Author Topic: CF98's and VAC (merged)  (Read 23954 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 220,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,870
Re: VAC - were you denied (or approved) because of a CF 98?
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2013, 14:56:12 »
Although a lot of us older guys never heard of CF 98's until all the young pups in the late 90's and after were encouraged to fill them in for any injury, no matter how minor, there are other points that are being forgotten/overlooked/dismissed.  The CF conducted studies related to "workplace" injuries and came up with quite detailed and specific results. . .

Oh!  By the way; the occupation that they found to have the greatest hearing loss was Cook.  That due to the High Pressure Steam lines in kitchens.  How many Cooks have been denied compensation due to hearing loss without a CF 98?
Many years ago I had a conversation with a Medical (I am not sure if he was a MO or MAO) LCol re hearing loss and he mentioned the strange case of the cooks. At that time, the hearing loss was attributed to the large number of remusters from combat arms, especially infantry, into the trade. It may be that further experience refuted that theory.

Offline SevenSixTwo

    One foot in front of the other.

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 110,627
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 254
Process to get claim (no CF98)
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2013, 16:22:46 »
A friend of mine asked me this and I figured I would ask this here since I didn't know.

He got injured with his back on a course and was put in six prescriptions by the MIR after three visits of complaining of pain over 2 weeks. He requested an X-ray or CT Scan and they denied it because he had no pain shooting down his legs. He was told by his staff (questionable staff as well might I add, judging by his stories) that he would not need a CF98 since it wasn't a serious injury. He had back pain ever since and went through physiotherapy and physiotherapy said it only hurt because he didn't use his back enough and he had to use it more (he still can't do a single back exercise). MIR still denied him any kind of scan after 3 months after the injury. He VRed due to being so upset about the back thing and he had a family problem where a family member was dying and he had to help them.

He finally, (after waiting on a wait list) got a MRI of his back and his doctor told him he has extremely severe back problems.

What does he do now besides obviously get the medical attention he needs for his back?


I was disgusted at the behavior of the MIR (it's almost like they didn't want to learn about the injury to avoid responsibility for it). All they kept doing was giving him more pills.

Offline SevenSixTwo

    One foot in front of the other.

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 110,627
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 254
Re: VAC - were you denied (or approved) because of a CF 98?
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2013, 16:52:52 »
There's an old medical/legal saying - "If it wasn't charted, it didn't happen".  If you don't report it and ensure a 98 is initiated, you're screwed, as an investigation to prove it happened on service time will ensue.  Just a note in your file saying "it happened at work, honestly" doesn't  seem cut it, though smart people would think the statement "pt brought in by ambulance to clinic after falling off LAV in maintenance bay" would suffice for that...when in doubt, fill one out for anything that will likely cause loss of time at work (ie not for a papercut that didn't get horribly infected), get you booted off a course, or could recur - ankle sprains can add up over the years.

Later.

MM

I kind of hate how the current CF98 works though. I filed one and the guy who witnessed changed bases, but I was told he would be tracked down to fill it in. Three months later I am told the CF98 is no longer eligible because it's been three months and they couldn't get a hold of the guy.

No Witness = no CF98.

Offline maniac

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 103
Re: Process to get claim (no CF98)
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2013, 17:35:40 »
So first of all,  medical documentation is fair better than any CF98 and it looks like the MRI has concluded that.  The reason the CF 98 is important and should be addressed (obviously at a higher level than the people he was dealing with) is that it collaborates the injury to service (key point with VAC claim). 

The supervisor has the duty to report injuries however minor and then conduct a DND663 once the CF 98 is created.  The DND 663 is a review of situation (informal and minor investigation if you will) to ensure it does not happen again,  this would be reported to Unit Safety Officer and ultimately,  the CO.  All well documented in DAOD 5018-2 and QR&O 21.46

If that failed to happen and your buddy was genuinely injured on duty,  get statements from any and all witnesses now.  Compile the statements, make copies and ask your CoC to investigate the situation and sit back and watch the s*** show begin.  If that does not resolve the issue by producing a CF 98 then it's time to take it to a client svcs rep at IPSC (advocate for injured soldiers) who works for Directorate Casualty Support Management (DCSM) who reports to Chief Military Personnel (CMP) directly. 

For your buddy, get a DND Case Manager (qualified nurses) who ensure the proper care in the proper time.  You can make complaints about CF Spectrum of Care right in the same MIR you were in,  just ask for the forum.  You can also make complaints about the doctors from the governance body of the province that they are practicing in,  just because they are CF - they are still doctors and can be disciplined.

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 60,552
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,848
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: VAC - were you denied (or approved) because of a CF 98?
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2013, 18:43:59 »
While it's recommended, a witness is not required to fill out a CF98, and whoever told you it's no longer valid after three months is wrong.

