Privacy breach at Veterans Affairs

[armyvern]

I really hate to come to the defence of bureaucrats, but I wonder how many accesses to the file were proper in terms of department procedure.  In the course of a couple of relatively simple disputes I had with government departments, it certainly appeared that every phone conversation I had and every letter they sent involved a different employee.  In a complex case with lots of contacts, I could certainly see a large number of people "needing" to access the file at one time or another.  Does anyone know how many of these accesses to the file were even alleged to be "not required"?

We have to sign Access requests for even our OWN personal assigned pension advocate to access our medical records.

There is a systemic issue with VACs processess & policy when any one of them can then access a file without my, or my advocates, permission. If I only get one advocate, then their staffing of my file should then also be limited to an "assigned case worker(s) ONLY" and not every Tom, Dick & Harry in the department who may/may not receive a phone call or a letter on Day X. not your file? Then hand it over to the case worker to whom it IS assigned. There ... that was easy.

Social Services manages to assign case workers (although they are swamped) and those not assigned have no right, and no business, being in that not-assigned case record ... you'd think a Federal department full of Federal Employees with such an important and privacy-heightened task could do so as well. It is NOT rocket science.

There's no excuse for just "anyone" being able to access any soldiers file. They'll certainly make excuses, but that is far from "justifying" this lack of security and discretion with Veteran's confidential medical records.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Of course files are required and in a good, functioning bureaucracy information is, routinely, collected, collated and, as appropriate, shared.

Medical information, however, is of a special order and is NOT required by anyone except a select few medical professionals - it is NEVER required by e.g. ministers.

Most bureaucrats in all departments are decent, usually modestly and sometimes very hard working, dedicated public servant who really want to serve. But, as in any organization, including the CF itself, some members cannot quite grasp the rules and they bend and then break those rules in a misguided effort to 'support' their organization and to 'win' every bureaucratic battle with clients.

 

[Nemo888]

"it is beyond the purview of the commissioner to fine the officials responsible."
Wow, that is really annoying though not surprising. I guess she doesn't want to get fired too.

We could just take over VAC with the priority hiring program for Vets.  If anyone one knows what credentials they need please post them. Maybe I'll ask around a bit Tuesday. Wouldn't take too many of us to straighten out these folks once we were inside and indeterminate*.

* indeterminate = job for life

 

[Rifleman62]

My understanding of the system VAC uses for claims is that the Adjudication Department clerk, who is not a medical professional, reviews the report of the claimants’ medical condition/claim. The Adjudication Clerk then fits the words from the medical professional's report into VAC's Table of Disabilities. Then, if the correct words are presented, and all the round pegs are fit into the appropriate holes, you may be successful with your claim.

I say words, because I have experienced this on several occasions where the appropriate phrase/word from the Table of Disabilities was not used. The prescription drug or treatment was refused with the option to appeal within sixty days.

Additionally, since 2006, VAC's Medical Officers cannot recommend anything. All they do is complete a Medical Questionnaire with words and check marks. An Adjudication Clerk can and does overrule a licensed Medical Doctor, either the VAC District Medical Officer, the military MO, or a civilian practitioner

Know what a Summary of Assessment is? The Adjudication Clerk, processing a claim, checks the summary to ascertain what you have been awarded, for what and how much, then a decision is made on a claim.

I fail to see what reviewing the Summary of Assessment has to do with a claim that is currently being assessed. VAC updates it after every decision is made.

If you appeal, guess what? That same Summary of Assessment is reviewed by the board members of your Review Hearing, or at the final appeal stage, the members of the Appeal Hearing when making their decision on your claim. The VRAB is supposed to be independent and impartial, so why do they have access to the claimants’ Summary of Assessment?

Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB)

Our Vision

To demonstrate fairness, competence and excellence in service to Canadians by providing independent, consistent and reasonable decisions that are grounded in law.

