Those class members who are not reinstated are getting hosed

That's why this "insurance program" should never have been run by an insurance company.. they are all about the bottom line.. it is a "for-profit" business that seems to assume you are trying to rip them off. It is a shame that Vets are treated this way.

I am not sure if the VAC is much better, But seeing the way my husband hasbeen treated compared to friends dealing with insurance companies following a disability arising from a car accident and one dealing with Workman's comp... I'll take VAC anyday.

You short timers, for Retro pay, think that we, the long timers, get 100% of our money back? Don't be so obtuse. We are losing to the taxman and legal about 50% of our money. If I could pay 15% in the future to not have my settlement eaten up, then I surely would. Its much easier to deal with this Retro in a larger lump, as it has greater buying potential. We simply have more to lose.

I know because at the end of my 24 months back in 2008, I received a letter stating that my file was closed because they did not believe I was totally disabled. I appealed and lost. So other than my back getting a bit worse, my conditions had remained constant between the time I was removed from SISIP, and when I was deemed TPI by VAC. I think it was a vendetta by SISIP because when my CM called asking if I would like help looking for a job, and when I said that a job had to be relatively close to my house, since I could not spend hours on a metro bus commuting to and from work because my body couldn't take it, she got pissed off at me and said that it was apparent that I didn't want to work and she closed my file, stating that I would get my monthly cheque for the 24 months and that was it.

bigrex, how do you know if you are not considered TPI? Did you receive a letter, or are you back at work?

Bigrex she is right, one can not personnalise a deal like this, every member has his consernes. Mine is not to pay to mush in 2014 or 15. Every body sees this monster in a different angle. Unfortunatelly a line has to be brawn in the sand an you cross it or you don't. Every body here win's and every body loses. depends on how you lock at it,

Sound good in theory, but it is such a hard thing to quantify... what if someone is only 30 while someone else is 64....or someone getting $300 a month compared to $2500... it is never going to be fair and equatable for everyone.

I sound argumentative and I really don't mean to be, I just think this is a very difficult thing to work out in the best interest of all involved. I will not post any more on the subject... don't want people getting annoyed at me.

Well I think that the fairest deal would be to charge 10% from those only getting 24 months and then 15% from those who have been reinstated. This way we, the non TPI clients don't get screwed, While the TPI clients still pay less compared to the overall benefits they will receive until 65. To me this isn't unreasonable, since we will not have access to over half of the total settlement amount.

Of course they want their money now... you would too in their shoes. Would you want to do a job that took 6 years and then someone says well, we'll pay you half or three quarters now, but the rest your going to get in a monthly check for the next 25 or more years! Be realistic! It would be a logistical nightmare for SISIP and MC. And each of the educational bursaries would be reduced by 7.5%.

Edited to add... that sounds much harsher in print than it did in my head.... just trying to make the point that taking money off of every check until the last client turns 65 is an unrealistic proposal. I guess you could take a smaller percentage of the 2 year people and increase the % from the others, but that seems unfair as well, since the people with the higher retro are already paying many more $$$$ in fees than the 2 year.... see there really isn't a way to do this that's going to be 100% fair to everyone, including the lawyers. I think they have come up with a reasonable, workable plan that isn't too painful for anyone... remember they could have asked for 30% of the entire package... ouch.

And it is not the same as CPP , you pay CPP and if you reach 65 you get your CPP. In my case I am paying legal fees for money that I will never get dead or alive.

Here is a better deal and the way it should be. All those who are only getting 24 months retro because they are not TPI pay 7.5% legal fees for retro. All those who are TPI pay 7.5% legal fees for retro and 7.5% legal fees from every check from now to when they turn 65 or die. The Law Firm is asking not to do this so that they get their money now , why can't anyone see this. It is the fairest way to do it. They are taking legal fees from my retro to pay for legal fees for money until age 65 or death that I will not get because I am not TPI.

If I die tomorrow , my sisip ceases and I payed the 17 percent, just like cpp you pay into it all your life but no guarantee that you will live to see it, it's a small price to pay,and really when put against the whole deal, who gives a crap, anyone who would risk this settlement over legal fees need their head examined, nobody is going to get a better deal, that's why lawyers don't touch GOC lawsuits, play with fire and get burned more than we already have

As I said , my VAC pension is more than SISIP , therefore clawback of VAC pension brought me to zero money from SISIP. I am now in the process of appealing with SISIP to get approved TPI. But as I will and will continue to say , all clients who are only getting the first 24 months are paying 7.5% legal fees for payments after 24 months to age 65 that they will not get. So lets get an accurate number of people only getting 24 months as they are not TPI , in the class action and see what the percentage of people are being charged legal fees for future money that they will never get.

Why would Peter not tell the truth, these guys could have taken us for 30 percent no questions asked, 17 percent is not alot to ask for what we are getting. Everyone including other lawyers who have read the deal think its sweet, when the judge looks at this he will approve it because it is in the best interest of the class and it's a much lower rate than required by law or in the contract

good point bigrex

Nav, who is the majority? Those of us who only get 24 months worth, and for us, it is not as good of a deal. We have had an additional 7.5% taken off our retro so that those who got reinstated, like yourself, can get your future payments free and clear of any legal obligation.