs alleges some ex-soldiers exaggerating their injuries



## McG (3 Jan 2015)

I don't doubt that some veterans exaggerate claims, but the government obligation is to provide a system that gives timely, fair service to the majority while screening out the few.  I sometimes think the majority suffers so that the few can be screened out.


> Veterans Affairs alleges some ex-soldiers exaggerating their injuries
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 01 Jan 2015
> ...


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/veterans-affairs-alleges-some-ex-soldiers-exaggerating-their-injuries


----------



## Tibbson (3 Jan 2015)

A couple of phrases caught my eye in this article:

1)  "thousands of veterans are staying in the program much longer than anticipated — or not finishing it at all"- from my own experience many are in the system far too long because the system is faulty, understaffed and overly bureaucratic and many either give up or get bogged down in the crap.

2)  "Our government makes no apologies..."   They should have just finished the sentence there.

3)  "Reviewers who prepared the report acknowledged some problems with the program. They found weaknesses in determining veterans’ needs, including delays in consultations with health care professionals."  Buried well within the article and from my experiences (as limited as they are thus far) most likely explains many of the issues.

4)  "They also found the department had little information about how the program was actually functioning because it relied almost exclusively on voluntary surveys filled out by participants. This, they suggested, opened it up to abuse."  So because they cannot get sight of their own program any problems are because of vets abusing the system?

The bottom line is Veterans Affairs is a department (with Fantino as it's current head) that many have lost faith in and when the people you are supposed to serve have no faith in you its time for a major change of some sort.  IMHO anyway.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jan 2015)

My case worker is an ex WSIB investigator. She treats her new job like her old one. Asking questions that should only be answered by your doctors, questions about your meds, and when you think you'll return to work. She even suggests return under modified work.

She must be using a check list. I get asked these questions on a regular basis, about every three months.

It's hard to answer them. I work full time :


----------



## medicineman (3 Jan 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> My case worker is an ex WSIB investigator. She treats her new job like her old one. Asking questions that should only be answered by your doctors, questions about your meds, and when you think you'll return to work. She even suggests return under modified work.
> 
> She must be using a check list. I get asked these questions on a regular basis, about every three months.
> 
> It's hard to answer them. I work full time :



 :facepalm:

I guess she neglected that part of her investigation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2015)

I agree with the statement some ex-soldiers exaggerating their injuries (along with still serving ones). 
Because of VAs integrity and credibility issues they still can't (or shouldn't) point it out because it's lose lose for them.




			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> My case worker is an ex WSIB investigator. She treats her new job like her old one.



That must be frustrating as hell, I can totally picture it. Working at a factory I found workers way worse than recruits for looking for accidents to happen to.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Jan 2015)

Sounds like tit for tat stuff.  We say their service sucks, they say we have some fakers... 

PS.  The fact that we have some fakers is no surprise to anyone on this forum.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Jan 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> PS.  The fact that we have some fakers is no surprise to anyone on this forum.



True enough. Any time money is involved, people will position themselves to their best advantage.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Jan 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> True enough. Any time money is involved, people will position themselves to their best advantage.



Bingo!  

Being in a Log Branch/CSS/Supply job I see allot of people who claim allot of things that make me go hmmmmmmmm....


----------



## Teager (4 Jan 2015)

If anyone reads what VAC's definition of suitable employment says it may answer why some stay in the program if there receiving 75% of pay.



> Suitable gainful employment
> Suitable gainful employment is a job or career for which you are reasonably qualified by reason of your level of education, training or experience, and that provides at least 66 2/3% of you pre-release salary.



this may be causing some to be forced into minimum wage jobs which they may not be happy or like doing and may not be supporting there family enough.

I know I dont want to sit around on benefits but I'm struggling at finding a job that I can do with my limitations and that I would enjoy but still be able to support my family with.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jan 2015)

People can speak of those that they *think* are scamming the system, however, unless you're a medical expert, working on that particular file, I would suggest that you refrain from making judgments that are outside your lane.

Especially when backing up and giving credence to VA.


----------



## Pieman (4 Jan 2015)

> I know I dont want to sit around on benefits but I'm struggling at finding a job that I can do with my limitations and that I would enjoy but still be able to support my family with.



Ones quality of life should not be allowed to drop because of the injuries they suffered while serving their country. It is the responsibility for the VA to ensure that and those in that situation get support, which they fully deserve.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Jan 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> People can speak of those that they *think* are scamming the system, however, unless you're a medical expert, working on that particular file, I would suggest that you refrain from making judgments that are outside your lane.
> 
> Especially when backing up and giving credence to VA.



