Veterans Review and Appeal Bd: pressure to reject claims, spying, junkets (MERGED)

[The Bread Guy]

Caveat:  Private Member's Bills have a very slim chance of passing unless the ruling party is also willing to let them pass.

New Democrats have introduced a private member’s bill to scrap an oft-maligned board where ex-soldiers can appeal the denial of benefits by the federal government. MP Peter Stoffer, the party’s veterans critic, says the review agency is the No. 1 problem facing individual veterans – and is seen as a place where they have to plead for what is rightfully theirs.

“The problem that many, many veterans face is when they appear before this politically appointed, non-accountable board is that they feel like they’re begging for something,” Mr. Stoffer said Wednesday.

“They feel they’re coming cap in hand.”

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board has been at the centre of complaints – even from one of its own members – that it disrespects and sometimes belittles veterans who appear before it ....

The Canadian Press, 3 Oct 12

From the House of Commons yesterday:

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP)  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-447, An Act respecting the repeal and replacement of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.

    He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their unanimous consent to introduce the legislation.

    Basically, this is a one-page bill that is, quite simply, for our veterans, military and RCMP in this country. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members who want to ensure that our veterans get the benefits they require in a quick and expedient manner to ensure they can get on with their lives after service to their country.

    The bill basically says that the Government of Canada must, in consultation with Canadian veterans and organizations, develop new legislation to repeal and replace the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act in order to establish a new and simplified regime that incorporates a medical, evidence-based, peer review process for decision-making regarding veterans' entitlements under relevant federal statutes, and may introduce that legislation in the House of Commons within three days of when this act comes into force.

    Once again I thank all members of the House for the opportunity to introduce this legislation.

    (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

More information on the bill itself (even more'll be there once the text of the bill itself is posted):

C-447 An Act respecting the repeal and replacement of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act

Short Title
Veterans Review and Appeal Board Replacement Act ....

 

[57Chevy]

The most important and simple enough part of the Bill.
Quote from article
"establish a new and simplified regime that incorporates a medical, evidence-based, peer review process for decision-making regarding veterans' entitlements".

I see this as a step in the right direction and agree 100%.

And the important part of the article:

Stoffer says, "His private member's bill has the support of veterans groups."

which makes sense.  :nod:

 

[OldSolduer]

The bill may have support of the veterans groups, but if it does not have the support of the government , it will die.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The bill may have support of the veterans groups, but if it does not have the support of the government , it will die.

And, I'm sure they'll let this one die too.  They don't give me the warm and fuzzys with regard to Veterans and their needs if it comes to money.

 

[PuckChaser]

They don't give me the warm and fuzzys with regard to Veterans and their needs if it comes to money.

Nobody is getting a warm and fuzzy for money right now, but this government's support has been subpar. Better than decades past but still well-below the mark. I still don't trust the NDP or Liberals not to gut the CF if they get into power, their support for veterans is only vote-deep.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Agreed.  No matter the party they'll all be wanting their peace dividend as in times past.  They only love us so much as they must and when we're of use to their political ends.  Otherwise we're like that sexual conquest you don't call the next morning or ever unless you're in a tight spot for some fun.

I have been disappointed by both the Liberals and Conservatives, however, the disappointment has always cut deeper with the Cons as frankly I expect better treatment from them.  The Liberals have not been our patrons since the 40's, 50's in my opinion. 

 

[blackberet17]

"establish a new and simplified regime that incorporates a medical, evidence-based, peer review process for decision-making regarding veterans' entitlements"

Quoting a quote. Easier that way 

What MP Stoffer has forgotten to note, even with his 15+ years of experience as Veterans Affairs critic, is this:

1) A number of the Disability Adjudicators have medical experience, many with a nursing background (they're the ones signing the letters);
2) When in doubt, they consult one of over a dozen doctors on staff at VAC;
3) It is evidence-based! The entire client's file is reviewed, IOT determine if the claimed disability is related to service factors. If the file isn't clear (i.e. no MIR reports, no CF 98, no credible medical opinion linking the disability to service or service factors), the claim will be turned down.

Oh, and by the way. His bill would close down VRAB, period. There is no actual intent of replacing it. Its "$11-million annual budget could be plowed back into benefits for ex-soldiers" (Vancouver Sun). Which means a CF member or veteran's ONLY opportunity to provide ORAL TESTIMONY regarding his/her application and his/her disability -- would be gone. The file, all the records and medical opinions are only part of the story. Sometimes it is YOUR testimony which can sway the Board in its decision.

 

[Wookilar]

Any group of individuals that regard a psychologists testimony as sub-standard solely on the fact that he is "not a medical doctor" deserve to be disbanded.

This argument is similar to the Indian Act. Everyone knows it's broken, but everyone is afraid to get rid of it because there is nothing to replace it with. So how about we replace it?

So here's an idea (Army style): Instead of disbanding it altogether, how about we design something that actually works. Why not design an actual arms-length review board that does not answer to VAC for their paychecks. No more complaining about the current situation and organization, how about someone actually fixes it instead of just threatening to take it all away?

