SISIP LTD 2002 - 2018

[bossi]

(wonder how many others have the mistaken impression SISIP would look after them ... ?)

Support grows for major who lost legs on duty
Calls for military compensation
 
Heather Sokoloff 
National Post
Monday, July 22, 2002

Major Bruce Henwood was given a peacekeeping medal in 2000 by Gov.-Gen. Adrienne Clarkson. He would also like to be given compensation.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

 
A campaign is growing to force the government to compensate an Armed Forces major who lost both his legs during a 1995 peacekeeping mission in Croatia.

Major Bruce Henwood‘s legs were blown off below the knee by a land mine while he was on patrol as a United Nations observer.

He was shocked to discover he would receive nothing from the Department of Defence after his injuries ended his 23-year career.

"This is a moral issue the military has to deal with," said Maj. Henwood, 45, who lives in Calgary with his wife and three children. "The last thing any commander would want is his soldier, in the back of his mind, thinking, am I going to be taken care of if I get injured? Is my family going to be OK?"

Art Hanger, the former Alliance defence critic, has lent his support to the cause, as have the Royal Canadian Legion and the War Amps of Canada. Retired Colonel Don Ethell, a highly decorated peacekeeper, and retired Brigadier-General Joe Sharpe, also have voiced their support for Maj. Henwood.

Though Maj. Henwood has been lobbying the government since 1998, the issue, mired by complex insurance regulations, has received little attention. However, public sympathy towards the military has warmed since four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight injured by a U.S. bomb in Afghanistan.

"The vast majority of people have been, shall we say, educated, with these events. They now understand what military personnel go through," says retired Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who commanded the UN troops during the siege of Sarajevo in 1992.

Maj. Henwood assumed his injury would entitle him to an award from the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), the department‘s mandatory insurance scheme. Instead, he discovered his Forces pension and disability benefits, about 75% of his military income, cancelled access to SISIP benefits.

He is asking the government to overhaul SISIP, bringing the dismemberment benefits in line with most private-sector plans. He wants a lump-sum payment that recognizes his injury has diminished his earning potential.

Maj. Henwood says organizations such as the Royal Bank or Dalhousie University pay severely injured employees a lump sum of several times their annual salary as compensation, in addition to disability benefits. Even members of Parliament are entitled to a lump sum payment of $250,000.

"I‘m not an insurance expert. I‘m just a guy that got blown up," Maj. Henwood said. "But losing your legs should be worth something."

 

[Harry]

From my own experience and that of an Investigator dealing with complaints regarding SISIP, ladies and gents, the policies are not worth the ink wasted to sign them. I remember in Battle School being told that SISIP and specifically, LTD where not optional, I like everyone else had to sign on whether I wanted to or not.

SISIP, AKA, Maritime Life make a phenomenal return on the investment provided by the rank and file of the CF and DND. Especially in light of the fact that the stats clearly indicate that they pay out very few claims and those that they do are meager at best.

Not bad for a bunch of retired CF members who work for and administer the so-called SERVICE.

Reminds me of the time a full Col explained to me in no uncertain terms that the CANEX is for the rank and file and no one benefited from the profits. This in light of his sitting on the board or whatever they call it and he received whatever annual cash dividend, reward, honorarium or what ever they called it.

I was always lead to believe that SISIP, LTD and after my release, CAR where good programs and if anything ever went wrong medically, I (like everyone else) would be taken care of. I only have to follow the story of Bruce Henwood and realize that these programs benefit someone, just not those who need it.

UBIQUE

 

[bubba]

sisip sucks///my buddy has ptsd,from to many tours.they told him his long term dissability is only good 4 2years.i always was told ltd was 4 life.they told him they changed there policy after96 or 98 to 2years,instead of 4life,i guess alot of guys are claiming it(ha,ha)they just want the premium,they dont want to pay out.they should be charged for false representation to the men,women who serve this country///bubba :fifty:

 

[George Wallace]

I just received a disturbing e-mail that will probably affect all serving and former members of the CF. 

Subject: Supplementary Death Benefits - Canadian Army (Regular)

