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

Veterans Affairs alleges some ex-soldiers exaggerating their injuries

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,348
Points
1,160
I don't doubt that some veterans exaggerate claims, but the government obligation is to provide a system that gives timely, fair service to the majority while screening out the few.  I sometimes think the majority suffers so that the few can be screened out.
Veterans Affairs alleges some ex-soldiers exaggerating their injuries
Lee Berthiaume
Ottawa Citizen
01 Jan 2015

The Veterans Affairs department says some veterans are exaggerating their injuries to continue receiving financial benefits from the government and to avoid joining the work force.

The explosive allegation is contained in a recent internal report on a Veterans Affairs rehabilitation program designed to help injured ex-soldiers transition to civilian life, which found thousands of veterans are staying in the program much longer than anticipated — or not finishing it at all.

The claim is sure to spark fresh anger among veterans groups and opposition critics who have previously complained about an insurance company attitude when it comes to Veterans Affairs Canada’s treatment of veterans.

But Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino’s office, asked about the report, said this week the government will continue to support injured veterans as long as they require assistance.

“Our government makes no apologies for ensuring that veterans receive urgent rehabilitation care when they need it, and that they receive this support for as long as they and their medical practitioner deem appropriate,” Fantino spokeswoman Ashlee Smith said in an email.

NDP veterans affairs critic Peter Stoffer was critical of the department’s emphasis on potential abuse.

“In my experience, the vast majority of veterans don’t want to be sick. They would love to be working full time. I think they’re trying to shift the blame for the problems they have in their own program.”

Nearly 1,000 injured veterans enrolled in the rehabilitation program when it was created in 2006, according to the report. Demand was expected to drop off over the following years, but more than 5,800 vets were enrolled in the rehab program in March 2013, and 9,100 are expected by 2018.

In a background briefing with the Citizen this week, a Veterans Affairs official attributed the growth to pent-up demand among veterans who had served after the Korean War. But the report also shows that veterans, once they are in the program, aren’t leaving.

More than 2,800 of the 5,800 veterans in the program at the end of March 2013 had been participating longer than originally expected, the report found. In fact, of the nearly 1,000 who originally joined in 2006, nearly one-third were still enrolled.

Reviewers who prepared the report acknowledged some problems with the program. They found weaknesses in determining veterans’ needs, including delays in consultations with health care professionals. And only 28 per cent of veterans who sought help finding a job actually landed a career they wanted.

They also found the department had little information about how the program was actually functioning because it relied almost exclusively on voluntary surveys filled out by participants. This, they suggested, opened it up to abuse.

“Research indicates respondents may inflate the incidence and severity of health problems and disability in order to rationalize labour force non-participation and/or receipt of disability benefits,” the report said.

Meanwhile, only 22 per cent of the 5,800 injured vets in the program were taking advantage of services to help them find a civilian job. Part of this was because about about 32 per cent were receiving similar assistance from National Defence.

But a full 30 per cent were deemed currently unsuitable for such help or simply had no interest. The remaining 16 per cent were veterans  determined to be too ill or injured to find gainful employment. That number has tripled since 2011 — which reviewers noted coincided with a hike in cash benefits for injured ex-soldiers.

The reviewers concluded that veterans were not very successful in meeting their employment goals. Furthermore, the financial benefits available to injured veterans “may be deterring veterans from actively participating in the vocational aspects of the program and the labour force.”

Veterans Affairs Canada spokeswoman Kate Murphy said the department “is working to develop new data collection tools and methodologies for measuring veteran outcomes.”

Stoffer acknowledged that in any group of people, there will be those who abuse the system. But he said veterans are in close contact with health professionals, and he accused the department of “finding excuses and blaming the victims rather than fixing the system.”
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/veterans-affairs-alleges-some-ex-soldiers-exaggerating-their-injuries
 
A couple of phrases caught my eye in this article:

1)  "thousands of veterans are staying in the program much longer than anticipated — or not finishing it at all"- from my own experience many are in the system far too long because the system is faulty, understaffed and overly bureaucratic and many either give up or get bogged down in the crap.

2)  "Our government makes no apologies..."  They should have just finished the sentence there.

3)  "Reviewers who prepared the report acknowledged some problems with the program. They found weaknesses in determining veterans’ needs, including delays in consultations with health care professionals."  Buried well within the article and from my experiences (as limited as they are thus far) most likely explains many of the issues.

4)  "They also found the department had little information about how the program was actually functioning because it relied almost exclusively on voluntary surveys filled out by participants. This, they suggested, opened it up to abuse."  So because they cannot get sight of their own program any problems are because of vets abusing the system?

The bottom line is Veterans Affairs is a department (with Fantino as it's current head) that many have lost faith in and when the people you are supposed to serve have no faith in you its time for a major change of some sort.  IMHO anyway.
 
My case worker is an ex WSIB investigator. She treats her new job like her old one. Asking questions that should only be answered by your doctors, questions about your meds, and when you think you'll return to work. She even suggests return under modified work.

She must be using a check list. I get asked these questions on a regular basis, about every three months.

It's hard to answer them. I work full time ::)
 
recceguy said:
My case worker is an ex WSIB investigator. She treats her new job like her old one. Asking questions that should only be answered by your doctors, questions about your meds, and when you think you'll return to work. She even suggests return under modified work.

She must be using a check list. I get asked these questions on a regular basis, about every three months.

It's hard to answer them. I work full time ::)

:facepalm:

I guess she neglected that part of her investigation.
 
I agree with the statement some ex-soldiers exaggerating their injuries (along with still serving ones).
Because of VAs integrity and credibility issues they still can't (or shouldn't) point it out because it's lose lose for them.


recceguy said:
My case worker is an ex WSIB investigator. She treats her new job like her old one.

