# outgoing Ombudsman slams VAC for its handling of compensation



## MilEME09 (14 May 2020)

https://edmontonjournal.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/watchdog-blasts-compensation-regimes-for-disabled-veterans-calls-for-overhaul/wcm/47bf31f5-5db7-418b-9811-57b6e6ddc910/

Key to the story is some are getting paid out more the  others for the same injuries.


----------



## TCM621 (15 May 2020)

Sounds about right. The NVC has a lot of benefits and the pension for life is better for a 20 year cpl whose life is in disarray and who is incapable of managing his money. But it doesn't matter if it takes two years or more to get what you are entitled to. No amount of mental health funding will help is the member commits suicide at month 15 of waiting for help.


----------



## brihard (15 May 2020)

Yup. The key to untangling it all starts with the move in 2006 from the Pension Act to the New Veterans' Charter.

There are two components to financial compensation for illness and injury. One is pain and suffering; money you get to compensate for the non-financial ways in which your life now sucks more than it did before you were injured in service. The other is economic loss. This makes up for lost income and earnings potential.

*Pre-April 2006*, these two things - Economic Loss, and Pain and Suffering, were not distinct in veterans compensation. IF you got sick or hurt in connection with your service and a disability resulted, you would get assessed, your injuries would be measured against VAC's 'Table of Disabilities' (they still are), and you would get a disability %, further modified by how much it was attributable to service, measured in 5ths. So if you got a leg blown off by a land mine, that would be a given %age disabled (I'll say 50% for a convenient number), and 5/5ths attributable to service. 5/5 of 40% = 40% of the maximum possible Disability Pension. You get that til you die, and there's an additional amount monthly if you have a spouse and then for each dependent. It's modeled off the assumption that the veteran was likely the primary economy provider for the family. Another example might be someone develops hearing loss and tinitus they get assessed at say 15% disability, but only at 3/5 atributable to service. 3/5 or 15% = 9% monthly disability payment. Etc etc.

There was no differentiation for whether the vet could still earn an income. Two guys each with the same injury- one does not successfully transition, and they are unable to find or keep gainful employment, and they live off their disability pension. Meanwhile the other guy who IS able to find a good job- say a priority hire with the public service - receives the same disability pension plus their new income. There is no differing compensation based on economic outcome.

There are of course lots of other smaller allowances that come into play for those most seriously injured, those requiring attendance and assistance, those needing modified clothing, etc. But he disability pension is the big one to look at here.

*Post-2006* - The move to the New Veterans Charter upended all that, and made veterans compensation comparable to civilian workers' comp. Economic loss and Pain and Suffering were decoupled. Pain and suffering was captured under the lump sum Disability Award, which was tax free and started at I think around max $310k, then got increased a fair bit. Everyone gets a portion of that based on their % disability using the same table of disabilities, the same determination of relation to service in fifths. This compensates for the agony of the injury, illness, and disability. There was an option to take it spread out over months, or all at once.

Economic loss began to get covered very differently. It was now based on whether the vet could still earn a substantial portion of their pre-release income. If they were ruled to have Diminished Earning Capacity - unable to earn 66% or more of what they earned before release - then they qualified for Earnings Loss Benefit, which would pay them monthly, taxable, for up to initially 75% of pre-release income, then eventually up to 90% after some reforms. So back to our two gents who lost their legs- the guy who succesfully transitioned to a civilian career would likely not get (or need) this compensation, as they're earning an income otherwise. Meanwhile the one who's struggled to adapt and is unable to find employment could qualify for ELB, and get most of their pre-release salary. It gives different compensation where there is differing economic results.

Part of the reason for the change was a lot of older vets were coming out of the woodwork having been suffering for years. Someone in their 60s, 70s, 80s stands to gain relatively little from a fairly minor disability pension for their old Korea or Cyprus injuries or their hearing loss. The lump sum was more attractive to them- something to pad the retirement, leave for the kids, finish off the mortgage, etc. In that light it made some sense.