Dear  Garry and Stephen, As a Canadian Soldier, I  have been paying into SDB every month since I was 17 and still do each month  through my Army Pension - On the 14 Nov 1958 I swore on the bible and red ensign Canadian  flag that I was prepared to give my life in defence of HMQE2 and my country Canada.  This year I will turn 65 and find out  that there is still another claw back to my NOK benefits and it has been reduced by 10% each year since I was aged 60.  When Prime Minister Paul Martin was Finance Minister he took 16.6 billion dollars out of our pension fund so there is no way the Government can say there was no funds to keep paying SDB, or even to give raises in our Army Pensions. To say that would be a lie.  Again it shows what the liberal  politicians think abut those who were willing to lay their lives on the line for Canada.  If I had died before aged 60 my wife would have received double my retirement salary from SDB and it would have been used to bury me and help her in her old age.  This year half of the SDB will already have been clawed back through sneaky legislation  and although I want the SDB deductions from my Army  pension cheque to continue just  in case there is enough left over  to perhaps bury me?, and therefore  I won't become a burden on my family who are all struggleing in this high cost modern world- Why should my wife be left with little or few benefits and little support?  It is very very  sad to see what is happening to our benefits!    I see that arguments have been won in court to collect the SDB benefits, but why should old soldiers and their families have to go to court to collect what is rightfully theirs?  If the PCs get into power will they right this wrong? Hopefully there will be enough left in the kitty to pay for a flag, my coffin, a plot and my stone? There appears to be nothing left for my beloved wife.  Blessings Billy http://iwvpa.net/willbondwha/

I received the following from an Army buddy who got it from the Sigs Club of Canada - one has to be a lawyer to keep up with the nitpicking and  chipping away at our meagre benefits and some people have hired legal representation  and won, but one has to ask the question why should this litigation action have to be taken to  receive  paid for benefits?  The Liberals have a habit of changing the rules after the fact and that is just not right!

In early Sept. 2005 oral arguments were presented at both the Public Service Class Action and the Canadian Forces Class Action concerning the Supplementary Death Benefits (SDB).  The actions went to trial on the common issues at the Law Courts in Vancouver on 13 June 2005.

Under the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA) and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA), a Supplementary Death Benefit is payable to beneficiaries of deceased federal Public Servants and Canadian Forces members.  Until late 1999 the amount of the benefit payable was reduced by
10% per year for covered members who died after age 60.  Since 1999, the
10% yearly reduction under the PSSA applies after age 65, rather than age 60.
 
The class actions challenge the age-related benefit reduction as discriminatory, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A similar case brought on an individual basis in the Federal Court of Canada by Mrs. Ruth Margolis resulted in a favourable judgement for the plaintiff. The class actions are brought on behalf of all members insured under the SDB program.
 
Basically what happened was the lady retiree in B.C. sued and won.  Her death benefits were not reduced.  As you know it is twice the amount of salary we were making at the time of retiring.
 
The counter-claim by the govt. says that it would bankrupt the system if it were to be paid out in fully.  I think an actuary quoted 1.8 billion dollars.
 
If you want the full story and court rulings, go to the legal website that is handling the case.  It is  www.branmac.com <http://www.branmac.com/> and then click on class actions.
 

It appears to be a legitimate email.  For further information, here is a link to the Class Action Suit being filed by Branch McMaster Barristers & Solicitors:  http://www.branmac.com/classactions/deathbenefits.htm

Many thanks to the Liberals for taking such fine care of us with their moral and ethical fiscal policies. 

{Edit}  Something has to be done with that " ¦nbsp " code problem.

 

[MCpl Burtoo]

My mum and dad were talking about this last night. My dad spent 35 yrs in the Air Force and retired as a WO and is pushing 65 yrs of age. If he dies in the next couple of years my mum will receive some money, and once he hits 65 it is going to be pennies! It makes you wonder why we pay into this all of our careers. I know it is there for serving members in order to take care of loved ones when we are gone, but what about our retired members and vets that have served. Once again the insurance industry is there to take our money, but does not want to give any back when the time comes!

 

[George Wallace]

....... Once again the insurance industry is there to take our money, but does not want to give any back when the time comes!

On that note...I suppose I should start a thread on the latest from SISIP.   

 

[Sandy Skipton]

What is being said is true.... having gone through an SDB claim recently, (in June..) I got my husbands last year of wages. X2 and then, since he passed away at age 63, they took 30% off the calculation... SDB is reduced 10% per year after age 60, so by age 70 it is GONE... nada, nothing... just thought I would comment from recent experience... He was a M/Cpl, served 24.5 years, retired in 1982.. His last years pay was about $21,000  so you do the calculations of what I actually got... not much.

While he was in the service SISIP was formed.. it was explained as a job insurance to the guys at that time.. he did not take SISIP because of all the clawbacks that had happened... so no SISIP for his wife... life can be so much fun can't it?  And we will not talk about DVA... believe me please.. .DND does not look after you. While in the service,  when you retire or when you die... Be informed so you can take the time to set things up to protect your family.

My daughter lost her spouse in 2001, he had SISIP, SISIP seemed to be a good way but I am not sure now with the new changes.. read it all very carefully...

 

[284_226]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/565818.html

Ex-soldier filing class-action lawsuit against Ottawa over disability pension clawback
By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter

A former army Ironman competitor has launched a proposed class-action lawsuit that could cost the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars.