And don't even get me started on the adjudicators. SOME have medical knowledge, not all, not even most. That is very clear when they make very basic errors wrt the appropriate table of disabilities to use.

Not that I don't like any of them or anything  ;D The workers at the coal face here in Gagetown are simply awesome. Beyond their little cubicle haven, my trust quickly dwindles.

And seeing as how I will soon have a great deal of time on my hands, they can hire me as a contractor to sort it out  ;D

Wook

 

[blackberet17]

Any group of individuals that regard a psychologists testimony as sub-standard solely on the fact that he is "not a medical doctor" deserve to be disbanded.

That's being specific. A psychologist's report would be acceptable if it relates to a psychiatric condition. Medical doctor point is irrelevant unless we're talking about a medical (physical) condition. Don't blend the two. And there are still criteria for the opinion to meet. Does the psychologist outline how they arrived at their diagnosis? Is it in line with the DSM-IV?

It's the same for a physical medical condition. A family doctor's opinion, while helpful, isn't going to carry as much weight as one from an orthopaedic surgeon. Would you trust your family doctor when he says you need open heart surgery over that of a cardiologist who says you don't? Drastic example, I know, but still. And even then, the opinion should be based on sound medical knowledge, experience, tests, and research, as well as accepted medical basis. Any doctor can say this is related to that, but if it goes against what 50 doctors would say...

So here's an idea (Army style): Instead of disbanding it altogether, how about we design something that actually works. Why not design an actual arms-length review board that does not answer to VAC for their paychecks. No more complaining about the current situation and organization, how about someone actually fixes it instead of just threatening to take it all away?

VRAB is arms-length. It doesn't report to anyone else in VAC, except the Minister of Veterans Affairs. If I understand correctly, it functions much as the Immigration Review Board, which reports to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

And don't even get me started on the adjudicators. SOME have medical knowledge, not all, not even most. That is very clear when they make very basic errors wrt the appropriate table of disabilities to use.

Totally agree. But even the Table of Disabilities is an imperfect system. And not all medical conditions fall into little columns and rows of criteria...

And seeing as how I will soon have a great deal of time on my hands, they can hire me as a contractor to sort it out  ;D

Send me your CV  ;D

 

[maniac]

It is clear on how the process is suppose to work and seems to play out in explanations in every thread.  The one's you hear about on this site is rarely the one's that were successful.  I have seen my far share of eye popping decisions from all levels of the so called "informed" decision making process by both VAC and VRAB.  What we should all remember is that we are a slave to the system,  it is what it is and that is all we have.  Unless the private members bill is passed (unlikely as most don't even get to 2nd reading) or the incumbent government makes changes it will be status quo.  We should be well advised that none of that will take place anytime soon.

To make your best challenge to the appeal process is to understand the "test" which is a legal argument.  I recommend that if you get an unfavourable decision, the first thing you should do is an ATI on VAC for everything they have on your case,  that provides you with full disclosure on evidence. You now know what they used to come to a decision.  Moving forward, is to get the evidence in support of your claim (argument),  did they have the specialist report?  are all witness statements/CF98's there?  Don't call BPA first,  do your homework because they only have what was provided for the record.  You can only provide new evidence at the appeal you're invited to,  not the one in Charlottetown.  Remember, You only have one shot to provide new evidence, don't miss your opportunity.

When you go to the oral appeal where you can present new evidence be prepared to make your argument.  Assume you are in the room alone because there's plenty to say about our representation by the PBA which is another thread altogether (good thing it's free).  In conclusion,  don't assume by calling the PBA or service officers of the RCL, that all the leg work necessary to win your argument is being done by them.  You can get the necessary ATI application documents from Treasury Board website, this will be time consuming but very beneficial.

 

[Wookilar]

That's being specific. A psychologist's report would be acceptable if it relates to a psychiatric condition. Medical doctor point is irrelevant unless we're talking about a medical (physical) condition. Don't blend the two. And there are still criteria for the opinion to meet. Does the psychologist outline how they arrived at their diagnosis? Is it in line with the DSM-IV?

I agree...however that is a direct quote from the decision they rendered for my PTSD claim. The MO's word (who I have seen maybe twice in the last year) was worth more than the psycologists' because he (my psychologist of 2 years) was not a medical Dr.

Like I said somewhere else, errors in fact and law. Pretty basic errors.

 

[blackberet17]

To make your best challenge to the appeal process is to understand the "test" which is a legal argument.  I recommend that if you get an unfavourable decision, the first thing you should do is an ATI on VAC for everything they have on your case,  that provides you with full disclosure on evidence. You now know what they used to come to a decision.  Moving forward, is to get the evidence in support of your claim (argument),  did they have the specialist report?  are all witness statements/CF98's there?  Don't call BPA first,  do your homework because they only have what was provided for the record.  You can only provide new evidence at the appeal you're invited to,  not the one in Charlottetown.  Remember, You only have one shot to provide new evidence, don't miss your opportunity.