But then about the time the change rolled out in spring of 2006, our troops were just starting to kick *** and take names - and, sadly, casualties - in Kandahar. Afghanistan and what it would generate in terms of casualties was completely unexpected. Dudes on the same tour, in the same fights, with substantially similar injuries claimed just months apart ended up under two wildly different systems. All of a sudden our 'disabled veteran' cohort changed from the aging pensioner to the 21 year old private with a double amputation; the 32 year old medic with traumatic brain injury from concussion. The 28 year old Int Operator with PTSD from six months of calling PID on drone strikes. Now we suddenly had a lot of people profoundly disabled, and a whole ton of cases where the real math could be seen playing out, and it was ugly in terms of how differently some were compensated. Old system to new, less major disabilities where the person could still work generally ended up better under the Pension Act. The more serious ones where someone qualified for Earnings Loss Benefit - especially once it topped up to 90% - often ended up better under NVC. Then there were other blindingly obvious problems, like what happens when a young disabled vet with PTSD and poor life and coping skills receives a quarter million dollar payout, manages to blow it in the midst of substance issues, and gets told 'that's it'.

The changes a couple years ago were mostly optics- the government wanted to claim to be returning to a pension, but really it's just an actuary-derived number pretty coparable to what you would get if you received your disability lump some and invested it prudently to live off the income. And, funny thing, a lot of guys and girls are getting the 'pension for life' (properly, the Pain and Suffering Compensation), and are exercising the lump sum option.

The Pension Act basically gave disabled vets enough money to keep some sort of roof over their head, feed the wife and kids, and quietly bugger off and leave VAC largely alone til they eventually die. The new system splits pain and suffering from economic loss, pisses off a bunch of people while doing so because those who can still work get less than they would have under the PA, and it sets some badly suffering vets up for failure by financially enabling some tremendously poor life choices through payment of a lump sum when they're at their most vulnerable. The new system takes the huge number of overlapping benefits after 2006, and reduces them to a smaller number of simpler benefits, but no hugely different result.

So that in a nutshell is a gross oversimplification of the primary disability compensation component of our veterans compensation. I didn't get into several other things because there are too many rabbit holes on this, but that captures the biggest difference and what some of the major issues are.

What it is is a goddamned mess.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 May 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What it is is a goddamned mess.



Especially when the Government’s prevailing attitude is Vets are asking for more than the Govt can (or perhaps more accurately wants to) give.


----------



## TCM621 (15 May 2020)

"pisses off a bunch of people while doing so because those who can still work get less than they would have under the PA"

This also encourages fraud. If I can't earn money because it will affect my benefits, but I am capable of earning at some diminished capacity, I am likely to work under the table if I can. Yet under the pension act, I could earn as much as I am able to without affecting my benefits.

I've never had a problem with a lump sum, except as it pertains to the 20 amputee with substance abuse problems, but I think the income replacement side has real problems. That and the added complexity also adds the ever growing delay.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 May 2020)

IMO, I have always been suspicious of the Liberals on this matter. Generally, they are anti military, CAF, equiping, deploying.  What better anti recruiting tool than to publically disregard Vets. Join the CF, get injured, and we will let you wither.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Especially when the Government’s prevailing attitude is Vets are asking for more than the Govt can (or perhaps more accurately wants to) give.



When the government suddenly has money to hand out like Candy during a pandemic, I call shenanigans that they could not find more for vets.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2020)

Amazing post Brihard. I haven't even heard VAC reps articulate and summarize the topic as well as you did. 

I can't wrap my head around their system. I know someone who happily jokes about being 80% disabled or something along those lines. New giant truck, new Harley, new 4 wheeler, new seadoo and trailer, new big boat. Super active guy, takes lots of trips and travels. Said it's all from VAC. Of course not all injuries are physical and there can be injuries that we don't see, but he seems taken care of pretty good.

Someone else I know injured themselves on duty, vac attributed the injuries 100% to military duty. He's ruined pretty good physically (which also led to MH issues) and sometimes can't even put his socks on (I've literally went over to help him). Didn't get a dime for it and has to fight with VAC. Spent a couple thousand out of his own pocket already for treatments and other stuff.