In October 2000, Dennis Manuge was working as a mechanic on an armoured vehicle at CFB Petawawa in Ontario when he fell about three metres, breaking a small bone in his back.

Mr. Manuge, who now lives in Porters Lake, is suing because Ottawa clawed back about $10,000 of his disability pension for two years after he was released from the military.

"This is not about the money," he said Tuesday.

"Unless we get damages awarded to us, by the time legal fees are paid, I’ll be lucky to see $5,000."

But other more severely disabled vets are seeing much more money clawed back, Mr. Manuge said.

"Some of these guys are losing $1,500 or $2,000 a month," he said, adding the toll it’s taken on their families has been horrendous.

Mr. Manuge, 37, has written to scads of politicians, including Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor, to complain about the clawback.

"To this day, all I received from the minister of national defence is a postcard with the crest of the Canadian Forces on one side and, on the back, it simply says, ‘The minister has received your correspondence,’ " he said.

"After breaking my back for this country and for him and everybody else, that’s what he and his staff thought of me."

The former corporal’s back injury causes him considerable pain. In 2002, while still in the army, he started receiving a $444 monthly disability pension equivalent to 20 per cent of his pay.

"I got my entire Canadian Forces pay, plus my disability pension," Mr. Manuge said.

But that changed when he was released from the Forces in December 2003 for medical reasons.

Under the military’s insurance plan, which everyone in uniform must join, Mr. Manuge was entitled to three-quarters of his former income for two years because he had become too physically disabled to do his job.

The plan takes into account all relevant sources of income and only pays the amount that takes a person up to the 75 per cent level, according to a recent letter that military ombudsman Yves Cote wrote to Mr. O’Connor.

"Most notably, and in my view problematically, (the plan) considers monthly Pension Act disability pensions as a ‘relevant source of income’ and deducts such pensions from the amount that would otherwise be paid to the former Canadian Forces member," Mr. Cote wrote.

The ombudsman’s office investigated after receiving more than 50 complaints.

"Complainants argued that it was unfair that disability pensions were considered as a source of income under the (plan’s) formula, when the purpose of the disability pension was not to act as income replacement but to compensate them for the pain and suffering they had endured as a result of becoming disabled while serving their country," Mr. Cote wrote.

The ombudsman’s office eventually agreed that was "profoundly unfair." It recommended the military stop clawing back the money and that former Forces personnel who had their benefits reduced due to disability pensions be reimbursed for amounts deducted since October 2000, when the pension scheme in question was instituted.

The ombudsman said the cost of those changes is estimated to be $320 million.

The lawsuit, which has not yet been certified by a judge as a class action, also seeks punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages. It argues the clawback deprives former soldiers of their charter right to live free from discrimination.

As early as 2003, the ombudsman told the government it wasn’t fair to treat former soldiers who lost their jobs due to a disability differently than those who were injured but could still serve.

"I think it’s a righteous claim," said Peter Driscoll, the Dartmouth lawyer handling Mr. Manuge’s case.

The pension scheme was changed last year.

But there are still people in uniform collecting disability pensions who could see them clawed back if they are terminated, Mr. Driscoll said.

And there are thousands of people who lost pension benefits between 2000 and 2006, he said.

In the past five days, he’s heard from more than 100 of them, including dozens in Nova Scotia, who are keen to join the lawsuit filed March 15 in Federal Court.

The government has 30 days to file a defence.

A Justice Department spokesman refused comment on the case.

Mr. Manuge joined the military in August 1994. He spent nearly a decade in the army, including a tour in Bosnia in 2001 after he was injured.

While Mr. Manuge’s physical activities are now limited to walking and Pilates exercises, in 1999 he participated in the army’s Ironman race. That involved carrying an 18-kilogram pack while marching and running 33 kilometres, carrying a canoe 4.3 kilometres, paddling the craft 7.5 kilometres and lugging the pack another 5.5 kilometres. He completed the race in eight hours and 40 minutes.

"To go from that level of physical fitness to a physical disability and be given absolutely zero respect or consideration from the government, to me it’s criminal," Mr. Manuge said. "It’s absolutely unacceptable."

( clambie@herald.ca)

 

[geo]

-1 to DND & the CF
this is mucking around in someone's pension - for no good reason.
a dissability pension IS NOT a benefit & should not be treated as such.

 

[GUNS]

A civilian who is on long term disability(LTD) and receives taxable income outside of his/her LTD. Will have an amount equal to the amount of taxable income clawed-back.

There is no justice for disabled people whether they be soldiers or civilians.

