Incontinence and nocturia

Yes...clear as mud for my mind...but yes..seems a bit clearer. thanks guys. i wish they would write this stuff for the average person to understand!

Frankly, what I just wrote is a prime example of the disparity between NVC and PA vets.

But that's a different topic . . .

Yesterday at 10:52 teen wrote...

" If the problem/medical issue is consequential to a PA injury and said member is in receipt of a monthly PA it will be classified as a PA payment.
New injuries fall under the NVC....only!

Proof?  Me.  I have had 5 consequential injuries "

Yup... me too. Had 2 consequentials approved directly arising from a PA injury.
The result totally confused me because the application called for a LSA, but when
I was approved I did not get a LS, rather my PA % got bumped up accordingly.

Great! But it completely fracked me up because I did not expect that...
VaC should straighten out their paper...     clips.

Hope I didn't confuse you even more nemo...

Actually Trooper your reference is about "entitlement" not consequential. Yes consequential comes up in your reference but the examples used are about a denied injury under the PA that was re-applied for under the NVC then it is decided wether to be kicked back to the PA or the NVC.

But digging around your posted link I read this which might be both explained and shocking...

Number of consequential conditions: Pension Act

Under the Pension Act, an unlimited chain of consequential rulings may be provided; i.e., entitlement granted for disability “A” which caused disability “B”, which in turn caused disability “C”, which leads to disability “D”, etc..
Number of consequential conditions: CFMVRCA

A Veteran or a member may receive unlimited consequential rulings under the CFMVRCA where each stems directly from the primary condition which was granted.
A Veteran or a member may only receive two consequential rulings stemming from each consequential condition granted; i.e., it is possible to grant disability entitlement for a primary condition, a consequential disability which arises from it, a 2nd consequential disability which arises from the first, and a 3rd consequential disability which arises from the second. No entitlement may be granted for a 4th disability which arises as a consequence of the third consequential.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1533#anchor42583

Now I did not know there was a 'limit' to consequential claims under the NVC.

According to my understanding, amendments were made in 2013 to the NVC regarding consequential claims.

I think what their saying is section 42 & 56 refers to whether or not a departmental review is necessary in determining your claim.

If you fall under 9. claiming post 2006, if you already were approved for a disability related to the new consequential from the PA, and you do not require a departmental review, you then fall under section 42 & 56 where your consequential claim would fall under the pension act.

If you fall under 9. claiming post 2006, if you already were approved for a disability related to the new consequential from the PA, and do require a departmental review, your consequential claim would fall under the NVC.

Departmental review being the key words.

This is what I'm reading, and of course I could have read it wrong.

Plain English would be good in this circumstance.

Oh boy...that is real gobblygook...I don't quite understand it. I looked at section 42 but can't find section 56 and I still don't really understand what section 42 is trying to say. But I do understand what Teen has said in that it was added to his PA payment....And by PA payment do you mean a monthly disability pension under the old charter?

Well here is references that may confirm both Teen's and Rex's points.

Dual Entitlement - Clients Holding Entitlement Decisions Under Both the Pension Act and the CFMVRCA

8. If a condition is ruled as consequential to a primary condition related to WWII, Korean War service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police service, or other service eligible under the Pension Act, the claim will be adjudicated under the Pension Act.

9. If a condition is ruled as consequential to a primary condition related to Regular Force or Special Duty Service, the claim will be adjudicated under the CFMVRCA, even if the primary condition was ruled under the Pension Act, unless sections 42 or 56 of the CFMVRCA apply (see policy http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/887


http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1533

Wrong Rex.  If the problem/medical issue is consequential to a PA injury and said member is in receipt of a monthly PA it will be classified as a PA payment.

New injuries fall under the NVC....only!

Proof?  Me.  I have had 5 consequential injuries (latest one in 2014) due to my pensioned condition and I did not get a lump sum.  They were added to my PA payment.

Ok...good to know. thanks.

Unfortunately, even consequential claims post 2006 are paid out as lump sums. So it would be the 13% plus QOL rating of likely 2%, for a total payment of $46400 roughly. Obviously this could be reduced, because they could say things like, urinating more is common with getting older, or drinking a large amount of fluids etc.

so lets say they accepted it at 13% and due to progessive of a condition they are covering under the old charter and getting a monthly VAC disability pension...would this 13% add on a bit to my monthly pension? if approved of course...

thanks everyone.

So I believe it would be a separate consequential claim, but you would have to have it documented with your doctor, and must be a common side effect of your disability, or medication that is required. VAC isn't going to just take your word for it. I think you would fall under the 13% award, becuase it separates dysuria (painful voiding), and simply having to urinate frequently.

[/b]Table 19.6 - Loss of Function - Bowel and Bladder Control

Each bullet (•) represents one criterion. In order for a rating to be established for Table 19.6, only one criterion must be met at a level of impairment for that rating to be selected.
Table 19.6 - Loss of Function - Bowel and Bladder Control Rating Criteria
Nil

Continent of bowel and
Continent of bladder but may have occasional symptoms of dysuria, urgency and/or frequency.

One

Lower urinary tract infection 1-2 times per year.

Four

Fecal incontinence associated with occasional staining; no incontinent pad required; or
Urinary incontinence requiring 1 - 2 incontinent pads per day; or
Symptoms of dysuria, urgency and/ or frequency and daytime voiding every 3 hours and awake at least once throughout the night.

Nine

Fecal incontinence associated with soiling but less than daily; may need incontinent pad on occasion; or
May require 2-4 urethral dilatation per year; or
Suffers lower urinary tract infections at least 4 times per year despite long term prophylactic antibiotic drug therapy.

Thirteen

Fecal incontinence necessitating frequent changes of underwear or 1 - 4 incontinent pads per day; or
Urinary incontinence requiring more than 2 incontinent pads per day; or
Symptoms of dysuria, urgency and/or frequency;or
Daytime voiding every 2 hours and nocturia 2-3 times per night.

Eighteen

Permanent use of condom catheter; or
Symptoms of dysuria, urgency and frequency; daytime voiding every hour and nocturia 2-3 times per night; or
Obstructed voiding with any one of the following:
post-void residuals greater than 150cc;
uroflometry - markedly diminished peak flow rate (less than 10 cc /sec.);
stricture disease requiring more than 4 dilatation per year.

Twenty-six

Fecal incontinence necessitating use of greater than 4 incontinent pads per day; or
Permanent colostomy; or
Intermittent daily catheterization required; or
Symptoms of dysuria, urgency, and /or frequency with less than 30 minutes between voidings and voiding more than 5 times per night.

Thirty-four

No voluntary control of bladder; or
Permanent indwelling catheter; or
Fecal incontinence with complete loss of sphincter control.

Forty-three

Permanent suprapubic catheter.

hahaha....funny pinger....