When you go to the oral appeal where you can present new evidence be prepared to make your argument.  Assume you are in the room alone because there's plenty to say about our representation by the PBA which is another thread altogether (good thing it's free).  In conclusion,  don't assume by calling the PBA or service officers of the RCL, that all the leg work necessary to win your argument is being done by them.  You can get the necessary ATI application documents from Treasury Board website, this will be time consuming but very beneficial.

I'm not going to discount a single thing maniac says here, all good stuff. I don't know if ATI-ing is necessary, I've never done it, and not my area of expertise. You can request your file, it's all yours anyway. The Statement of Case used by the VRAB and BPA in deciding your case is also available to you. It's a copy of everything both sides used in presenting and deciding on your case. If you think something is missing, say so, tell your lawyer or tell the members at the hearing. The case can then be adjourned until the missing documents are provided.

One thing too, which best applies to those still-serving, sorry. Keep a copy of EVERYTHING, CF 98s, witness statements, even the MIR and specialist reports. It's paper. It gets lost.

 

[blackberet17]

I agree...however that is a direct quote from the decision they rendered for my PTSD claim. The MO's word (who I have seen maybe twice in the last year) was worth more than the psycologists' because he (my psychologist of 2 years) was not a medical Dr.

Like I said somewhere else, errors in fact and law. Pretty basic errors.

Egads, Wook. This is one of those times I look at the work I do, and some of the people I work with and for, and seriously do this :facepalm: over and over and over. I stopped using the concrete structural pillers for that. People complained...the building shook...

 

[Wookilar]

lol absolutely. You should have seen my psychologists face when I showed him the report  ;D. The kicker is he has submitted many reports to VAC and the VRAB before as he has been seeing vet's as clients for almost 20 years now. Never had a problem before.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bump with some news - some new members on the board:

....
    Ms. Denise Dietrich, a nurse with more than 35 years of health care experience, has also worked as a vocational and medical rehabilitation consultant. She possesses extensive experience as a decision maker on regulatory bodies, including the College of Nurses of Ontario, and she holds a Bachelor's Degree in Sociology from the University of Waterloo, as well as a Master's Degree in Health Studies from Athabasca University. A Practical Nursing graduate, she also holds a Diploma in Addiction Studies from McMaster University.

    Mr. Richard Frenette served in the Canadian Forces for 27 years, retiring with the rank of Brigadier-General. Throughout his career, he has held many senior roles within the CF, including that of commanding officer of Canadian Forces Bases Farnham and Valcartier. He has also held the position of commander of the 35 Brigade Group and has served as deputy commander of the Quebec Area Land Forces.

    Mr. Colin Reichle served for 22 years in the Canadian Forces, beginning as an infantry private and retiring with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. He has held multiple senior command positions in the CF, which include serving as the deputy commanding officer (DCO) of the North Saskatchewan Regiment, and as the Command Officer of the 20th Field Artillery Regiment. Mr Reichle also has extensive involvement with St John's Ambulance, having served as the director of its Alberta Council. He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of Saskatchewan, and a Master of Business Administration from Athabasca University.

    Mr. Richard Rennie has served for 23 years in the Canadian Forces, retiring with the rank of Major. He served both as a logistics officer and as a lawyer with the Judge Advocate General. Mr. Rennie holds a Bachelor's Degree of Commerce from the University of British Columbia, a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Victoria, and a Master of Public Administration from Carleton University. He has also spent 10 years as the assistant to the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria, where he taught law and ethics courses for more than 20 years ....

More from the VAC Info-machine here.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Now that we know who's chosen and who's re-appointed, who is no longer on the board?

An outspoken member of a veterans appeal board, who said his privacy was violated and that the federal agency treats ex-soldiers with disrespect, won't be reappointed.  Harold Leduc and two other members of the troubled agency have been shown the door, and in their places the Harper government has appointed a nurse with extensive experience in addiction treatment and former military officers. 

The changes, which normally garner little public attention, were announced Sunday, one day ahead of Leduc's appearance before the House of Commons veterans affairs committee.  The Parliamentary body is investigating the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, an independent panel where ex-soldiers can challenge benefits decisions by the veterans department. 

Leduc's long-anticipated testimony is expected to give the Opposition plenty ammunition, particularly the NDP, which has introduced a private members bill to scrap the board ....

 

[Wookilar]

Anyone have any insight on the new members?

 

[blackberet17]

The new ones won't be starting until mid-Nov. I'll have a report then

 

[blackberet17]

I will say, there's a lot of optics there...Mr. Leduc wasn't "dropped", nor did he "get the boot" (some of the other headlines I've seen). His term was up, just like the terms of five other Board members, only three of whom were reappointed.

Which happens.

A lot.

As for the other stuff, I can't comment, sorry guys.

This process is very political, as we all know.

It'll be interesting to see how the new Members play out. As long as I don't have to salute, I'm happy :rofl:

 

[Wookilar]

bb17,

How long are the terms for the Board members? Are the all 3-5 years?

I haven't kept tabs on any of them, I know knew one of the members distantly from my time at 1 VP, but I don't know if the Maj is still on the Board.

Is turnover a fairly common occurance? Or does it seem to coincide with just after election time?  :Tin-Foil-Hat: