# Vets' 'Budman:  More info needed in decision letters



## The Bread Guy (20 Feb 2012)

Summary of "Veterans' Right to Know Reasons for Decisions: A Matter of Procedural Fairness" released today:


> The report, Veterans’ Right to Know Reasons for Decisions: A Matter of Procedural Fairness, contains the results of the Veterans Ombudsman’s examination of letters issued by Veterans Affairs Canada to inform applicants of its decisions pertaining to their application for disability pensions or disability awards.
> 
> The purpose of the review was to determine whether the Department has adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure procedural fairness by providing adequate reasons for assessment decisions. A set of guidelines applicable to procedural fairness in public sector decision-making as it relates to providing reasons for decisions was used to assess the adequacy of information contained in the Department’s letters informing applicants of its assessment decisions. A random sample of 213 decision letters sent out between 2001 and 2010 were examined as part of this review.
> 
> ...



More from the Ombudman's blog entry post on his report here:


> .... Veterans have a right to know why and how decisions are made. The letters concern monetary entitlements that have a direct impact on Veterans’ quality of life. It troubles me to think that many Veterans may be discouraged from pursuing their applications further because the response letter does not reveal the rationale for the decision. It is equally unacceptable for Veterans to exercise their appeal rights without having been provided with a clear explanation of the decision.
> 
> Veterans, like all Canadians, have a right to procedural fairness from public decision-makers. The obligation to provide adequate reasons for decisions that affect them has been well established in administrative law in Canada and abroad. It is even more important to fulfill that obligation when it is an explicit legal requirement, as is the case with assessment decisions made by Veterans Affairs Canada. I urge Veterans Affairs Canada to implement the four recommendations contained in the report ....


----------



## dogger1936 (20 Feb 2012)

this is great news for any appeal process. I find many times soldiers have the paperwork on hand. Any decision based on certain criteria can be addressed directly at the appeal instead of going in blind as to how the award was calculated.


----------



## GAP (20 Feb 2012)

Veterans ombudsman blasts Ottawa over denied disability claims
erin anderssen OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update Monday, Feb. 20, 2012 
Article Link

The federal government has been harshly criticized for failing to properly explain why some soldiers have been denied disability coverage in a report released Monday by the nation’s ombudsman for veterans.

The report, which reviewed letters from Veteran Affairs to former soldiers in response to their disability claims, found that all the letters examined failed to give sufficient reasons for the decisions, often simply citing legislation – and 15 per cent gave the results of the assessment with no explanation at all, making an appeal difficult.

In his report, Guy Parent pointed out that giving information to support a decision was not the same as giving a reason for why benefits might be clawed back or denied outright. “This difference seems not to be understood by the Department as all letters examined did not apply any analysis to the information they contained to clearly explain decisions.”

Benefits for disabled veterans have been an ongoing controversy in Canada, leading to a class-action suit against Ottawa that was heard in Federal Court in Halifax last November, with a decision still pending.

Previously, Mr. Parent’s office has discovered that Veterans Affairs failed to tell the most severely injured soldiers about all the benefits and allowances to which they were entitled. In that case, the ombudsman found that half of the 1,800 veterans assessed with a 98-per-cent disability were never told that they were entitled to additional support beyond what Veterans Affairs provided.

There is a new urgency to solve the issue quickly as troops settle back home after missions in Afghanistan. National Defence statistics released this month found that 2,000 soldiers were injured during the country’s 10-year combat mission in Afghanistan, but that does not include the thousands of soldiers impacted by post-traumatic stress syndrome and other mental-health issues.

The report recommends that reasons for all disability coverage decisions should be written in plain language, with a clear explanation of how the individual assessment was made. Each letter should also include a notice of the right to appeal.
More on link


----------



## Wookilar (20 Feb 2012)

Been through the report and I must say it is fairly straight forward. It made me think though, about my letters over the last few years. I'm going to dig mine out and have a look, just to see what mine said and how much detail is in them. Might be an interesting academic exercise.

I am not holding out any hope though for any kind of change. Repeated governments have shown that they really don't care, since the voting public at large does not really care (at this time) and I will be greatly surprised if they start to. If they (the gov't of the day) didn't pay attention to the AG a decade ago, why would they listen to the Ombudsman now?

Wook


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2012)

The only explanation offered in my last letter was "It is unclear why your physician checked off 'NO' to the question, "Is your knee clinically stable?"

