Injury reassessment and a loss of benefits.

Sleeping Dog wrote:

bigrex wrote:And to be honest, a Veteran has to request a reassessment. So why would anyone getting a PA pension, request a reassessment, if their medical condition has vastly improved? Under the Pension Act, there was no link to employment, so a Veteran could be getting a 100% pension, and still be able to earn a hefty income from employment. It wasn't until the NVC was enacted, that VAC started treating benefits more like welfare, making the Veterans continually prove that they are severely disabled, and unable to earn a living, in order to get the benefits, being offered.

If anything the NVC, discouraged Veterans from even trying to find employment, because if they did get a job, but were not able to keep it, it could make getting financial benefits back from VAC, once they've been lost.

True. But doesn`t VAC request a reassessment of injuries if a vet were to request DEC? If a veteran had injuries on both the PA and NVC  and their CM recommended them for DEC ,would that mean they would only need the newer injuries re-evaluated by March of Dimes/Dr.?

If a veteran requests DEC then it's up to you to decide how you want to be evaluated, whether it be physical or mental injury under the PA or physical or mental injury under the NVC or both. If your CM suggests you may qualify, it is your CM that determines what route you go. Unless you insist on going with both arguments. But remember, the more you spread out the responsibility so to speak, the more evidence you need in order to show a link between your service related disabilities and a barrier to reestablishment in the workforce.

bigrex wrote:And to be honest, a Veteran has to request a reassessment. So why would anyone getting a PA pension, request a reassessment, if their medical condition has vastly improved? Under the Pension Act, there was no link to employment, so a Veteran could be getting a 100% pension, and still be able to earn a hefty income from employment. It wasn't until the NVC was enacted, that VAC started treating benefits more like welfare, making the Veterans continually prove that they are severely disabled, and unable to earn a living, in order to get the benefits, being offered.

If anything the NVC, discouraged Veterans from even trying to find employment, because if they did get a job, but were not able to keep it, it could make getting financial benefits back from VAC, once they've been lost.

True. But doesn`t VAC request a reassessment of injuries if a vet were to request DEC? If a veteran had injuries on both the PA and NVC and their CM recommended them for DEC ,would that mean they would only need the newer injuries re-evaluated by March of Dimes/Dr.?

And to be honest, a Veteran has to request a reassessment. So why would anyone getting a PA pension, request a reassessment, if their medical condition has vastly improved? Under the Pension Act, there was no link to employment, so a Veteran could be getting a 100% pension, and still be able to earn a hefty income from employment. It wasn't until the NVC was enacted, that VAC started treating benefits more like welfare, making the Veterans continually prove that they are severely disabled, and unable to earn a living, in order to get the benefits, being offered.

If anything the NVC, discouraged Veterans from even trying to find employment, because if they did get a job, but were not able to keep it, it could make getting financial benefits back from VAC, once they've been lost.

Even though the possibility exists through legislation that your Pension Act Disability Payment/s could be decreased upon reassessment of a disability or disabilities, your condition/s would have to seriously improve to see a reduction in benefits.

I've never heard of a veteran losing benefits under the PA. But, even if a vet did improve that much, the vet may see it as a good thing.

I personally would give back or give up my benefits under the PA for my feet and knees, to have the full use of my fucking legs again. My right knee locks up about every 50 meters for example, my feet ache constantly, I cracked my heel bone right foot, never healed properly. I receive $857 a month for that shit. But I'd rather my fuckin feet and knees were 100%.

That is the logic behind the legislation, and in fairness it makes sense.

Bruce72 wrote:

Sleeping Dog wrote:

Bruce72 wrote:

Sleeping Dog wrote:

6608 wrote:Sleeping Dog, I believe it’s because it represents an age at which VAC assumes the veteran is too old to reasonably reenter the workforce (keep in mind disability ratings represent your ability to perform work at the level you were able to before you had the injury while you were serving in the military).






Cheers

so if someone was already 53 and was on ELB for the next 2 years, would VAC just leave them on ELB til 65 at that point, just like being on official DEC ? I wonder.

Not unless the veteran is DEC. There are no short cuts to long term benefits.

I wouldn’t call it a short cut, I’m just pointing out that if it’s actually written somewhere that VAC considers a 55 year old vet too elderly to re enter the work force, what do they do with guys who are like 50 and end up on ELB for 5 years,there has to be something wrong with them to be on a ELB past 2 years in the first place, but at 55, you could still train someone but regardless of the job, after maybe 2 years of schooling they are only 8 years away from CPP, 3 years away if the decided to draw it at 60.

First of all it is not written anywhere in the legislation that VAC considers veterans 55 years old or older to old to work.

The age 55 is used as a point of no return for the benefit of disabled vets, because by age 55 your disability or disabilities will likely not improve because you are entering your senior years and people don't generally get better with age.

So upon reassessment your benefits cannot be reduced, but this is in regards to payments made under the Pension Act, not ELB or EELB.

Therefore that does not mean that a veteran is necessarily unable to work in the eyes of VAC.

You must be DEC to receive Extended Earning Loss Benefits, soon to be the Income Replacement Benefit for life. Period.

You can try to read between the lines all you want, but the criteria is very clear.

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/GCWeb/pdf/Factsheets/IRB.pdf

makes sense, however I’m surprised VAC even put a time stamp on PA, giving the way they are so fond of claw backs. You are correct most of us do not get better with age, but I was referring to those rare cases where a soldier might be injured/released at 40 say, never goes for a reassessment but after 15 years of therapy,physio, massage,chiropractor etc, there might be a chance of the wound improving or at least lowering in % of damage by Vac standards. It amazes me that if you get better in any way at any age that they are not Ready to reduce your income, like they care if a vet is 54 or 56.

Sleeping Dog wrote:

Bruce72 wrote:

Sleeping Dog wrote:

6608 wrote:Sleeping Dog, I believe it’s because it represents an age at which VAC assumes the veteran is too old to reasonably reenter the workforce (keep in mind disability ratings represent your ability to perform work at the level you were able to before you had the injury while you were serving in the military).






Cheers

so if someone was already 53 and was on ELB for the next 2 years, would VAC just leave them on ELB til 65 at that point, just like being on official DEC ? I wonder.

Not unless the veteran is DEC. There are no short cuts to long term benefits.

I wouldn’t call it a short cut, I’m just pointing out that if it’s actually written somewhere that VAC considers a 55 year old vet too elderly to re enter the work force, what do they do with guys who are like 50 and end up on ELB for 5 years,there has to be something wrong with them to be on a ELB past 2 years in the first place, but at 55, you could still train someone but regardless of the job, after maybe 2 years of schooling they are only 8 years away from CPP, 3 years away if the decided to draw it at 60.

First of all it is not written anywhere in the legislation that VAC considers veterans 55 years old or older to old to work.

The age 55 is used as a point of no return for the benefit of disabled vets, because by age 55 your disability or disabilities will likely not improve because you are entering your senior years and people don't generally get better with age.

So upon reassessment your benefits cannot be reduced, but this is in regards to payments made under the Pension Act, not ELB or EELB.

Therefore that does not mean that a veteran is necessarily unable to work in the eyes of VAC.

You must be DEC to receive Extended Earning Loss Benefits, soon to be the Income Replacement Benefit for life. Period.

You can try to read between the lines all you want, but the criteria is very clear.

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/GCWeb/pdf/Factsheets/IRB.pdf

Bruce72 wrote:

Sleeping Dog wrote:

6608 wrote:Sleeping Dog, I believe it’s because it represents an age at which VAC assumes the veteran is too old to reasonably reenter the workforce (keep in mind disability ratings represent your ability to perform work at the level you were able to before you had the injury while you were serving in the military).






Cheers

so if someone was already 53 and was on ELB for the next 2 years, would VAC just leave them on ELB til 65 at that point, just like being on official DEC ? I wonder.

Not unless the veteran is DEC. There are no short cuts to long term benefits.

I wouldn’t call it a short cut, I’m just pointing out that if it’s actually written somewhere that VAC considers a 55 year old vet too elderly to re enter the work force, what do they do with guys who are like 50 and end up on ELB for 5 years,there has to be something wrong with them to be on a ELB past 2 years in the first place, but at 55, you could still train someone but regardless of the job, after maybe 2 years of schooling they are only 8 years away from CPP, 3 years away if the decided to draw it at 60.

Sleeping Dog wrote:

6608 wrote:Sleeping Dog, I believe it’s because it represents an age at which VAC assumes the veteran is too old to reasonably reenter the workforce (keep in mind disability ratings represent your ability to perform work at the level you were able to before you had the injury while you were serving in the military).






Cheers

so if someone was already 53 and was on ELB for the next 2 years, would VAC just leave them on ELB til 65 at that point, just like being on official DEC ? I wonder.

Not unless the veteran is DEC. There are no short cuts to long term benefits.

6608 wrote:Sleeping Dog, I believe it’s because it represents an age at which VAC assumes the veteran is too old to reasonably reenter the workforce (keep in mind disability ratings represent your ability to perform work at the level you were able to before you had the injury while you were serving in the military).






Cheers

so if someone was already 53 and was on ELB for the next 2 years, would VAC just leave them on ELB til 65 at that point, just like being on official DEC ? I wonder.

Sleeping Dog, I believe it’s because it represents an age at which VAC assumes the veteran is too old to reasonably reenter the workforce (keep in mind disability ratings represent your ability to perform work at the level you were able to before you had the injury while you were serving in the military).






Cheers

6608 wrote:To add to Bigrex’s reply, from the Assessment and Reassessment of a Disability Policy and the Pension act.

Disability Pensions - Limitation on Reduction

No reduction in the assessment of a given pensioned disability shall be made if the same assessment has been in effect for three years or more and the Veteran has reached the age of 55 years.


For pensioners having reached the age of 55, the assessment of their disability becomes stabilized three years following the effective date of that given assessment.


In cases where the stabilized assessment is increased, the assessment shall not subsequently be reduced below the previously stabilized assessment.


As interim assessments, assessments with assigned mandatory reviews, and temporary high assessments are provisional in nature, they are not protected from reduction.


https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1454#anchor62024



https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6/FullText.html




Cheers

interesting, but what’s the age of 55 got to do with it..?

To add to Bigrex’s reply, from the Assessment and Reassessment of a Disability Policy and the Pension act.

Disability Pensions - Limitation on Reduction

No reduction in the assessment of a given pensioned disability shall be made if the same assessment has been in effect for three years or more and the Veteran has reached the age of 55 years.


For pensioners having reached the age of 55, the assessment of their disability becomes stabilized three years following the effective date of that given assessment.


In cases where the stabilized assessment is increased, the assessment shall not subsequently be reduced below the previously stabilized assessment.


As interim assessments, assessments with assigned mandatory reviews, and temporary high assessments are provisional in nature, they are not protected from reduction.


https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1454#anchor62024



https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6/FullText.html




Cheers

It is possible, so unless you feel that the disability has worsened, there is no reason to request a reassessment.

From the Pension Act.

"the pension shall, regardless of the cause of the change, be increased, decreased or discontinued, as the case requires, to reflect the new degree of actual disability in respect of that service, except that, if a member is receiving a pension in respect of more than one type of service referred to in subparagraph (i), the total pension payable by virtue of this subsection may not exceed the amount of pension for the total actual disability arising from all the service referred to in that subparagraph;"

Is it possible upon reassessment for an injury for VAC to decrease your benefits? i.e. Suppose a veteran had been shot through the calf and at the time of assessment VAC had determined that the injury resulted in a 15% pension monthly as it was before 2006.
Eventually that veteran goes in to have his leg reassessed and the Dr. finds that the muscles have appeared to have strengthened and there is a gain in mobility, now based on the Dr. assessment had this been the first time the Dr. assessed the patient, such an injury would have only resulted in a 5% pension.
The Dr. submits his new findings to VAC. Does vac now reduce that veterans monthly payments from 15% to 5 %? and/or can something like this normally happen but if the original injury has been had for so long it is kind of grandfathered into the original payment, i.e. after 10 years or something like that?