That must be frustrating as hell, I can totally picture it. Working at a factory I found workers way worse than recruits for looking for accidents to happen to.
 
Sounds like tit for tat stuff.  We say their service sucks, they say we have some fakers...

PS.  The fact that we have some fakers is no surprise to anyone on this forum.
 
Halifax Tar said:
PS.  The fact that we have some fakers is no surprise to anyone on this forum.

True enough. Any time money is involved, people will position themselves to their best advantage.
 
ModlrMike said:
True enough. Any time money is involved, people will position themselves to their best advantage.

Bingo! 

Being in a Log Branch/CSS/Supply job I see allot of people who claim allot of things that make me go hmmmmmmmm....
 
If anyone reads what VAC's definition of suitable employment says it may answer why some stay in the program if there receiving 75% of pay.

Suitable gainful employment
Suitable gainful employment is a job or career for which you are reasonably qualified by reason of your level of education, training or experience, and that provides at least 66 2/3% of you pre-release salary.

this may be causing some to be forced into minimum wage jobs which they may not be happy or like doing and may not be supporting there family enough.

I know I dont want to sit around on benefits but I'm struggling at finding a job that I can do with my limitations and that I would enjoy but still be able to support my family with.

 
People can speak of those that they think are scamming the system, however, unless you're a medical expert, working on that particular file, I would suggest that you refrain from making judgments that are outside your lane.

Especially when backing up and giving credence to VA.
 
I know I dont want to sit around on benefits but I'm struggling at finding a job that I can do with my limitations and that I would enjoy but still be able to support my family with.

Ones quality of life should not be allowed to drop because of the injuries they suffered while serving their country. It is the responsibility for the VA to ensure that and those in that situation get support, which they fully deserve.




 
recceguy said:
People can speak of those that they think are scamming the system, however, unless you're a medical expert, working on that particular file, I would suggest that you refrain from making judgments that are outside your lane.

Especially when backing up and giving credence to VA.

BULLSHIT!
You do know *cough* "medical experts" have no more access, or knowledge, then anyone who is really interested in this field of study.
A piece of paper gives no more credence [except you've finished a course, didn't mean you retained FA] then giving a 'scroll' to someone and guaranteeing that makes them a leader....
 
Thanks Bruce.

Perhaps you'd be willing to share that Layman's Insight on how people can be diagnosed over the internet.

Of course we know that VAC is an infallible organization that never gets it wrong.

 
...and I surely never said that either.
We both have our axes and they hit the tree on opposites sides of this subject.

Know what??.......my hearing is slowly going.  Could it have been from being in the CP all those years with the guns going off beside me??  Sure it could have.....but it could also be I'm just about 55 and I'm losing my hearing the way I was supposed too.

I KNOW I could get my Doctor to sign off on that but I'd feel like a thief in the night not knowing 100%...........

 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
...and I surely never said that either.
We both have our axes and they hit the tree on opposites sides of this subject.

Know what??.......my hearing is slowly going.  Could it have been from being in the CP all those years with the guns going off beside me??  Sure it could have.....but it could also be I'm just about 55 and I'm losing my hearing the way I was supposed too.

I KNOW I could get my Doctor to sign off on that but I'd feel like a thief in the night not knowing 100%...........

Which is where most of the Vets are. Sadly, some aren't. However, I'm not qualified to speculate on which is which. Nor do I believe, most here are.
 
recceguy said:
Thanks Bruce.

Perhaps you'd be willing to share that Layman's Insight on how people can be diagnosed over the internet.

Of course we know that VAC is an infallible organization that never gets it wrong.

I'm sur enobody here is saying VAC is infallible. Far from it. Then seem to have made a new sport out of stepping on their own crank.

However, I have no issue at all with internal memos discussing what can be held to be a certainty- that some unknown proportion of benefits claimants are either exaggerating or completely faking conditions. We have malingerers and fraudsters in uniform. Some of them will remain same once out.

Nobody is claiming the ability to look at a specific case and to call BS on it. All that is being said by a number of people here is that the internal comments by some VAC bureaucrats are likely right on the money.

What matters, and where the real problem comes in, is how this is approached- whether the system should operate on an insurance-like 'deny first' principle, or rather go with 'trust but verify', which I think we would all prefer to see.

I'm surprised to see you seeming to take exception to any claim that some people might be faking it. It's surpassingly likely that at least some small few are. Not exactly a bold claim. The media's just making mountains out of molehills again.
 
If VA has an issue with that they think is soldiers faking injuries then they should take it up with the medical dudes and not make a press release about it.
 
Brihard said:
What matters, and where the real problem comes in, is how this is approached- whether the system should operate on an insurance-like 'deny first' principle, or rather go with 'trust but verify', which I think we would all prefer to see.
QFTT
 
Jarnhamar said:
If VA has an issue with that they think is soldiers faking injuries then they should take it up with the medical dudes and not make a press release about it.

That's all well and good but when you have several "veterans' organizations screaming political kife what would one expect?
You throw shit you must expect splatter............
 
I would counter with:  Veterans Affairs exaggerates how much work they have and that the investigations of  these exaggerated injuries justifies why it takes almost 12 months to process fully documented and verified disability claims for back injuries in a special duty area and knee disabilities resulting from training and equipment issues over a 28 year career.

The medical aspects of my claim were adjudicated by a Registered Practical Nurse at VAC who never saw me in person and the claim was supported by a two-volume medical file filled with specialist's assessments, diagnostic imaging reports and treatment plans.

The first response is not always - 'denied', it can be hurry up and wait.

 
Back
Top