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

[blackberet17]

It varies, actually. According to our Web site, terms range from one to ten years. I worked with a Member a few years ago who was appointed for one year, which is really stupid, if you ask me. Training members takes a great deal of time, and it takes them a while to grasp the process (some are still learning, three- four- years on)

I believe the new appointees were given three-year terms.

There hasn't been a large "batch" of appointments since 2009 or 2010. We've had one or two named here and there, but four at once....weeeee. Back in 2009 or thereabouts, we had seven people appointed all around the same time.

We've got (all retired - and not including the new bunch) WO Leduc, Capt Maher, Maj Giraldeau, LCol Desjardins and a band director (Champagne), but not sure if he was Band Captain or BSM (Band Sgt-Maj, for anyone not knowing the musical side of things, sorry if I'm insulting somes' intelligence!).

The Board runs a process twice a year, mid winter and mid summer. But it's been two years I think since the last process (they ran one this Feb and this Aug).

It may be partly coincidence, but also...well...it's political, what can I say?

 

[Rifleman62]

I should have posted this before.

Restoring Confidence in the VRAB

Report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, Dec 12

 

[57Chevy]

Restoring Confidence in the VRAB

Thanks for sharing this interesting report.
Veterans should be taking the time to read it.

 

[blackberet17]

This may also be of interest. The VRAB-related sections have been highlighted (not by me. I don't have that kind of skill with a .pdf...

EDIT: I can't attach it, it's too big. But here's the link to the report, on the OVO's Web site.

http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/reports-rapports/annual-annuel-2011-2012-eng.cfm

 

[Rifleman62]

Look Up! Look way up! See the first subject in this forum?

 

[krustyrl]

I am unfortunately embarking on the appeal process and am seeing firsthand how the hair-splitting process is working.  Very frustrating trying to describe your duties, how you were injured, how the job was involved ...all this information to someone who knows next to nothing about you, your job, the military etc.
Any suggestions or recommendations would be entertained .

 

[57Chevy]

I am unfortunately embarking on the appeal process and am seeing firsthand how the hair-splitting process is working.  Very frustrating trying to describe your duties, how you were injured, how the job was involved ...all this information to someone who knows next to nothing about you, your job, the military etc.
Any suggestions or recommendations would be entertained .

Ask your assigned advocate to provide some precedential cases, if any exists.

Find out about job descriptions pertaining to the numerous positions you were employed in during your service.

Explain how your injuries relate using your job descriptions. ( Try using the timeline approach making references to and attaching copies of all documents. Include dates. )

It can be a long process so don't give up.

Hope this helps.
Cheers

 

[blackberet17]

Ask your assigned advocate to provide some precedential cases, if any exists.

Find out about job descriptions pertaining to the numerous positions you were employed in during your service.

Explain how your injuries relate using your job descriptions. ( Try using the timeline approach making references to and attaching copies of all documents. Include dates. )

Advocates usually have easy access to them, but print off the relevant ones: http://www.forces.gc.ca/health-sante/pd/cfp-pfc-154/AN-D-eng.asp

Krusty, if you want, pm me, and you can share specifics. I may be able to add some insight.

 

[wesleyd]

I am unfortunately embarking on the appeal process and am seeing firsthand how the hair-splitting process is working.  Very frustrating trying to describe your duties, how you were injured, how the job was involved ...all this information to someone who knows next to nothing about you, your job, the military etc.
Any suggestions or recommendations would be entertained .

I asked for all information regarding to my trade online, I'll check the link tomorrow at work on DWAN. I wrote an email to a Major in Ottawa. He asked me which duties I had carried out in my trade and a few days later he had the link with job descriptions for each job I had done in my trade. It included percentages of time standing sitting working with hands etc, work environment etc.
I am just beginning the appeal process for carpal tunnel syndrome. I applied and because there is not indication of me having issues with my wrists before they denied me. Even though the Specialist recommended surgery immediately and said this was indeed work related. I didn't get that in writing which I am trying to now.
Its frustrating I know, took me almost ten years to get a claim through for hearing loss. I post the link to the site tomorrow.

 

[The Bread Guy]

An update:  the Minister has named a new Vice-chair of the board - one sold as having both military and Operational Stress Injury Social Support program experience ....

The Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie, today announced a new and highly qualified appointment to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) in Veteran Owen Parkhouse, CD, MA. In addition to his duties as a Member, Mr. Parkhouse will also serve as the Board’s Vice Chair. This marks the first time in the history of the Board that a member with his military credentials has held a senior leadership position.

The appointment was made in accordance with VRAB’s merit-based selection process. Through this appointment, Minister Blaney is continuing to honor his commitment made to Veterans and stakeholders’ organizations to increase the number of Board members with military backgrounds.

"With the appointment of Owen Parkhouse, we are adding 25 years of military experience to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board," said Minister Blaney. "I have heard Veterans’ organizations loud and clear in their desire for the Board to have additional members with military expertise and we are continuing to deliver for them."

Owen Parkhouse began his career in the military within the ranks, eventually receiving a commission before retiring as a lieutenant-commander. Following his military career, Mr. Parkhouse was employed within the Operational Stress Injury Social Support (OSISS) program as a project coordinator, development officer and peer support coordinator. In these roles, he created and delivered numerous professional development presentations and developed social support programs for Canadian Armed Forces members and Veterans affected by operational stress injuries.

"This is exactly what we want to see as Veterans. You couldn’t have a better person on the Board than somebody with this kind of military and OSISS experience. I applaud the Minister," said Jim Lowther, CD, President and Founder of Veterans Emergency Transition Services Canada (V.E.T.S. Canada).

"It is encouraging to see Minister Blaney has responded to Veterans’ pleas with regards to appointments to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board," added Michael L. Blais, CD, President and Founder of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy. "The appointment of an experienced senior officer and Veteran familiar with the mental health issues Veterans of all eras are confronting is a positive development." ....

VAC Info-machine, 11 Jun 13

Will a new face helping interpret and implement the same old rules make a difference?  We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Wookilar]

I just received my appeal decision a few weeks ago. It was a written submission by the advocate, so I didn't bother going to Charlottetown.

As far as BPA goes, I was pleased with my advocate; she understood exactly why I was not satisfied with the Review decision (Table of Disabilities was not applied properly).

For the Review itself, I felt that while the Board members were polite and respectful to my face (and Niner), their written decision was a slap in the face. The dismissed most of my testimony and totally dismissed everything my wife said (as it was "inconsequential").

For the Appeal, I got what the lawyer was asking for. The written summary I received was very complete and quite extensive.

The VRAB website was still advertising for openings. I was going to apply (seriously), but they do not have an office in Halifax. They do have positions in Toronto, Ottawa and Edmonton. If you've got some TI, got nothing to lose.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The VRAB website was still advertising for openings. I was going to apply (seriously), but they do not have an office in Halifax. They do have positions in Toronto, Ottawa and Edmonton. If you've got some TI, got nothing to lose.

You've got until 31 Aug 13 to apply - from the FAQ:

.... Q. What does a Member do after appointment to VRAB?

A. VRAB Members work full-time and are required to adjudicate review and appeal applications made to the VRAB under the Pension Act, the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, and other related Acts of Parliament. Members provide an independent review of disability pension/award and War Veterans Allowance decisions by hearing and adjudicating cases. This involves conducting hearings in numerous locations across the country in person and via video or teleconference; deciding cases and ensuring the related statutes are properly interpreted; and, writing clear reasons for decisions within specified time frames. Some Members are required to travel 3 out of 4 weeks to conduct hearings and some may be required to travel up to 35 weeks a year.

Q. How much are Members of VRAB paid?

A. Members’ salaries are fixed by an Order-in-Council upon appointment and paid within a salary range of $105,900 to $124,500.

Q. How long are Members' appointment terms?

A. Terms range from 1 to 10 years and may be eligible for reappointment. All Members serve on good behaviour.

(....)

 

[GAP]

Was there not some controversial dismissals from the VRAB boards somewhere when the members would not go along to get along.....?

Southwest Ontario area if memory serves....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Was there not some controversial dismissals from the VRAB boards somewhere when the members would not go along to get along.....?

Yup!

Time for new rules.....

A prominent, long-standing member of the country's Veterans Review and Appeal Board had his privacy violated twice in an alleged smear campaign meant to discredit him using his private medical information as ammunition, The Canadian Press has learned.

The behind-the-scenes fight involving Harold Leduc has been so bad and so vicious that the Canadian Human Rights Commission quietly ordered the veterans board to pay the decorated, former warrant officer $4,000, including legal costs, for harassment he'd suffered from other agency members.

