Critical Injury Benefit

[RobA]

Just wondering if anyone has been contacted about this yet? O'Toole saidd VAC was going to contact eligible vets proactively, don't know if that means now, or if they need to wait until it passes in the HoC (whenever that is)

 

[Teager]

I think it will have to be passed before they contact anyone. If they contacted eligible vets and the bill never passes then they would look pretty bad. My case manager said they don't even have any info on it and they know as much as the rest of us do. Just wait out eventually things will get moving and an answer will be provided. Since Equitas is still in talks they might have some additions to come yet (or not).

 

[dunlop303]

That would be great, but it raises so many questions. The scenario they offer is someone who was not pensioned received it. Do critically injured pensioned people receive it? What is the criteria? Does it have to fall into a category of injuries or a % of disability?

I'm sure the HoC will have the same questions. Unless I'm not seeing a full bill that others have seen.

 

[Teager]

Here is the whole Bill. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=7907037&File=29#1

As far as I know you do not need to be in receipt of a Disability award to receive this benefit. Unsure of how the specifics will be laid out when it's all said and done.

 

[RobA]

I've read the bill pretty thoroughly, and here's my take from it (just my opinion, I'm not a lawyer or anything, so don't take this as a substitute for any advice from anyone in the know)

Here's the criteria as in the bill:

1) The Minister may, on application, pay a critical injury benefit to a member or veteran who establishes that they sustained one or more severe and traumatic injuries, or developed an acute disease, and that the injury or disease:

(a) was a service-related injury or disease;

(b) was the result of a sudden and single incident that occurred after March 31, 2006; and

(c) immediately caused a severe impairment and severe interference in their quality of life.

Factors to be considered

(2) In deciding whether the impairment and the interference in the quality of life referred to in paragraph (1)(c) were severe, the Minister shall consider any prescribed factors.

(3) The Governor in Council may, for the purpose of subsection 44.1(1), make regulations respecting the determination of what constitutes a sudden and single incident.


So, the whole "pensioned or not" thing is irrelevent. As it has to have happened AFTER March 2006, I don't think ANYone in receipt of a pension (under the old charter) would qualify, as I'm pretty sure there are no pensions given out after March 2006.

As for the actual injury, the critical thing is that it needs to be "sudden and severe". There are two words here, "sudden" and "severe" both of which have two meanings. The "sudden" requirement means there needs to be a specific event (or events) one can point too. So, a fall out of a Griffon while rappeling would count. So would an IED attack in AFghan. Busted up knees after 20 years of rucksack marching, or PTSD after a tour of Afghanistan would not.

The "sudden" requierement seems pretty straight forward. It's either a specific event, or it isnt. THe "severe" criteria is a little mushier, and one in which judgement will come into play. IMO, if one gets denied, it will be the "severe" aspect that would be attackable in an appeal. The "sudden" criteria seems much less subjective.

If you qualify in the "sudden" category, all you'll need to do is convince them that it is "severe". THat may be  based on your disability percentage (someone paid out at 100% would likely qualify merely by that fact alone). But I don't think it has to be the only factor. If youu can show that your injury was "severe" you'll prob have a good chance.

I also read this part from the top:

" The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled."

(emphasis mine). To me, this last part suggests that the "severe" criteria will NOT be judged according to a super strict standard. The "sudden" requirement, which is much less subjective seems to be the linchpin. If you satisfy that, then the "severe" aspect seems to be a judgement call.

 

[Teager]

Seems that Minister O'Toole wants the Bill passed by June. Seems to be some politics happening between the NDP and Conservatives about passing Bill C-58 and now trying to pass it with budget implementation with Bill C-59. Feel free to have a read. I don't even know who to believe anymore.  :dunno:

https://www.facebook.com/erinotoolecpc/posts/10153271419357667

 

[Teager]

And here's a bit from the media about it.

Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, May 12, 2015 10:15AM EDT
Last Updated Tuesday, May 12, 2015 1:22PM EDT
OTTAWA -- The Harper government has stuffed proposed improvements to veterans benefits into the omnibus budget bill, saying it needs to make sure it passes before the next election.
But the move could also silence opposition critics.
It's an unusual tactic, since Veteran Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole had already introduced separate legislation -- Bill C-58 -- to enact the changes, which include a new retirement benefit for severely disabled soldiers, a separate $70,000 injury award and a proposed $7,238 caregivers benefit, among other things.
A look at government legislation that has yet to pass the Commons
O'Toole told the House of Commons veterans committee that he doesn't trust the opposition to pass the bill before Parliament adjourns -- likely next month, with an election scheduled for October.
He pointed to an NDP motion, debated on Monday, which called on the government to recognize its social obligation to veterans and their families, as well as recent statements that the changes don't go far enough.
"It's clear you wanted to delay, and I won't allow a delay to happen when I've made a commitment to veterans," O'Toole said in an answer to a question by NDP veterans critic Peter Stoffer.
The bill was introduced in late March, but has yet to be brought before a Commons committee for detailed study, said Stoffer, who noted that his party actually "likes" the legislation.
"We in the opposition -- I cannot speak for the Liberals -- but we have never indicated a delay in Bill C-58. And to indicate that we have is simply not true," said Stoffer.
He said the effect of putting the changes into the massive budget bill is that veterans groups won't have a chance to comment before Parliament on the proposed changes.
The decision also jams opposition parties, which usually vote against budget bills. Additionally, it provides an opening for the Conservatives in the upcoming campaign to say that the Liberals and NDP voted against improved veterans benefits.
O'Toole's parliament secretary, Ontario Conservative MP Pierre Lemieux, said there's still a possiblity that portions of the budget bill affecting veterans would be open to public scrutiny and comment, but that decision would rest with the Commons finance committee.
Liberal veterans critic Frank Valeriote said he was skeptical that the stand-alone veterans legislation would make it all of the way through before Parliament dissolved, but suggested the government introduced it late in the process.
Since replacing Julian Fantino in January, O'Toole has had the monumental task of rebuilding bridges with the politically-important veterans community, which has grown increasingly outraged over a series of issues, including gaps in the veterans benefits system, regional office closures, and slights by the former minister.
Conservative MPs, who took turns lobbing friendly questions at him during Tuesday's committee meeting, repeatedly returned to the issue of under-spending in the department, which surfaced last fall.
Federal budget records show that since 2006, veterans affairs was unable to spend $1.13 billion of its budget, money that was subsequently returned to the federal treasury.
The revelation created a political firestorm, one that evidently still smarts as O'Toole responded to questions by saying the issue was used to deliberately "sow seeds of confusion" over what is a normal practice of government and emerges during a slow news cycle.
The government's defence -- then and now -- is that departments always appropriate extra funds so they don't run short, especially in service based departments like veterans.
With so many elderly veterans passing away, O'Toole said it's tough for the department to run projections.
"The estimate does not anticipate veterans passing away over the course of the cycle," he said. "We see most of the lapsed funds coming, sadly, when we're losing a large number of our World War Two and Korean veterans. In terms of lapsed funds, this is why."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/tories-set-to-use-omnibus-bill-to-ram-veterans-benefits-through-parliament-1.2370163

 

[blackberet17]

A Q&A page went up not long ago, and I thought I'd post some extracts. Reminder, this has still not passed through Parliament yet.

Q3. What is the definition of a “sudden, single and traumatic event,” and why was that chosen?

A3. The phrase “sudden single and traumatic event” refers to one unexpected incident which resulted in severe and traumatic injuries. The defining factor is that the event was singular and the effect of it was immediate; it did not evolve over time.

This benefit was designed this way to respond in part to those Veterans/CAF members who experienced severe injuries, and endured prolonged periods of inpatient care and painful and recurrent procedures where their condition improved to the point they received minimal disability benefits.

The types of events/incidents contemplated for this benefit may include, but are not limited to IEDs, motor vehicle accidents, fires, falls, etc.

Here is an example of sudden service-related illness: If a soldier was in a rollover accident and he or she suffered a deep wound and broken bones, a severe infection could set in. That requires intensive care, surgeries or intubation to recover—this benefit is meant to recognize that struggle. It’s an immediate illness caused by a sudden incident.

Q9. Would there be a time limit to apply for this benefit?

A9. No. There would be no time limit to apply for this benefit.


Q10. Why would this benefit be retroactive to April 1, 2006, while the other new benefits announced (Retirement Income Security Benefit and Family Caregiver Relief Benefit) were not?

A10. This eligibility date was chosen to coincide with the date of the coming into force of the NVC. Doing so will address stakeholder requests for additional benefits for the most seriously injured under the NVC, and will recognize the high number of severe and traumatic injuries sustained by CAF personnel in the Afghanistan War following the introduction of the NVC.


Q11. How many people are projected to receive this benefit?

A11. It is estimated that more than 120 CAF personnel could receive this benefit by 2019-2020.

Personally, I think the 120 estimate is frighteningly low.

Q15. I am a Veteran in receipt of a disability award as a result of an amputation due to a critical injury. Would I have to submit an application since you have my information on file?

A15. As part of the Department’s continued commitment to Veteran-centric care, and in order to reduce wait times, where possible, Veterans Affairs Canada employees will proactively contact Veterans who have had severe service related injuries, to discuss this new benefit.

Once enacted in Parliament, if Veterans Affairs Canada has not contacted you and you think you may be eligible for this new benefit, do not hesitate to contact the Department at 1-866-522-2122 (1-866-522-2022 in French) to ask for more information.

And it's non-taxable.

 

[Teager]

Thanks Blackberet17. Do you have a link for this?

 

[blackberet17]

No, sorry. I forgot to mention it is internal at this time. We're still waiting on Parliament to pass the required legislation.

Anyone else notice how all the Conservative ads have the little itty-bitty writing at the bottom, "Pending Parliamentary Approval", or similar wording?

 

[Teager]

Well looks like the Bill got Royal assent yesterday so CIB and the other benefits should start to move forward.

 

[dunlop303]

Thats great, didn't expect it to move so quickly.

What is the time frame usually to pass these once they reach this level?

 

[blackberet17]

Nothing yet on the external VAC Web site ref Royal assent, but the internal site has been refreshed, and the Q&A I mention above has been updated. I'll read through tomorrow, and advise if I note any major differences.

 

[dunlop303]

Interesting,

I re-educated my self on my old law classes on how a bill becomes Law. I thought it needed another step after Royal Assent but I guess it doesn't?
Im tempted to call in and get in que, but ive harassed VAC enough this week. And I am guessing it will take some time to set up there systems ect, as it is not listed as a benefit yet.

 

[PuckChaser]

Royal Assent is the last step, the GG has signed the bill into Law. Now all the bureaucratic processes need to start to get the money out to everyone.

 

[blackberet17]

From the refreshed version.

Q6. Is this benefit available now?

A6. No, the benefit will be available once the regulations have passed.

Q7. Does a CAF member/Veteran who is already in receipt of a disability award as a result of an amputation due to a critical injury have to submit an application, since VAC already has the information on file?

A7. As part of the Department’s continued commitment to Veteran-centric care, and in order to reduce wait times, where possible, VAC employees will proactively contact CAF members/Veterans who have experienced a sudden, single incident on or after April 1, 2006 which immediately resulted in a service-related traumatic injury or disease causing severe impairment and interference with quality of life to discuss application requirements.

Q8. How will a CAF member/Veteran know if VAC is proactively determining if they meet the above stated eligibility requirements?

A8. They will receive a letter from the Department to let them know that VAC has reviewed their information and will be advised that they are entitled to this benefit. This letter will also advise them if additional information is required in order to proceed with an official decision.

Q9. I have received a letter from VAC saying that they are able to waive the requirement for me to apply and that after a review of my information I am entitled to this benefit. In order to receive this lump-sum award, it says to call this number and advise that I accept the offer to waive the application or send a message through My VAC Account (MVA). What do I do next?

A9. The next steps will depend upon how you wish to proceed. Please allow me to verify the information contained in your letter and we will determine the next steps from there

So, some of you may note, Q9 above is different from Q9 I previously posted.

Watch and shoot for more!

 

[RobA]

If anyone gets that letter, could they let us know here? So that we'll at least know they are set up to start processing claims.

I agree, I think they're seriously underestimating the number listed, and I imagine that lots of people will eentually qualify that aren't selected in the initial round.

 

[blackberet17]

Never tried myself in the past, but there is a link <a href="http://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/supportforveterans/veterans.html">here</a> which allows you to subscribe to receive an update once the benefit is approved.

 

[dunlop303]

Underestimated for sure, in my squadron of tank drivers alone, there were 12 drivers - 10 hit IED's, 2 were killed and I think only 2 didn't have an immediate injury. So 8/12 drivers who hit IED's that didn't die had some sort or medivac injury. That was one tour.

 

[dunlop303]

I emailed vac just to see if they had a timeline set up, nothing yet:




Thank you for using My VAC Account and our secure email services.

As part of the Department's continued commitment to Veteran-centric
care, and in order to reduce wait times, where possible, Veterans
Affairs Canada employees will proactively contact Veterans who
have had severe service related injuries, to discuss this new
benefit. However, at this time we have not been provided any
time frames for this to take place. I am sure it will be publicized
or you may check back with our Department periodically.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact
us again via My VAC Account or our toll free number 1-866-522-2122.