If an injury occured, and your chain of command hasn't ensured you've filled one out, they've erred, but you're still able to fill one out.

Attach any pertinent medical documentation in lieu of a witness statement, and you'll be fine.

You know what I would really love to see? A class added to PLQ on how to fill out a CF-98.

Better yet, add the safety management course, which as far as I'm concerned is an absolute must for any supervisor or leader, as a module to the course. If they're not going to do that, at very least, a class on PLQ on how to fill out a CF-98.

How many forms have been filled out wrong, or not filled out at all, because an individuals chain of command didn't understand the CF-98, and/or how to properly fill it out and send it on it's merry way.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 18:49:21 by a Sig Op »

Offline blackberet17

  • "The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept." - LGen David Morrison, Chief of Army, Australia
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 12,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 506
Re: VAC - were you denied (or approved) because of a CF 98?
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2013, 19:31:26 »
Although a lot of us older guys never heard of CF 98's until all the young pups in the late 90's and after were encouraged to fill them in for any injury, no matter how minor, there are other points that are being forgotten/overlooked/dismissed.  The CF conducted studies related to "workplace" injuries and came up with quite detailed and specific results.  I know that they found that us crewmen and other Cbt Arms who worked on Tracked Vehicles were subjected to vibrations that cause lower back degeneration, with compacted and compressed discs, etc.  I also find it quite a coincidence that all of us who did a lot of time CCing Recce vehs all seem to have lost hearing in the Left ear (Right ear kept free of headset to provide SA).  These studies have been done and well documented.  Why then does VAC not accept them, why your service records clearly document what your occupation was.

Oh!  By the way; the occupation that they found to have the greatest hearing loss was Cook.  That due to the High Pressure Steam lines in kitchens.  How many Cooks have been denied compensation due to hearing loss without a CF 98?

George, I'd really be interested in seeing those studies. VAC is behind the times in terms of studies. We have the Korean War Veterans study, plus one from the RCMP on the effects of the load-bearing vest they wear, and Agent Orange, but I haven't seen anything re: lumbar spine difficulties related to vehs. I know my own back is a bit of a mess, from CCing the LUVW on crse the last two years, plus ex-s, from the turret and front seat, but...

And ditto any studies on the hearing loss due to the wearing of the head set. Although well versed on the causes of HL and tinnitus, and experiencing my own since BMQ, I've felt it more since ARCC/ARTL, being behind the main wpn system and having the headset on, plus firing the gun and comms at the same time (specially the headset where you can "amp"/turn off ambient sound...

And good q on the Cook trade angle. I don't think I can parameter search decisions by trade, but it would be interesting to see all the same...
« Ne vous occupez pas d'eux; ils ne savent pas tirer. [...] Il y a des ennemis devant nous, derrière nous et sur nos flancs. Il ne reste qu'une place sans danger, soit vers l'objectif. » Paul Triquet, VC

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 33,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 906
  • Jackwagon
Re: VAC - were you denied (or approved) because of a CF 98?
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2013, 19:38:56 »

You know what I would really love to see? A class added to PLQ on how to fill out a CF-98.

I am not sure if PLQ is the right venue but I like this idea. I actually did this for a PD Day when I worked at an NRD about 8-10 years ago.
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 60,552
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,848
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: VAC - were you denied (or approved) because of a CF 98?
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2013, 20:56:35 »
I say PLQ because it's a mandatory stepping-stone on the NCO path.

Regardless of where it's taught, it's a simple enough thing, but an important enough thing that EVERYONE in ANY sort of supervisory role should have training in how to fill it out and where it goes following being filled out.

Ideally, in my oppinion at least, the safety management course would be integrated as a module on PLQ (And I suppose BOTP or whatever the equivilent officer course is now). For the sake of the three (Could be done in two) days it would added to the courses, well worth the return.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 21:34:04 by a Sig Op »

Offline jtdollah

  • Guest
  • *
  • 190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11
CF98 question
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2018, 07:50:30 »
A few years ago while I was still serving, my WO made me submit CF98 for an injury. However, I am not sure if it went past him, he may of just sat on it.

How can I check if my CF98 was properly documented? Would I contact VAC?

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 520,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,755
    • The job.
Re: CF98 question
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2018, 07:59:37 »
How can I check if my CF98 was properly documented?

This may help,

All things CF98
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=23772.0
5 pages.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 08:53:09 by mariomike »

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 40,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 868
    • Canada For Victory
Re: CF98 question
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2018, 18:50:55 »
A few years ago while I was still serving, my WO made me submit CF98 for an injury. However, I am not sure if it went past him, he may of just sat on it.

How can I check if my CF98 was properly documented? Would I contact VAC?

Request a copy of your pers file and med file if you don't already have it. If your out put the request through here. Be specific.

https://atip-aiprp.apps.gc.ca/atip/welcome.do