I don't understand it.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Amazing post Brihard. I haven't even heard VAC reps articulate and summarize the topic as well as you did.
> 
> I can't wrap my head around their system. I know someone who happily jokes about being 80% disabled or something along those lines. New giant truck, new Harley, new 4 wheeler, new seadoo and trailer, new big boat. Super active guy, takes lots of trips and travels. Said it's all from VAC. Of course not all injuries are physical and there can be injuries that we don't see, but he seems taken care of pretty good.
> 
> ...



I think it has to do with who adjudicated the case. I could be wrong.


----------



## brihard (15 May 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> "pisses off a bunch of people while doing so because those who can still work get less than they would have under the PA"
> 
> This also encourages fraud. If I can't earn money because it will affect my benefits, but I am capable of earning at some diminished capacity, I am likely to work under the table if I can. Yet under the pension act, I could earn as much as I am able to without affecting my benefits.
> 
> I've never had a problem with a lump sum, except as it pertains to the 20 amputee with substance abuse problems, but I think the income replacement side has real problems. That and the added complexity also adds the ever growing delay.



The latest changes did include the ability to earn up to $20k employment income before Income Replacement Benefit (IRB is the new name for Earnings Loss Benefit) begins to deduct. That's a definite plus; it incentivizes return to work at least part time. I completely respect the desire to disincentivize returning to being functional in the workplace. There are real positive health outcome measures that come with being able to do something meaningful.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Amazing post Brihard. I haven't even heard VAC reps articulate and summarize the topic as well as you did.



Thanks man


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 May 2020)

> There are real positive health outcome measures that come with being able to do something meaningful.



tell that to the VAC adjudicators and the rest of the VAC public servants.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Especially when the Government’s prevailing attitude is Vets are asking for more than the Govt can (or perhaps more accurately wants to) give.



Clearly vets do badly in Liberal focus groups.


----------



## catalyst (16 May 2020)

Some of us get it (note: not in adjudicator).....100% promoting meaningful, purposeful activity.  With the 20K earnings exemption I've seen an increase in clients working who would not otherwise be capable of working- not necessarily high paying jobs, but something to keep them busy and they're happier for it. 

The US has some successes with supported employment in the USVA system. I actually wrote up a proposal of how it could be implemented (was part of a university class) and forwarded it up. It got an "interesting but we're busy with PFL...." I'm starting to see the shift from health to wellness....slowly..

[My .02 cents from the inside. ]


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 May 2020)

I think the Ombudsman's thoughts and feelins are correct but why do guys like him and GO/FOs wait until they are out to be so vocal ?  I think it would be worth allot more if they stood their ground while still on the ground they are bitching about.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (16 May 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think the Ombudsman's thoughts and feelins are correct but why do guys like him and GO/FOs wait until they are out to be so vocal ?  I think it would be worth allot more if they stood their ground while still on the ground they are bitching about.



Yes, it would be for sure. I’ve often thought about that also where something similar has occurred when related to any prominent organization or corp; whether private or public sector. (And there have been one or two instances of that lately which garnered international attention.)

I’d imagine though—and this is simply speculation—that it has to do with similar reasons as to why military pers, for example, (mostly) don’t speak openly/on the record about major issues, deficiencies, or personal viewpoints publicly until they’re out. I bet he was voicing _some_ sort of concern to colleagues/friends behind closed doors (where relatively safe to do so) while maintaining the position.

But expressing/exposing damning information when still affiliated with <insert applicable entity here> is simply too risky for many; they still have to think about themselves. Depending on the nature of organization, and the issues being aired, the potential fallout can sometimes end up affecting them too greatly on a personal level, as well as impacting future professional prospects negatively. There have even been more extreme cases here and there (although a specific example doesn’t come to mind) where agreements were signed when employment began, which prohibited discussion of anything related to one’s place of employment, even after they’d parted ways.


----------



## Teager (19 May 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I think it has to do with who adjudicated the case. I could be wrong.



I believe this to be true. I put an application in for a benefit came back denied. A year later CM advised me to apply again so I did came back approved by a different adjudicator. Exact same application nothing was added or changed.

It's a dice roll a lot of the times.


----------