Probably because in his expert, professional opinion, as the head trauma surgeon, in a large metropolitan hospital and is an ex CF MO, he diagnosed it as such.

Something the non medical civie reviewing the case, using a medical textbook, can't seem to fathom in his partisan insurance adjuster brain.


----------



## dogger1936 (21 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The only explanation offered in my last letter was "It is unclear why your physician checked off 'NO' to the question, "Is your knee clinically stable?"
> 
> Probably because in his expert, professional opinion, as the head trauma surgeon, in a large metropolitan hospital and is an ex CF MO, he diagnosed it as such.
> 
> Something the non medical civie reviewing the case, using a medical textbook, can't seem to fathom in his partisan insurance adjuster brain.



My file has gone to PEI to get approved for x amount now. In ways I hope they mess me around. I will be on every media outlet I can make listen. Unfortunately that seems to be the only way to get fair treatment today. And I REFUSE to be shuffled off to the side.

As you move towards medical release you begin to see not one person is going to be your advocate but yourself. If your not 100% on top of everything no one will help.

I'd love to see the media do a full investigation of the criminal treatment of soldiers. However it takes us ex soldiers to drop the loyality and stand up and speak. We seem to be a docile breed after years of fighting for some reason. They want us to get tired and give up.

I for one will not be.


----------



## ballz (21 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The only explanation offered in my last letter was "It is unclear why your physician checked off 'NO' to the question, "Is your knee clinically stable?"
> 
> Probably because in his expert, professional opinion, as the head trauma surgeon, in a large metropolitan hospital and is an ex CF MO, he diagnosed it as such.
> 
> Something the non medical civie reviewing the case, using a medical textbook, can't seem to fathom in his partisan insurance adjuster brain.



The logical answer to "why did your physician check off "NO" to "x" question" is "none of your G-- D--- business." Like you said, "in his expect, professional opinion" and that's all that really should have to be said. Did they offer you a method to respond to / appeal this query? 

Things like an explanation and direction on how to appeal *should* be included in the response, I would have thought that was a given until I read Ombudsman's review. There's a lot of articles about this stuff posted, I am guilty of overlooking them, but this one is an eye-opener as to just how badly Vets are being tossed aside.


----------



## dogger1936 (21 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> The logical answer to "why did your physician check off "NO" to "x" question" is "none of your G-- D--- business." Like you said, "in his expect, professional opinion" and that's all that really should have to be said. Did they offer you a method to respond to / appeal this query?
> 
> Things like an explanation and direction on how to appeal *should* be included in the response, I would have thought that was a given until I read Ombudsman's review. There's a lot of articles about this stuff posted, I am guilty of overlooking them, but this one is an eye-opener as to just how badly Vets are being tossed aside.



I remember when I joined (lets jump aboard the way back when machine) our leadership use to tell us "it's all pensionable" "free medical care" " we look after our own".

Problem is too many vets fall through the cracks out here. And realistically until it's YOU or one of your troops seriously injured you don't realize how broken and defunct VAC is. The military can only care for you for so long; what it hands you over to is a bunch of civilians with little compassion or care for you and your family.

Beginning to feel like the guy in Barrets privateers.


----------



## Wookilar (21 Feb 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Beginning to feel like the guy in Barrets privateers.



 ;D Makes me want to break out into song ..... my cubicle mates will be SURE that I've lost it then  

I had a look at my most recent letter (from 2 weeks ago) from my 6 month PTSD reassessment. It falls into one of the 65%. I remember at the time I was wondering why they quoted some piece of legislature that really has no bearing on anything (I know it's the NVC, what does that matter really??). It also says that for the reassessment they used 2 pieces of paper ........ with over 12 years of medical/mental health files it all came down to an assessment from Oct and a "test" from last year? And they still come up with an assessment that is mathematically impossible to achieve on the Table of Disabilities? Chapter 21, just so you know  http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/dispen/2006tod/ch_21_2006

I called VAC yesterday to see if I can actually speak to someone that can explain to me what the letter says. I'll keep you posted as to their reply.

Wook


----------



## dogger1936 (21 Feb 2012)

Keep me posted brother.

I received 10% near 2 years ago. I wasn't stable enough apparently to be reassessed until Nov. Still awaiting a decision on my file...will take 16 weeks.


65%....un freakin real.


----------

