Zero Sum Definition Appears to miss LTD disabled vets who make more money, DVA % came later

It is an interesting loop hole. My case is as follows to clarify it.
I was wounded in action 95
I got 85% DVA award while still serving in late 90s.
I had outstanding medical issues putting me over 100% DVA catagory being dealt with and DVA had not ruled yet.
I was making too much money in CF so I did not push my DVA till i was being released. It was embarasing to make more then the base commander cause I was wounded and got my DVA before release and pre 99 DVA desision to pay all early.
I was released for those wounds 03 and got SISIP 2 years.
I applied for LTD SISIP past the 2 years when told Id make 50 bucks a month less taxs cause of claw back I said F it.
I was granted 100% DVA after dust settled.
I am a 100% disabled vet who should re apply for SISIP LTD but im not zero sum so I dont fit into groups 1 to 4 and thus protected. Im one of the many battle wounded who said F it to SISIP cause we had not got all our DVA yet and would be zero sum or a few bucks from SISP and not worth the crap.

I think that would qualify under the section that states that people who didn't apply for LDT after the two years because of the clawback... even if it was not completely zero-sum... if you can say that you didn't apply only because the amount you would have received after the clawback made it not worth the bother.

yessss i see your point on that rags peeps who did not apply for continued bennifits becouse their ammounts were to small to be worth it are not covered.

propat

ahhhh now i see what you are saying ill have to re read the agreement again before i can respond one way ore another thanks for that rags.

propat

No we are not all getting SISIP after the first 2 years is over. they end it at 2 Years unless we are approved as LTD disabled. Most of us just said F it cause the difference in our pay was 0 or 10 bucks or 50 bucks a month. Not worth the crap from SISiP for that pitens. I think a Group 5 should have been placed on legal order which is non zero sums who qulify for LTD into the future.

ya rags a lot of guys that were not zero sum were getting monthly checks so after the judges dicision the GOC stopped the clawback for these guys as they were current and going to get future payments regardless they payments were just bigger now.its the guys that were getting nothing that didnt have the clawback stopped at that time for whatever bs reason the goc gave and now have to requalify( even though many have sent in their yearly medical forms) to get their going forward cheques.so thoes that were qualified to get monthy cheques that are not sum zero are already getting them.

propat

Well thats a great point on the level at which claw return is calculated i shall do some thinking on that.
On the issue I raised my obviously unclear approach is mudding the water. My main concern is that only zero sum people are in a group that is mentioned for future payments. People who are intitled to future payments but never got approved or gave up cause they were not getting any money anyway from them are still disabled and should be protected in the lawsuit as a group to seek future payments. This is the group that only got 50 or 100 bucks from SISIP so they are not zero sums but they are more disabled then a 50% guy who lost all money and is protected as a group to get future payments. Call them group 5!

Rags, just saw your edit. "Edit Ad ( the impact of this is people who are disabled but not zero sum wont be able to seek future payments they will just get returned the dollars from the 2 years.) "

If they are not zero sum, they are currently recieving SISIP (like my hubby), so future payments is not an issue as his payments continue without DVA being clawed back. And all the DVA that was clawed back (not just the initial two years) is being returned. This is in para 5 of the "Proposed Order" and goes back to 1 June 1976 as per para 1.

Hope this clarifies.

Sabrelove

Wow, you guys type fast!
Rags wrote: "My point is there are people who fall outside the 2 year thing and outside the zero sum groups but are 100% disabled. They dont show up as zero sum cause they made more money."

This is where I am confused by what you are trying to say. If they are 100% disabled (assuming that the DVA payment exceeds 75%) how are they not zero sum clients? The fact that they made more money is the reason they are considered zero sum.

Rags. Not all members on SISIP suffered injuries due to military service that led to release. In my hubby's case, he is getting a minor DVA pension (currently $350 monthly), but that injury was not the cause of his release and disability that led him to be a SISIP recipient. He also has his military pension and no CPP D so has not reached 75%.

If a member is not zero-sum, that means they are receiving money from SISIP. They are easy to calculate as all DVA money clawed back is going to be returned. It is not based on percentages, rather dollars.

SISIP payments are calculated after clawbacks from all sources are considered, Military pension, CPP D, and up until May 12, DVA.

My only thought for the zero sum client - They are zeroed out because the above 3 combined exceeded 75% of the military income. What is the order of the clawback? If it is DVA, military pension, then CPP D, they will have all the DVA returned. If DVA is the third ranking, then SISIP only needs to return the portion that brings them up to 75%, so the member is not getting the full amount of the DVA returned. I don't see this issue dealt with in the proposal.

Just wondering.

Sabrelove

The Groups for getting access to future payments are all based on zer sum. My point is there are people who fall outside the 2 year thing and outside the zero sum groups but are 100% disabled. They dont show up as zero sum cause they made more money. I guess my point is that just cause you got 100% claw back and are a zero sum you should not automatically be in a separate class. The level of disability should be criteria.
Edit Ad ( the impact of this is people who are disabled but not zero sum wont be able to seek future payments they will just get returned the dollars from the 2 years.)

im not sure what you are getting at rags as there are only about 900 sum zeros in the class.the majority of thoes that were not were only two year guys ore guys that had all of their dva clawed back but were still reciving some money from sisip.so whatever money is owed to each person will be returned.minus tax and fees of course.

propat

Just some tech info on DVA and why the strange split could occur DVA is a pain and suffering gift of Canada not income replacement like SISIP LTD was supposed to be (as we all know) so zero sum is a flawed calculation cause DVA is not reflective of your pay catagory thus the hick up. I wonder if the people at SISIP knew this (I suspect they did) and Lawyers just missed it cause a huge number of the class will just get the 2 year gift handed out since 99 like everyone else rather then qualify for the future payments part. It is a big number I suspect of soldiers who slipped into this catagory.

SEE CALCULATION ON PAGE 5 AS TO HOW ZERO SUM IS POOR CRITERIA AND MISSES A COMPLETE GROUP OF DISABLED VETS
I was reading and re reading the details trying to see how I and others fit into the plan. Where do Non Zero Sum vets who are fully disabled fit into the plan.......it would appear they dont. I maybe wrong so just kicking this out there cause I dont see the area these vets are taken into consideration.
The problem appears to be that you cant calculate a disability based on the Zero Sum idea. There are soldiers who are more severly disabled then a zero sum members and not be zero sum. The zero sum is based on how much DVA you got clawed back, not how disabled you are. We assume you are cause ya got 100% claw back. There are soldiers who are as an example getting 50% DVA, based on there pay catagory they get 100% claw back. There are also soldiers as an example who are at 85% DVA on release and due to pay catagory only get 90% clawed back. These later described soldiers are not zero sum and not in the 4 catagories of lawsuit. The 85% soldier is much more disabled then the 50% soldier but the 50% due to pay, years of service is in the area of future payments the 85% soldier is not.
Furthermore the problem is made even worse when the 85% soldier was waiting for DVA to finalized his % and it went past the 2 years of LTD and it was not until 2 years and a half that he became a 100% DVA soldier and would have been a zero sum member of the class action had it occurred earlier in his release.
I would suggest that a provision has to be in place that is based on disability of soldier and being % DVA as to whether you get easy mention to move to LTD payments not if you got all of your DVA clawed back.
thoughts? did anyone see this angle?