BULLSHIT!
You do know *cough* "medical experts" have no more access, or knowledge, then anyone who is really interested in this field of study.
A piece of paper gives no more credence [except you've finished a course, didn't mean you retained FA] then giving a 'scroll' to someone and guaranteeing that makes them a leader....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jan 2015)

Thanks Bruce. 

Perhaps you'd be willing to share that Layman's Insight on how people can be diagnosed over the internet.

Of course we know that VAC is an infallible organization that never gets it wrong.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Jan 2015)

...and I surely never said that either.
We both have our axes and they hit the tree on opposites sides of this subject.

Know what??.......my hearing is slowly going.  Could it have been from being in the CP all those years with the guns going off beside me??  Sure it could have.....but it could also be I'm just about 55 and I'm losing my hearing the way I was supposed too.

I KNOW I could get my Doctor to sign off on that but I'd feel like a thief in the night not knowing 100%...........


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jan 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and I surely never said that either.
> We both have our axes and they hit the tree on opposites sides of this subject.
> 
> Know what??.......my hearing is slowly going.  Could it have been from being in the CP all those years with the guns going off beside me??  Sure it could have.....but it could also be I'm just about 55 and I'm losing my hearing the way I was supposed too.
> ...



Which is where most of the Vets are. Sadly, some aren't. However, I'm not qualified to speculate on which is which. Nor do I believe, most here are.


----------



## brihard (4 Jan 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thanks Bruce.
> 
> Perhaps you'd be willing to share that Layman's Insight on how people can be diagnosed over the internet.
> 
> Of course we know that VAC is an infallible organization that never gets it wrong.



I'm sur enobody here is saying VAC is infallible. Far from it. Then seem to have made a new sport out of stepping on their own crank.

However, I have no issue at all with internal memos discussing what can be held to be a certainty- that some unknown proportion of benefits claimants are either exaggerating or completely faking conditions. We have malingerers and fraudsters in uniform. Some of them will remain same once out.

Nobody is claiming the ability to look at a specific case and to call BS on it. All that is being said by a number of people here is that the internal comments by some VAC bureaucrats are likely right on the money.

What matters, and where the real problem comes in, is how this is approached- whether the system should operate on an insurance-like 'deny first' principle, or rather go with 'trust but verify', which I think we would all prefer to see.

I'm surprised to see you seeming to take exception to any claim that some people might be faking it. It's surpassingly likely that at least some small few are. Not exactly a bold claim. The media's just making mountains out of molehills again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jan 2015)

If VA has an issue with that they think is soldiers faking injuries then they should take it up with the medical dudes and not make a press release about it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2015)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What matters, and where the real problem comes in, is how this is approached- whether the system should operate on an insurance-like 'deny first' principle, or rather go with 'trust but verify', which I think we would all prefer to see.


QFTT


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Jan 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If VA has an issue with that they think is soldiers faking injuries then they should take it up with the medical dudes and not make a press release about it.



That's all well and good but when you have several "veterans' organizations screaming political kife what would one expect?
You throw shit you must expect splatter............


----------



## Gunner98 (4 Jan 2015)

I would counter with:  Veterans Affairs exaggerates how much work they have and that the investigations of  these exaggerated injuries justifies why it takes almost 12 months to process fully documented and verified disability claims for back injuries in a special duty area and knee disabilities resulting from training and equipment issues over a 28 year career.

The medical aspects of my claim were adjudicated by a Registered Practical Nurse at VAC who never saw me in person and the claim was supported by a two-volume medical file filled with specialist's assessments, diagnostic imaging reports and treatment plans. 

The first response is not always - 'denied', it can be hurry up and wait.


----------



## Tibbson (4 Jan 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> People can speak of those that they *think* are scamming the system, however, unless you're a medical expert, working on that particular file, I would suggest that you refrain from making judgments that are outside your lane.
> 
> Especially when backing up and giving credence to VA.



I don't think stating the obvious, based on simple odds, backs up what the VA has said.  It's no different then saying that there are some sexual assault victims that make false allegations/fake it or that there are injured vets that do not seek VA assistance.  Nobody is implying any one individual, group of individuals or class of people are making false claims or milking the system but the simple fact of the matter is that some are although I would say my opinion is that it is a very, very small number and not one I am overly concerned with.


----------



## Staff Weenie (4 Jan 2015)

Based upon my experience, having worked at Director Casualty Support Management, and IPSC Ottawa over the last three years, there really aren't that many schemers.  What is very common, is injured personnel who are downplaying the severity of their condition in order to remain in the CAF.

I've seen many folks who are technically in the Transition Program for years because they aren't stable enough to move forward successfully for a new career after the CAF.  Some will even end up on Permanent Impairment Allowance.

I wish Fantino and company could see the anxiety and fear that many of the ill and injured personnel have about their future.  They worry that they will never be able to work again, or that they will end up earning less, and have to sell their house and downsize to survive.  If it takes a little longer for these folks to get back on their feet, so be it.  It's better that we pay extra now, than incur the chaos of pushing them through too fast.