Leduc, who spent 22 years in the military, claims he was a target for gossip, innuendo and intimidation because he often sided with veterans in his review decisions ....

The Canadian Press, 12 Feb 12

They were called Santa Claus, often behind their backs.

Adjudicators at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board who sided too frequently with ex-soldiers got the dismissive moniker from some of their peers, according to a long-standing member who has broken his silence.

The slight was made possible by a subtle, but profound, change to the way the agency — now at the heart of another veterans' privacy scandal — began dissecting its decisions shortly after the Conservatives came to power.

The agency posts its overall favourability rating online, showing the percentage of times the independent board rules in favour of veterans who have appealed their benefit rulings by federal bureaucrats.

But in 2007, in addition to tracking favourable decisions by region, the board began measuring the number of times panel members were involved in decisions that came down on the side of former soldiers and RCMP members, according to PowerPoint presentations obtained by The Canadian Press.

Cases are heard by two-member review panels and appeals by three members. If one adjudicator rules in favour, the decision is a win for the veteran, regardless of what other members say.

The slicing and dicing of those statistics had far-reaching implications and is one of the tools board chairman John Larlee and his deputy used to lean on members perceived as overly-generous, says long-standing member Harold Leduc.

He has been embroiled in a long-running dispute with the board, including allegations of two privacy breaches.

"We sure felt the pressure. I know I felt it," Leduc said in an interview. "I'm not sure what board staff was saying behind my back, but I know with other members they'd call them Santa Claus because they're giving too much away."

He said board members were warned in 2008, prior to the arrival of John Larlee as the new chairman, that if their favourability rating for decisions was too high they would be called on the carpet ....

The Canadian Press, 13 Feb 12

 

[Jarnhamar]

Why is our government letting VA get away with screwing over the soldiers who they send to war?

I keep reading stories about how fucked up VA is, but there doesn't seem to be any effort to sort them out.

 

[OldSolduer]

Why is our government letting VA get away with screwing over the soldiers who they send to war?

I keep reading stories about how ****ed up VA is, but there doesn't seem to be any effort to sort them out.

The pace of change is glacial at best.

 

[Teager]

The pace of change is glacial at best.

Exactly there is change its just moving at the speed Jim said. Take the recent SISIP class action for instance.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If there was a solution that would compensate wounded/disabled vets in a way that most people would consider fairly, and cost ZERO extra bucks, it would have been implemented.  As long as it would cost more to do this, there's no political appetite for it to happen, no matter WHICH party is in power.

Also, when it comes to making things happen if politicians want them to happen ....

All we need is a Minister (or higher) to stand up and say, "the rules must change, and they will change".  After all, we've seen other instances where a Minister wants something (examples here, here, here, here, here and - even if it's not entirely within government rules - here), and it happens pretty quickly. 

.... not to mention this most recent example.

If the politicians really want these changes, they will happen.  It would cost waaaaaaaaaay more treasure than they're willing to spend, though, so it's not happening.  Changing branch names and ribbons/bows/pins are cheap compared to what it would cost to overhaul how wounded/disabled vets are compensated, so you get different branch names, and ribbons/bows/pins.

My  :2c:

 

[Teager]

Heres what I have trouble understanding. The government obviously doesn't want to spend the money and make the changes. So now vets have been forced to go to court. This is where things get interesting and I believe the government likes to gamble. If the vets win it ends up costing the government way more money then if they had just done it right in the first place. Way more money as in legal fees, court costs, back dating expenses, and any intrest that gets tacked on. On the other hand if the government side wins in court they continue to save money minus the legal fees.

So why not do it right the first time around instead of taking the gamble risk every time?

Also it can take away votes for that government party that is in charge when they refuse to make change. If they did make good changes it could also work in their favour for more votes.

 

[Nemo888]

Why is our government letting VA get away with screwing over the soldiers who they send to war?

I keep reading stories about how ****ed up VA is, but there doesn't seem to be any effort to sort them out.

I was a medic in when the NVC was introduced. It was brought in for one reason only. To save money. The costs looking after vets under the old system were going to exceed the cost of prosecuting the entire war.  This was unacceptable to the bean counters who luckily have no conscience or morals. The program has been incredibly successful in their view. If only we would just shut up.