INTERESTING QUESTION

Thanks for all your opinions on this matter.
Just for the record, the individual in question is not me.
propat, all I know is that the $20,000 back pay from CPPD went directly to Manulife, this was done after the individual received their retro.
So I would agree what Rex has stated, there should be no reason why this individual should not get back the % of fees paid on that $20,000.
At first I was not so sure, but now I believe because this happened right after he received his retro, he should be entitled to it.
I hope that he does, if that happened to me I would go after it.
More to follow.

trooper I have another interesting question cant really believe I never thought of this before.

did they take back the CPPD INITIAL AMOUNT ore did they take back interest paid in the retro as well?

propat

bigrex although I do agree im just thinking that a lot of their paperwork should be kept in order just for their own records and the ease of doing further paperwork like the QRLSP declarations they will have to send us out in the future not so much to save anyone any legal fees as im sure they could care less about that. if I were running the show id make sure all the ducks were in a row so to speak in the lul between finalizing the final claims and tax time.

propat

I understand what you are saying prpat, I just don't think that SISIP isn't going to concern themselves with correcting the legal fees, unless prompted to do so. Either way, Trooper should call SISIP and request a new one be sent, and if they say it was already sent, then bonus. The worst thing to do is to just sit back and wait for them to fix this, because he'll be waiting a long time.

hey bigrex thanks bud I appiciate that but i wasn't actually suggesting a cores of action just what I thought should have happened. im not sure if point one was followed as it seems point two wasn't. if I were to suggest a course of action it would be to ascertain weather SISIP has sent out an updated worksheet if not ore in lieu of an immediate answer from them I would launch an appeal due to time constraints.

propat

I don't think this type of issue would be limited to a 30 day deadline, since he couldn't have anticipated when CPP(D) would be approved, or how far back they would go as far as retro payments. Maybe Propat is right and Trooper should request SISIP send a new worksheet reflecting the reduced retro, and then it would be up to MC to correct their calculations. This way if they don't, there is a paper trail that the adjudicator can follow.

Please advise this person to contact Laura Bruneau within 30 days of receipt of the payment from Manulife. That is the deadline for calculation disputes and if an overpayment has obviously occurred it will be rectified.

1. SISIP should have sent MC an updated worksheet upon receiving the payment.

2. the member should have been proactive and requested SISIP send an updated worksheet to MC upon paying back the retro.

just my opinion anyway

propat

Nobody is saying that SISIP doesn't have the right to that money, what is being said is that MC charged a percentage of retro owed to each class member, but this decision has basically reduced the retro amount paid by SISIP, so therefor it has created an overpayment of legal fees. It's one thing if this happened several months down the road, but the payment process is still ongoing, so it should be an easy fix.

The devil would be in the details regarding this particular case! I would have to see the actual numbers and timelines in order to gain a comprehensive and detailed understanding of his situation! That being said and analyzing it based upon my own personal experience, SISIP LTD does have the legal right IAW Subrogation rules, to clawback his lumpsum CPPD payment in recuperating their losses once the percentages are exceeded! I myself had similar amounts deducted over these last few years, this situation had the amount taken at once! With regard to any legal fees owing in his effort to get his CPPD, there shouldn't be any! CPPD, for the vast majority, is an application process supported by your personal medical team! Unless I'm missing something, I can't see exactly where legal fees are being applied to his CPPD retro! Good luck either way!

Basically, Trooper is saying that if his retro from SISIP was say $100000, and he paid legal fees on that $100000, so roughly $9000. Then CPP(D) was approved with a retro active amount of $20000, and was paid directly to SISIP, which effectively reduced his retro to only $80000. Therefor the legal fees owed for the smaller retro amount would be somewhat lower and therefor, the difference should be reimbursed. This is thousands of dollars that should be his pocket, and not MC's.

I have no clue what you just wrote! Lol!

beleaf when this person got their CPPD their SISIP was recalculated and it appears because of this that he has payed back 20,000. so if this went to an adjudicator and they would automatically recalculate the gross offset as they do in all the cases refered to them. now it is of my opinion that they are not just recalculating to try and get higher offsets ore lower offsets but simply recalculating for accuracy. im sure if they seen the 20000 taken back by SISIP from the original gross offset and thought it to be correct than they would conclude that the gross offset to be 20000 les than originally stated thus the 20000 is not subject to legal fees and the member should be reimbursed for them.

just my opinion

propat

It is my understanding that this practice is entirely legal within the legal parameters of the SISIP insurance plan and it falls under the definition of Subrogation! SISIP, through Manulife, agrees to pay you an agreed percentage of your pre release salary, if you exceed this percentage, SISIP, has the legal right through the Subrogation principle of the plan, to claw back any sums that would put you over that percentage! In effect, they were paying you the full amounts because you had insufficient income from other combined income sources to reach the magic mark//percentage point defined in the plan! In other words, they have the legal right to recuperate any monies that put you over and//or decrease their payment so as to limit their legal liability over that percentage point! This is a common and legal practice in most, if not all, disability payment and compensation plans! The rare exception to this practice is when an employee pays 100% of his/her insurance premiums, which wasn't the plan we signed up for! We shared the premium with the federal government! The advantage in paying a full premium yourself is that the disability payment is a tax free payment, the disadvantage is the premium is usually much higher! Our plan was co sponsored by the Federal government and was supposedly a lower premium, the disadvantage is that the potential disability payment is taxed and therefore subject to Subrogation, which is what you, and the rest of us, are subject to! Personally speaking, my monthly SISIP payment is minus 300 bucks due to my receiving CPPD, each and every month ever since my release! If you had applied for CPPD from the beginning and were approved, your SISIP monthly LTD would have been subject to the exact clawback, simply because you had exceeded the agreed upon percentages within the LTD plan! Why you waited until recently to apply for CPPD is confusing to me because you most certainly would have been approved for the Disability Tax Credit, a significant and potentially income tax reduction credit and you were also subjected to a a very depressing process! If you didn't already know, which I'm hoping you do, going forward your monthly LTD entitlement will be reduced by approximately $300-400, unless of course you no longer qualify for CPPD payments! In that event, things would be even more complicated and stressful, because not qualifying for CPPD, more often than not, also disqualifies you for SISIP LTD, notice I wrote more often than not, there are exceptions, but they are rare! You have plenty of company since all SISIP LTD monthly payments are offset by a CPPD entitlement!
The idea of being reimbursed your legal fees due to that particular clawback on CPPD retro, will not fly simply because your, and many others like you, were, are and will be subjected to the Subrogation principle under this plan! I hope this clarifies the issue somewhat better, unless of course I've completely confused you! In that case, I apologize and wish you good luck!

Good point Sparrow, I did not think of that, and I would not be a bit surprised, if indeed MC does responds to the individual saying just that.