----------



## krustyrl (4 Jan 2015)

Best post I've seen in this thread, thanks Staff Weenie.!!  

Not all wounds are visible either, and I agree, having fallen into the category of not indicating the severity of my injuries for fear of being "punted" according to my supervisor, whom I might add reminded me on many occasions. Having a terminally ill spouse at the time and the fear of "being punted" weighed heavily on me, so I did was was needed to remain serving,  sadly at my cost (physically). I downplayed my injuries.


----------



## medicineman (4 Jan 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If VA has an issue with that they think is soldiers faking injuries then they should take it up with the medical dudes and not make a press release about it.



I would go so far as to say that they should take it up with the persons they believe to be faking or over playing their problems.

I've filled out disability paperwork for social assistance on many occasions in my last job, and have had to look people in the eye and tell them to go back to their case workers, as they have no medical reason that they can't work...conversely, I remember cases where I told someone to go and see a case worker, because they had a serious issue that was impairing their ability to do activities of daily living, much less work,  because they had a serious and undertreated illness.  I've also looked at people and basically called them bald faced liars - one springs to mind that had a record of doctor shopping, would go to a single physio appointment and then mysteriously not follow up.  They'd sit in my office chatting happily with my receptionist until I showed up and then would start moaning anytime, and I mean literally anytime, I was in their eye or ear shot.  If they thought I wasn't around, it stopped.  Needless to say, I told them I wouldn't fill them out.

As for those (many) of us that have been carrying/concealing/underplaying injuries, there are two issues at play - first is training.  We've been trained to live with discomfort, since the job is inherently uncomfortable (unless you're living in hotels with the Air Force  ;D).  We've been also told to avoid the MIR for a variety of reasons, some of them to conceal some of the retarded things our bosses did to us, sometimes so we don't let down our mates and sometimes because of plain old abuse of authority.  Whatever the reason, it gets hardwired into us.

The second thing is simpler - plain old biology.  Humans are high order, predatory primates.  We're biologically hardwired, like all other animals, to not show weakness.  Watch your dog or cat at home - they could be dying of something and won't let you know until they're well on their way, because that's what animals do to not stand out as prey.  We're no different. 

This leads to what I like to term "jumping over that fine line between hard and stupid".  As young soldiers, it's what we do.  As older ones, we still do it, our bodies permitting.  My Sports Medicine teacher in PA school always said that our bodies will ignore things we do to it until our late 20's; it'll tell us to be a bit more careful, but will forgive us in our 30's; it is no longer forgetful in our 40's; by the time we're in our 50's, it is not only not forgetful, but not that forgiving to a lot of things we do.  As I tell the old farmers out here, "we ain't 17 anymore - we don't fix ourselves all that quick".  Between soldiers and old farmers I've looked after over the years, they often forget that we're machines with parts that break down over time, no matter how well and often you do your oil changes and tire rotations to yourself.  The problem with soldiers is, IMHO, we're always afraid to admit there is a problem until it's often too late, because we don't want to upset the applecart, miss out on a deployment or let down our buddies and work mates.  These are the folks, as mentioned earlier by a few, I really worry about.  I'm no different - been trying to work up the gumption to start the damn VAC process because stuff I've kept locked away has finally eaten away the locks.  Hearing stuff like this really makes me wonder why I should even bother.

Sorry for the long wind.

MM


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2015)

Its funny, I'd trade back the money VAC gave me for my knee injuries if they could give me back the 2 years spent on TCat unable to be promoted/deployed/work out properly and not go through the pain of the injury/surgery as well as the rehab.


----------



## Tibbson (4 Jan 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If VA has an issue with that they think is soldiers faking injuries then they should take it up with the medical dudes and not make a press release about it.



Just to be clear about it, there apparently was no press release.  From the original post: "The explosive allegation is contained in *a recent internal report* on a Veterans Affairs rehabilitation program..."


----------



## Greymatters (5 Jan 2015)

Having it as an 'insider report' just makes it that much worse; they don't have to answer questions about it because its not meant for public distribution.  Just enough information gets leaked to indicate what they are thinking, but not enough detail to show if its based on fact or opinion.  Based on what I can find reference to, the report appears to be justification for developing means to measure veteran outcomes, aka who is abusing the system, like a modern insurance company does.  Their time would be better spent answering phones when a veteran calls with a problem.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Jan 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Having it as an 'insider report' just makes it that much worse; they don't have to answer questions about it because its not meant for public distribution.  Just enough information gets leaked to indicate what they are thinking, but not enough detail to show if its based on fact or opinion.  Based on what I can find reference to, the report appears to be justification for developing means to measure veteran outcomes, aka who is abusing the system, like a modern insurance company does.  Their time would be better spent answering phones when a veteran calls with a problem.