Our Values

Impartiality, Excellence, Integrity, Respect, Balance

 

[armyvern]

Our Values

Impartiality, Excellence, Integrity, Respect, Balance

Wow. This one kills me; especially as a girl who sat in front of them with her advocate during my appeal. I blew my eustacian tube & eardrum while on duty & refuelling a herc in -65 degree weather one day at CFS Alert (NOT considered a Special Duty area). Massive infection, but I was a one-of and still required to venture outside each day to refuel the day tanks so that the station would have heat and power to cook etc. I am now deaf on the left. This is OK - it is my OWN medical information of which I am now speaking. 

At my appeal, they sat on the other end of the table, interrogating me (whoever compared them to an insurance company is 100% bang-on!!) and finally ended with a "well, if your injury was actually caused by your service, then every other Zippo who has served in Alert would be deaf too; and they are not." <--- their actual words!! My advocate then tried to argue with them that every other Zippo had not been required to also walk kms of pipes to find and replace a frozen valve just prior to refuelling a herc and the day tank, but that, due to my still being required to go outside every day afterwards for a couple hours with a massive infection that eventually developed into a tumor that had to be surgicly removed certainly held that "my service, at least then, must have contributed to my condition". A couple weeks later, I got the "Denied pension" letter in the mail.

Eerily enough, my condition must worsen or "new" factors must come to light before I can file another appeal. Guess what? I can't get any deafer, so that won't happen. And, there won't be any "new" info either - seeing as how my file contained the pre-req CF98, witness statements from the aircrew and the medics (mini & Maxi), statements from all present when it occured, and one from the Station CO explaining that I was a one-of and on duty doing my job when it happened, records of conversations between Maxi & the 8 Wg B Surg discussing a medevac possibility and the super-anitibiotics that had to be flown in from Trenton to try to fight the infection etc etc. I had it all. It also contained all my medical records from before I joined the CF ... just to prove that I had never had any problems with my ears nor ear infections until that fateful incident - just in case they tried to pull the "chronic condition - not attributable to service" <--- that's actually what got me the appeal because my original claim was denied as being a "chronic condition" by them even though there was diddly squat in my military records relating to any problems or issues with my ears.

Thanks VAC - you rock!! I have not had many opportunities to feel as belittled as you managed to make me feel that day. It's one that I will not forget.

 

[Greymatters]

I had one for my back denied as well, but I didnt have anywhere near as much support information or documentation as Vern had... 

 

[The Bread Guy]

We could just take over VAC with the priority hiring program for Vets.  If anyone one knows what credentials they need please post them. Maybe I'll ask around a bit Tuesday. Wouldn't take too many of us to straighten out these folks once we were inside and indeterminate*.

* indeterminate = job for life

Until the rules change, it won't matter who's enforcing them.

 

[Petard]

VAC I suspect is watching this site closely, and there is certainly risk in saying really too much about anything. But I believe there is a need to have a hard look at the attitudes present in that institution, that a number of us have dealt with already.
Seeing how this Bruyea case unfolded, and Vern's story, it is certainly discouraging to anyone even thinking of making a claim, never mind an appeal.

So perhaps it is a good thing that they look closely at how these rules appear; how dare they claim integrity now?

 

[Journeyman]

So perhaps it is a good thing that they look closely at how they appear; how dare they claim integrity now?

I would suggest that that is a problem with institutional arrogance.

I doubt if they are even remotely concerned about what is said here; if they're concerned about anything, it's more likely what's being reported in the open press -- and that, only because their bosses may read it.

 

[Greymatters]

VAC I suspect is watching this site closely...

That would be an acknowledgement that the opinions of current and former serving members actually matter to them.  Further to Journeyman's comment, I doubt most of them even know this site exists never mind what is said on it... 

 

[The Bread Guy]

VAC I suspect is watching this site closely ....

If not the officials, the communications folks should be....

Meanwhile, the apology:

The Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Veterans Affairs Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture) today issued the following statement:

"I wish to hereby give an update on the case of Sean Bruyea versus the Government of Canada.

I wish to report that the Government of Canada is immediately undertaking an expedited mediation procedure in this case.

In addition, I would like to make the following statement to Mr. Sean Bruyea:

I was very troubled to learn that personal information concerning you was shared among public servants who had no need for this information in order to do their work.

