Can Someone Explain to Me How Fees Can Be Deducted From Future Payments?

Had I really thought it through I would have just argued for a delay and made a motion as an intervener and scuttled the court date for 90 days. So deal would not be killed just delayed.

This is why we needed more time to deal with the technical aspects of this case. We should have if we were thinking straight have delayed this result for 90 days. We needed to be involved from the start on this class action and we were not. We had about 21 days to fight an argument in court. we were little prepared for. Had I had more time there would have been a detailed argument on no allowing fees on anything but OCT pre numbers just awards won to date and past. There is a very real argument to not pay those fees but we missed it. We settled poor decision.

Sorry all but until TB changes the rules of the policy SISIP has to follow the existing rules. Yearly medicals will be done to continue with LTD payments.

But hey nothing stopping everyone from emailing Minister Mackay, TB Minister Clement asking for a more reasonable ammendment to medicals.

Something like if you are on CPP D a medical every 3-5 years. Non CPPD every 2 years.

Or just imAgine that out of the 1000 zero sums, only 200 received CPPD and Sisip now will push the 800 others to get it, and 600 got it at 900$ a month,
This could not be counted anymore as future payement as sisip would take ot out of the equasion.
600 x 900$ makes 540 000 a month that was counted but would'nt exist anymore, so 81 000$ less a month to the lawfirm that was all smoke like to now we would still be there till 65.
How easy to play with numbers when you want them in your advantage.

It is around 1000 000 a year for average of 20 years or 15 that would'nt exist, all this to say that never the silence of 7300 vet meant they approved the fees as the Firm tried to pass on to the Judge.

Chears.
Pat.

Good question

If any fee's are paid on ltd coverage forward does this mean that we get a guarantee that we will make it to age 65 and we no longer have to do any 'yearly medicals' as the fee's would already be taken for representation of this?

Well said Navrat!

You argument is precisely why the lawfirm should not be permitted to assess fees, whether they be payable now or in the future, on future monies. Our future disability payments depend on remaining disabled, and should we become 'abled' the money we paid in fees is gone. Who's gonna pay us back in that case. Retro only.

When I think back to all those on here that told me I was wrong about MC touching our going forward payments ... Hmmm ... Still doesn't feel great knowing I was right for once.

Seems to me this lawsuit was supposed to be about fighting the clawback. How about you stick to that MC and let's only make calculations on the 424M?

I don't agree, and this will never happen, these future disability payments are not set in stone, anything can and will happen. The law firm won , to get rid of the clawback, that's it. its not as if the law firm won my future payments, my future payments are based on my disabilities and continue to meet sisip policy of total disability. I could lose my benefits if I somehow got better. I could see if sisip had to totally give all my future payments to the law firm in a lump sum as would happen in a lawsuit award. this is a joke, really. what if I am able to get a job at a door taking tickets, earned income would lower my ltd payments thus lower mc payments. The more I hear this, honestly the less I want to give the law firm

So if we get a 3B tomorrow from the PRT in Afghanistan, they will pay MC 17.83%. Well actually we pay that for them in advance.

I do not think the whole is a correct statement. If so it would include all of SISIP and all the future changes for 100+ years.

Best way to explain is to look at the clawback as a whole....past, present, future.

When we won the case that the deduction was illegal so it applies to the whole.

The lawfirm has a right to collect their legal fees from the whole.

I agree and think that they should take it from future payments as well until they get what the Judge decides for an amount for legal fees.

I understand that they 'do not want to wait'.

My question is, what gives them the right to take from the going-forward payments? This was about stopping the clawback, the clawback is stopped, I can see getting awarded for the retro, but how can they claim a piece of the future?

They do not want to wait for there future legal fee dues by deducting 7.5% from every payment from now to 65 or death so they are taking now from the retro.

This class action was brought about as a result of an unfair, illegal clawback to monies crontractually owed to participants of an insurance policy.

Given that the clawback was ruled 'unfair' and/or 'illegal', how can the lawfirm claim to be owed money from the disability payments in the future, post-decision date?

I'm not following how they can claim that part of the future payments is theirs? I can understand how they can claim a piece of the retroactive money, just not part of the future money.

I'm not trying to stir anything up here, I am just trying to understand their claims. As I see it, the lawfirm is entitled to a piece of retroactive money, given that they took the case to court, but as far as I can understand, once the ruling was made to stop the clawback, from that point on, the money wasn't their's to lay claim to, only the money up until the clawback was deemed illegal.

Help me out here.