• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Soldiers squander disability payouts

Petamocto said:
Dogger,

As my thread specifically stated, I am not accusing any doctors of ever getting anything wrong.

However, is it not possible for a doctor to diagnose something and then have the ailment get better or worse over time?

The same way one would expect a soldier to be awarded more compensation money if their condition got assessed as worse, is the inverse not true that we would expect them to stop getting paid of they got better?

Petamocto:

I think you will find that when dealing with disability pensions and VAC that a doctor's "diagnosis" is only one small part of the assessment process.  If you look at all VAC Medical Questionnaires, they contain "in depth" questions regquire the doctor to make an assessment as to the extent of the disability and whether or  not they expect the condition to improve and to indicate what treatments are currently underway and/or planned.

So, it is just more than a "point in time" diagnosis that may get better over time - as you seem to be eluding to.
 
Petamocto
wait....
Thanks ALEA....

Monthly Pensions are protected by legislation
That is to say, that even with the magical cure, surgical intervention, specific invention or whatever,
the pension remains......Even if by adapting your lifestyle, and your condition improves, it remains.
If your quality of life improves......then Veterans Affairs is doing their job.


Spinal cord injuries, such as herniated discs (known as degenerative disc disease) and litteral spinal snap will cause other symptoms over an extended period of time.......sometimes forever.
Sometimes these symptoms get worse over time.
This is the reasonning behind the review.
The Problem.......
As the payout seems to be a beauty......that's the end of it.
you no longer have access to that review.

Another thought to ponder upon.
Those injuries you may have sustained earlier on in your career have a time limit.
Symptoms resulting from injuries over 25yrs ago are hardly considered in most cases.

Keep a good record of any......and all injuries.
witnesses where possible. Timings, Details, incident reports, etc.

All these thing may come in handy........one day.

 
If you could guarantee me that my health, both physical and mental, could be restored to the same condition as they were the day before they went wrong, I would gladly pull the plug on my pension the following day.
 
57Chevy said:
That is to say, that even with the magical cure, surgical intervention, specific invention or whatever, the pension remains...

That answers my question, thank you.

So you can get paid more if you get worse but not paid less if you get better.
 
Part of the calculation for the payment/pension is the pain and suffering. So even if you're better now, you can still get a claim for an injury. A coworker broke his knee pretty severely about a decade ago, might not have been able to walk again. Got surgery, it healed, and he's able to do BFTs and maintain a 4 handicap. Still gets $600 a month under the old charter, and he's still in the Forces.
 
57Chevy said:
Monthly Pensions are protected by legislation
That is to say, that even with the magical cure, surgical intervention, specific invention or whatever,
the pension remains......Even if by adapting your lifestyle, and your condition improves, it remains.
If your quality of life improves......then Veterans Affairs is doing their job.

That is good to hear,

Can you show me the part of the Pension Act, or other source that states this.  I have been told otherwise,a nd that would be good information to present to the people who told me this.

dileas

tess
 
Petamocto said:
So you can get paid more if you get worse but not paid less if you get better.

Getting better does not mean cured.
adapting is a better term......taking into consideration your condition or injury.

A leg injury may prevent you from running. It may stop you in your tracks.
So, in that case, if later, through personal effort and determination, you are able to walk,.........then you have gotten better.
It doesn't mean you can run.


 
the 48th regulator said:
That is good to hear,
Can you show me the part of the Pension Act, or other source that states this.  I have been told otherwise,a nd that would be good information to present to the people who told me this.
dileas tess

My Pension Advocate informed me of this recently.
I have no idea which part of the act though.

My day in Court for a review is for tomorrow morning.
Very anxious and hoping it goes well ;D
 
PuckChaser said:
Part of the calculation for the payment/pension is the pain and suffering.

That's not what I was told by the Doctor in St John NB when I finally got looked at 2 1/2 years after the injury (they stalled long enough sending the paper work so I would fall under the NVC). She told me they (the board) didn't care about how much pain I was in or about my quality of life just about how much mobility I had lost in that limb, that was it. They didn't care that that the surgeon that worked on me said that I would have arthritis in that joint with in 2-3 years, and it would get progressively worse. My settlement worked out to be the equivalent of $300.00 a month paid out to 6 years under the old pension act. It has been 5 years since I got injured and I'm in costant pain with arthritis and I have no recourse to get reassessed.
 