I recognize that this information sharing has caused you needless suffering and anxiety, and for that the Government and I are truly sorry.

I also extend my sincere regrets to anyone who may have gone through the same situation. As I said, we will be co-operating with regard to the in-depth audit being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner, and we will take action in follow-up to the results and recommendations.

Meanwhile, I have already taken measures and actions to ensure that Veterans' privacy is protected."

More on this in these threads:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/96787.0.html
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/96784.0.html

 

[dapaterson]

The principle of Ministerial accountability calls for Blackburn to be fired.  Post-haste.

And I would suggest that the public accounts of Canada be examined to determine how much "Performance Pay" and "Pay at risk" was awarded to public servants within VAC in the years when this information was shared.  That should be the starting point for discussing compensation.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The principle of Ministerial accountability calls for Blackburn to be fired.  Post-haste.

And I would suggest that the public accounts of Canada be examined to determine how much "Performance Pay" and "Pay at risk" was awarded to public servants within VAC in the years when this information was shared.  That should be the starting point for discussing compensation.

Agreed on both counts, but betting a loonie neither the resignation will happen.

Edited to fine tune prediction

 

[Edward Campbell]

Minister Blackburn may be one of the few ‘innocents’ in all this, but, as this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, indicates the written apology is not enough for Mr. Bruyea and it should not be enough for Canadians, either:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/apology-by-press-release-not-enough-veterans-advocate-says/article1771840/

Apology by press release not enough, veterans advocate says

JANE TABER

Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010

Sean Bruyea and his wife, Carolina, broke down and cried Sunday when they heard the Harper government was going to say it was sorry. On Monday, the apology the outspoken Gulf War veteran and critic of Veterans Affairs had been waiting for finally arrived.

“I recognize that this information sharing has caused you needless suffering and anxiety, and for that the Government and I are truly sorry,” Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said in his statement.

Mr. Bruyea’s personal medical and psychiatric records had been circulated throughout the Veterans Affairs department. There has been no official finding that his documents were circulated as a way to discredit him, but the Privacy Commissioner has confirmed they were used in a ministerial briefing note at the time when Mr. Bruyea was fighting the department.

Mr. Bruyea says the apology comes as “a huge relief.” Still, it came in the form of the very same press release that was handed out to the media. He believes an apology should be made in person – and he has fired off a note to that effect to the minister’s staff.

He wants to hear Mr. Blackburn deliver the apology. And he thinks it should be read at a news conference or in the House of Commons.

On Monday afternoon, he informed Mr. Blackburn’s staff that he was heading downtown and “was more than willing to attend” at the House or at some other venue.

“The formal apology is not just for me,” he told The Globe. Indeed, in his note Mr. Blackburn also apologizes to “anyone who may have gone through the same situation.”

“As I said, we will be co-operating with regard to the in-depth audit being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner, and we will take action in follow-up to the results and recommendations,” the minister wrote.

Earlier this month, watchdog Jennifer Stoddart ruled there was a serious breach of Mr. Bruyea’s privacy rights. Mr. Blackburn’s apology letter also included an offer to fast-track mediation for an out-of-court settlement to the former soldier’s $400,000 privacy lawsuit against the government. That process is to take place in mid-November and Mr. Bruyea is hoping it will last only a day.

He his fight is not about the money. He noted that he will not accept a gag order as part of the settlement. “As an advocate [for veterans rights] I couldn’t abide by that,” Mr. Bruyea said.

And he wants to emphasize, too, this isn’t about just what happened to him but about a culture in the bureaucracy in which they were “trying to destroy an individual” in order to push through a policy. “This is not the Canada I fought for,” he said.

My guess is that Mr. Harper will not force or even allow Mr. Blackburn to do the honourable, indeed constitutionally required thing and resign; cabinet making with this current crop of Québec MPs is hard enough; Blackburn may not be a star but he’s not a real dog, either.

Harper should realize that a verbal apology, in the HoC, with Mr. and Mrs. Bruyea in the gallery is almost certainly the least painful way to put a political end to this. Eating a bit of crow always works.