I'm not sure it does. I bet you would find similar comments in any other compensation type of programme. I think it's also worth recognizing that we only have a partial sentence from a complete report. We don't know what was said next. 

Personally, I'd like to read the entire passage before I get out my tar and feathers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I'm not sure it does. I bet you would find similar comments in any other compensation type of programme. I think it's also worth recognizing that we only have a partial sentence from a complete report. We don't know what was said next.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to read the entire passage before I get out my tar and feathers.


Also, some of the original article is based on "a background briefing with the Citizen this week (with) a Veterans Affairs official" - it would be nice if it was clearer what s/he said vs. the report.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Jan 2015)

Granted, maybe Im getting the brush and feathers ready a bit early; but I don't see the VA as being just another type of compensation programme.


----------



## Tibbson (5 Jan 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Having it as an 'insider report' just makes it that much worse; they don't have to answer questions about it because its not meant for public distribution.  Just enough information gets leaked to indicate what they are thinking, but not enough detail to show if its based on fact or opinion.  Based on what I can find reference to, the report appears to be justification for developing means to measure veteran outcomes, aka who is abusing the system, like a modern insurance company does.  Their time would be better spent answering phones when a veteran calls with a problem.



I'm sure we have all read service papers, briefing notes and memos filled with opinions, someone's version of facts or downright misleading info along with those that are well written and fact based.  We also know that the media rarely lets facts, or a lack of facts, get in the way of a story they think can sell papers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jan 2015)

My rebuttal would be that they are following in the footsteps of their political leaders and Senators. But have not yet perfected the art of pork barreling such as the Senators have.  8)


----------



## reccecrewman (8 Feb 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> My case worker is an ex WSIB investigator. She treats her new job like her old one. Asking questions that should only be answered by your doctors, questions about your meds, and when you think you'll return to work. She even suggests return under modified work.
> 
> She must be using a check list. I get asked these questions on a regular basis, about every three months.
> 
> It's hard to answer them. I work full time :



This post somewhat highlights what's going wrong with VAC.  You work full time, yet have a Case Manager? A Case Managers job is re-integrating soldiers who are struggling to get back into the workforce, to help them acquire civilian skills, need support and guidelines, and indeed, in many cases, can be literally saving their lives.  As for asking questions about your meds, standard protocol.  They want to know what meds you are on to be able to see if VAC can cover them for you, and in other cases, to give them an idea of the Veterans needs.  Also, Case Managed clients files get reviewed by the Senior District Medical Officer (SDMO), a qualified physician, so yes, they want to know what meds your on to keep your file up to date.  Asking about when you'll return to work when your working fulltime? Odd... but for MOST Case Managed clients, they do NOT work and returning to work is part of the case management plan they signed when they went on the Rehab Program in the first place.  It's one of the main goals of Case Management - return to work.  

[/quote]


			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Sounds like tit for tat stuff.  We say their service sucks, they say we have some fakers...
> 
> PS.  The fact that we have some fakers is no surprise to anyone on this forum.



For sure! Service always sucks when we're not getting what we feel entitled to or when we know another guy who has a benefit or perk we don't.  They say there are fakers exploiting the system? Sure there are! I've seen pretty much everything working there and some of the outright scams we've caught people in are downright appalling! 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> People can speak of those that they *think* are scamming the system, however, unless you're a medical expert, working on that particular file, I would suggest that you refrain from making judgments that are outside your lane.
> 
> Especially when backing up and giving credence to VA.



I speak from what my own eyes have witnessed working in a District Office without breaching any clients right to privacy.... Sorry it may burn the biscuits that it backs up and gives credence to VA. I'd LOVE to be able to provide details I've seen with regards to fraudulent claims for everything from benefits to travel claims to aids for daily living, however, I signed a paper that I don't need coming back to bite me in the bottom for breaching an individuals right to privacy, but suffice to say, I am well within my lanes to say that I've bore witness to numerous cases of sketchiness to outright criminal activity that requires legal action. No, I am not insinuating clients medical conditions are exaggerated or non-existent, as THAT, would be outside my lane since I am NOT a medical expert, but I am certainly within my arcs on calling BS on the numerous paperwork/administration scams I've come across.



			
				Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Based upon my experience, having worked at Director Casualty Support Management, and IPSC Ottawa over the last three years, there really aren't that many schemers.  What is very common, is injured personnel who are downplaying the severity of their condition in order to remain in the CAF.



On a closing note, damned straight!!! I've seen numerous cases of these individuals whose primary concern is that of their career and being able to continue to provide financial security for their families.  Like someone pointed out.... tit for tat?


----------