Tank Troll said:
That's not what I was told by the Doctor in St John NB when I finally got looked at 2 1/2 years after the injury (they stalled long enough sending the paper work so I would fall under the NVC).

Whether you fall under the Pension Act or the NVC was determined by the date you submitted your application, not the date that any supporting documents were provided by doctors.  You could've submitted the application by itself, and provided the documentation later in order to qualify under the Pension Act.
 
57Chevy said:
A leg injury may prevent you from running. It may stop you in your tracks.  So, in that case, if later, through personal effort and determination, you are able to walk,.........then you have gotten better.  It doesn't mean you can run.

Absolutely, but the way I understand it (I have gone though a lot of the website) they base percentages of disability on many factors including pain, loss of mobility, etc.

So in your example, say someone has a muscular chunk of their leg shot off, and when he is assessed he can't run or walk.  Well if those types of injuries are deemed (for example) a 30% disability if you can't run and a 70% disability if you can't walk, he's going to get the 70% because when he's assessed he's at X level of disability.

What I am trying to figure out (and I believe you already answered), is if that guy in the future, through physio or surgery (or whatever) is able to walk again, what happens to his pension?  If he was getting paid monthly it could have been adjusted but if he received a lump sum for a 70% disability for the rest of his life, if after a few years he's only at a 30% disability because he can walk again, then it is what it is.
 
Tank Troll said:
That's not what I was told by the Doctor in St John NB when I finally got looked at 2 1/2 years after the injury (they stalled long enough sending the paper work so I would fall under the NVC). She told me they (the board) didn't care about how much pain I was in or about my quality of life just about how much mobility I had lost in that limb, that was it. They didn't care that that the surgeon that worked on me said that I would have arthritis in that joint with in 2-3 years, and it would get progressively worse. My settlement worked out to be the equivalent of $300.00 a month paid out to 6 years under the old pension act. It has been 5 years since I got injured and I'm in costant pain with arthritis and I have no recourse to get reassessed.
  Sounds like a conversation I had with someone from the board of pension advocates yesterday.  When I got my claim in the mail, there was a letter with it that said I was totally free to appeal the decision for whatever reason I wasn't happy.  So I did.  I brought up the daily pain and suffering..the quality of life issue..the things I can't do with my family like I used to etc....
  The first thing she said was "  Well did you see the chart that we sent you that showed how we calculated your award?"  I said yes.  She said that's their bible and thats exactly what they have to use to decide your award.  She said..." have you lost 80% of your mobility in the last 2 months?"  When I said no...but my quality of life has changed....she simply said it doesn't matter. 
  However,  we totally can have the appeal go through( even if they think you don't deserve it) and will get assigned a VAC lawyer and they will review our case.
  It just seems to me like everything with them is black and white......with no room for a grey area.  I'd say everyones case is quite different and there are so many factors involved with a disability.  But they use their charts( bible) to try to calculate everyone the same.
 
 
 
Occam said:
Whether you fall under the Pension Act or the NVC was determined by the date you submitted your application, not the date that any supporting documents were provided by doctors.  You could've submitted the application by itself, and provided the documentation later in order to qualify under the Pension Act.

I know how it worked they (DVA) stalled in sending me the paper work to fill out to apply for a pention. Then they lost my papper work, I got posted from Edmonton to Gagetown more time was lost in the mail and by the time they received the paper work it was under the NVC
 
Tank Troll said:
I know how it worked they (DVA) stalled in sending me the paper work to fill out to apply for a pention. Then they lost my papper work, I got posted from Edmonton to Gagetown more time was lost in the mail and by the time they received the paper work it was under the NVC

This is going to sound harsh, but the Application for VAC Disability Benefits is available online, and has been for many years.  I know because I used the form I obtained online, and mailed the form (being careful to get a photocopy of the envelope once it had been postmarked) on March 31, 2006.  I fell under the Pension Act.  You really can't blame VAC for your situation.
 