An exemplary and punitive shuffle of one deputy minister and a few ADMs, and directors general would also help.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Here is a relevant cartoon from yesterday. 

http://media.metronews.topscms.com/images/2b/97/a193867749d49e938e511ccf7d48.jpeg

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Globe and Mail is reporting that Sean Bruyea has settled his suit with VAC. The terms of the settlement are confidential but the article reports that Bruyea said 'he'll continue his advocacy work on behalf of veterans. He thanked Mr. Blackburn and Prime Minister Stephen Harper for helping find a “dignified and expedited closure to this matter.”'

Sadly, we may never know if any disciplinary action - lacking in force thought it may be - was ever taken against the many, many people who abused Bruyea's privacy rights by passing his CONFIDENTIAL information to people who had no need or right to see it. Since we know the information went, at least twice, to ministers that means that, at the very least, the Deputy Minister (and some others) ought to be denied any performance bonus this year and, additionally, he (and the others) ought to be required to repay any bonuses they received since this fiasco started, but ... 

 

[dapaterson]

Some of the financial information will eventually make it into the public accounts for FY 10/11.

It is unfortunate that Government lawyers insist on non-disclosure in such cases; almost as if they feel the Government has something to hide.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/veterans-affairs-says-54-bureaucrats-disciplined-over-personal-file-leak-117606138.html

Veterans Affairs says 54 bureaucrats disciplined over personal file leak

By: The Canadian Press, Posted: 03/8/2011 3:42 PM

OTTAWA - Veterans Affairs has disciplined 54 bureaucrats who improperly accessed the personal file of an activist vet.

Some were given three-day suspensions, while others were formally reprimanded.

A two-month internal investigation found that 614 employees looked at medical records and psychiatric reports in Sean Bruyea's file, but many had no need to do so.

Some of the information was included in briefing notes for a former veterans affairs minister in an attempt to discredit Bruyea.

The privacy commissioner found the bureaucrats violated the privacy law, which prompted the federal government to fast-track a $400,000, out-of-court settlement and an apology for Bruyea.

Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn says the department didn't emphasize privacy protection before the Bruyea scandal erupted and that was taken into account in meting out punishment.

 

[Edward Campbell]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/veterans-affairs-says-54-bureaucrats-disciplined-over-personal-file-leak-117606138.html

Veterans Affairs says 54 bureaucrats disciplined over personal file leak

By: The Canadian Press, Posted: 03/8/2011 3:42 PM

OTTAWA - Veterans Affairs has disciplined 54 bureaucrats who improperly accessed the personal file of an activist vet.

Some were given three-day suspensions, while others were formally reprimanded.

A two-month internal investigation found that 614 employees looked at medical records and psychiatric reports in Sean Bruyea's file, but many had no need to do so.

Some of the information was included in briefing notes for a former veterans affairs minister in an attempt to discredit Bruyea.

The privacy commissioner found the bureaucrats violated the privacy law, which prompted the federal government to fast-track a $400,000, out-of-court settlement and an apology for Bruyea.

Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn says the department didn't emphasize privacy protection before the Bruyea scandal erupted and that was taken into account in meting out punishment.

And I'll bet they will all get their "performance bonuses" at year's end.

This is a disgraceful response by a gutless bureaucratic centre in Ottawa and by the upper levels of VAC in Charlottetown.

Departments didn't have to "emphasize privacy protection," it was the frigging law! What a sadsack minister and what a useless bloody departmental management team. This stinks. Heads, beginning with the Deputy Minister, herself, should have rolled

 

[Old Sweat]

And I'll bet they will all get their "performance bonuses" at year's end.

This is a disgraceful response by a gutless bureaucratic centre in Ottawa and by the upper levels of VAC in Charlottetown.

Departments didn't have to "emphasize privacy protection," it was the frigging law! What a sadsack minister and what a useless bloody departmental management team. This stinks. Heads, beginning with the Deputy Minister, herself, should have rolled

Can't you hear the rationalization?

And if we can the senior management, our service to all our deserving clients will suffer. And the media will hear about it, and make a really big thing about suffering veterans and widows.