  I find the best way to deal with them is to go right into the office....face to face
 
Occam said:
This is going to sound harsh, but the Application for VAC Disability Benefits is available on line, and has been for many years.  I know because I used the form I obtained on line, and mailed the form (being careful to get a photocopy of the envelope once it had been postmarked) on March 31, 2006.  I fell under the Pension Act.  You really can't blame VAC for your situation.

One needs a computer to go on line and also needs to know it is on line. The time frame was short, there was a posting in there, a messy divorce, and a couple of other mitigating factores. So yes I take some of the blame for the reslts. How ever I had dealt with VAC before and never had a problem with them they were always prompt and acted like they were working in my best intrest, so why should I think other wise on the last occasion. Since then it has been nothing but f*ckery

CallOfDuty said:
  I find the best way to deal with them is to go right into the office....face to face

Hind sight being 20/20 yes that would have been the best way to go about it, and that is what I do now.
 
Under the old pension scheme Your pension can be reduced if you Refuse to undergo Medical or Surgical treatment.
Pension Act online http://tinyurl.com/287sxjm

Refusing to undergo medical or surgical treatment
40. (1) Where an applicant or pensioner should undergo medical or surgical treatment and the applicant or pensioner unreasonably refuses to undergo that treatment, the Minister may reduce, by not more than one half, the pension to which the extent of the applicant’s or pensioner’s disability would otherwise have entitled the applicant or pensioner.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a refusal to undergo a major surgical operation.

R.S., 1985, c. P-6, s. 40; 1995, c. 18, s. 58.


Now with that being said, there is also a Clause that states that once attain the age of 55, and your condition is unchanged for 3 year's then your pension can not be lowered

Section 35
Limitation on reduction

(2.1) Where a member of the forces has attained the age of fifty-five years and the assessment of the extent of a disability of the member has remained unchanged for a period of three years or more, no reduction in the assessment of the extent of that disability shall be made.
 
Petamocto. 48th
I discussed with my pension advocate this morning.

If you have recovered from your injury (totally) within the initial 3 years of receipt of your pension,
it may be revoked.
After three years, it remains.

I have been pondering on some scenarios where this might arise.
Apparently, there are some injuries that do completely heal
without further consequence.

It was pointed out to me to compare the monthly pension award to the new VA charts.
Any difference found in the rates outlined on the table would entitle an increase to benifits.

Good post bin-rat

One of the things I have noticed, is that it seems to take forever and ever to get finalized. ;D





 
http://www.cbc.ca/informationmorningns/2010/09/nova-scotia-veterans-take-on-the-minister.html

Good Podcast.

Give it a listen. CBC called the Minister a puppet. BTW he ( the minister)  is whacked right out of it.
 
Pusser said:
I understand where the anger is coming from, but I also know that sometimes the anger of the mob is misguided.  ...

Pusser said:
No, it's not that basic.  You are singling out one aspect of the entire Charter.  You have to look at everything else.

Furthermore, if you stick your lump sum payment under a mattress, you're right, the amount you receive is probably less than you would likely receive with a pension.   But that's not a winning argument because Government simply retorts that if you invest the money properly, you can create a fund that will pay you the equivalent of that pension.

A better argument would be to state that the NVC fails in its intent of continuing to support veterans in a sustainable way that was at least as good (if not better) than under the old Pension Act.  One can do this by pointing out that the actuarial calculations upon which the lump sum payments are base are flawed, or that the assumption that veterans were capable of managing the money effectively was also flawed.  There are a number of ways to tackle this effectively without simply yelling, "this is wrong because this doesn't equal that!"  That argument will get you nowhere.  Attack the disease (the flawed reasoning) not the symptom (fact that dollar for dollar, the lump sum does not equal pension).

Careful who you challenge to do the math.  The government has access to plenty of actuarial accountants who can produce charts and graphs that will make your head spin and prove without a doubt that the earth is flat.

Is this all the result of simply writing it off to "a misguided mob who squanders their disability monies away?" I certainly do not believe this to be the case; nor do many (the majority perhaps??) others.

I am also far from convinced that the yellowed point above is "an invalid and unwinnable argument."

The NVC is certainly better in a few areas than its predecessor. In the areas of OSIS coverage, oversight and access to services - the NVA is by far the superior way to go. It actually corrected a problem in an area that was sorely lacking in the not so recent past. The NVA covering that, access to retraining (if possible) etc etc are ALL superior and are improvements brought with the NVA.

However, that portion of desperately required revamping does not negate DVAs responsibility to ensure that our injured veterans are also looked after financially and physically for their remaining years. This is where the NVA fails miserably. I would agree that some (but certainly not a majority) of lump-sum recipients are 'squandering' that payout away without making wise decisions. Is this because they are young, depressed, injured, suffering continual stress and have been through hell in recent years and thus are having troubles even getting on with a 'normal' life each day let alone being responsible to maintain, invest and provide for their own future despite their OSIS injury where they are having trouble even dealing with mundane & routine daily tasks? Because, certainly some of those who are 'squandering' are exactly like those just described.

How do we solve that? We get rid of the lump sum and return the "financial support" portion of the NVA to a monthly pension. That way, DVA can be assured that soldiers can not simply 'squander it away'.

Additionally, what do we do about the quadruple amputee who has recd a whopping 1/4 million lump-sum? Are you suggesting that he invest it wisely now to provide for his future needs? It certainly seems that that is VACs reasoning and expectation. Here's the reality of that expectation:

DVA is NOT purchasing or modifying a home for that amputee to make it comfortable and liveable (read some stories about our Afghan vets trying to get money out of them via claims for these things --- blood from stone) without one heck of a fight (and sometimes an MP having to make a public comment about it). Thus, that soldier who is permanently disabled is utilizing some (a whole lot!) of this lump sum payout to accomplish that ... simply to be able to get one with daily life in a dignified, but assisted, manner;

DVA is NOT purchasing customized vans, cars, or motorcycles for our veterans in this position either - are they expected to rely on the goodwill of others for life for their transportation needs?? And, these soldiers are all not "lucky" enough to have had their face and story streamlined in the mass media as some sort of poster child which therefore resulted in them seeing these items donated by some worthy business, group or enterprise. I am very glad for those soldiers for they are the lucky few who have had someone from outside DVA provide them with something they desperately required free of charge. Those other soldiers though, some of them are now willing to be poster childs for the other side of the house in the area of "this is where the NVA fails us, your Nation's injured". Those soldiers too are NOT squandering their monies when they purchase these customized vehicles for disabled transport. For them, it is a necessity and a fact of life.

How do we fix that? Once again, we bring back the monthly pension in lieu of the lump-sum payment; this ensures that those pers have the required monthly income - for life - to make payments on those necessities that allow them to repair/replace as required and to LIVE in a respectful and dignified manner. Geez, all problems solved; how easy was that and where is my consulting fee??

So, in essence, in the majority of cases it comes down to: "do I purchase what I need now when I am freshly injured and require it to be able to carry on with life?" or "do I invest my 1/4 mil and live miserably without any semblance of mobility and dignity until I can collect from that invested money years down the road when I really need that income NOW?" Not a nice position to be in is it? Well, that IS the reality that today's vets are facing.

Do that, and VAC doesn't need to worry anymore about "soldiers squandering their disability payouts" and we owe our veterans and our injured that at the very least.

So despite the improvements in the way of mental health and occupational therapy/availability, counselling with the NVA, there has been a distinct reversion and shortfall in the NVAs ability to provide an adequate means that ENSURES (that is their mandate) a financially stable future that will ensure a dignified and acceptable QoL for those with lifelong physical, emotional and mental injuries. This, of course, is just my humble opinion.

DVA polls may (& according to them - do) indicate a different satisfaction rate. I'm STILL waiting to meet a single person who answered "Yes, I am satisfied with the NVA". Where are these satisfied people at?
 
Back
Top