 

[geo]

... two wrongs doesn't make a right IMHO

 

[3rd Horseman]

  This has been fought before and put on hold awaiting the CFs insurance agents and CFs position on it. Still waiting. This is just one more case to possibly cause the CF and in particular the CDS (who is the designated policy holder of LTD SISIP) to decide to change the claw back of DVA pain and suffering money from the unfortunate soldiers who have been injured.

  Past arguments have been going in a slightly different direction then this recent case. My position in a past action was that since the DVA money was not a pension and was specifically named as a {gift of Canada for Pain and suffering} and was not taxable that it should fall within the normal civi parameters of a pain and suffering grant and that it is not calculated in the insurance LTD SISIP calculations of disability claw back.

  The example sited as argument for was as follows:

  Ford worker is injured at the factory, he is fully disabled due to fault of company and is pensioned off as a medical pension. He gets his Ford pension reduced to the current years (like us) and he gets his pay topped up by a Long Term Disability Plan, (Like us). Funny too as it is the same insurer as we have. He then sues the company and wins an award and gets x $ for pain and suffering and X $ for lost earnings. His lost earnings award is clawed back as that is the insurance company's money as they are paying out the lost wages as part of the LTD plan. He keeps his full pain and suffering award as it is non taxable and has nothing to do with income replacement just pain and suffering.

  Sounds good to me too bad it sounds silly to the CDS, the policy holder.

  This issue went to treasury board as they hold the purse strings on this issue and the word I got was that all, DVA, LTD SISIP and CDS including MND and Treasury board were on side. They just needed the legislation to change the rules.

Time is a-wasting and so are we who are injured. 

 

[battleaxe]

A civilian who is on long term disability(LTD) and receives taxable income outside of his/her LTD. Will have an amount equal to the amount of taxable income clawed-back.

SISIP (unlike the scenario above) only claws back %50 of any taxable income earned while on LTD (up until the point that I make as much as pre-disability, then it is all taken). I'm on LTD, yet earn a little extra by working out of home.  I just submit my earnings every month and they claw back half. Works well, I think- there is still incentive to work because I still get to keep the extra that I make and I still have the security of the disability plan for my famly while I deal with my illness.

Having my VAC clawed back stings, however, especially given that the claw back does not apply to those not on LTD or to those receiving the new lump sum disability awards as per the New Charter.  I get why Manuge is upset.

For those interested, the law firm involved has posted the class action suit on it's website at http://boyneclarke.ns.ca/news/sisip/.

Now my questions on the subject:

In this class action suit- how much of the recovered disability earnings will actually go to the lawyers in the end? Does anybody know how this will work?

I know they are aksing for info on anyone who wants to join the class action suit.  And I also know that there are many affected by this situation-me being one of them.

What I want to know-self serving as it may seem- is whether or not it is better to join the class and the legal fight or wait until the Treasury Board and DND and SISIP and VAC all get their collective crap together and change the policy.

Manuge is fighting a good fight for all people in this situation and my thanks go out to him for doing it.  I hope he doesn't end up losing on something that will end up benefitting many others. Getting the spotlight onto this issue might speed up the process of changing the present policy.  Many, yes including me, can now simply wait for the dust to settle and the policy to change. And we won't have to share anything with the lawyers.

Any thoughts on this? Is my thinking correct on this?

 

[3rd Horseman]

Battleaxe,

  Boyne Clark is my legal team and what I know of them and how they operate is that 30% goes to the legal team from the total award amount. Since this is such a sensitive award I would suggest that, they (Boyne Clark) will ask for legal to be paid by the crown outside of the straight award. This will leave the lions share going to the troops, if that occurs you can bet that damages will not be granted just actual claw back owing.
  You can normally get in on a class action like this by putting a little cash down as a retainer in the past it has been 1,500 to 5,000 as a rough guess.

  On the issue of DVA giving 10% grants and SISIP giving higher ones I see the opposite as the big issue, DVA gives a full disability (85% to 100%) and SISIP gives zero.

 

[3rd Herd]

3rd,
Given the time involved getting a class action suit before the courts, receiving a decision then the numerous appeals available to those involved will it be our grand children or great grand children that finally get the award ?

 

[battleaxe]

Battleaxe,

  Boyne Clark is my legal team and what I know of them and how they operate is that 30% goes to the legal team from the total award amount. Since this is such a sensitive award I would suggest that, they (Boyne Clark) will ask for legal to be paid by the crown outside of the straight award. This will leave the lions share going to the troops, if that occurs you can bet that damages will not be granted just actual claw back owing.
  You can normally get in on a class action like this by putting a little cash down as a retainer in the past it has been 1,500 to 5,000 as a rough guess.

  On the issue of DVA giving 10% grants and SISIP giving higher ones I see the opposite as the big issue, DVA gives a full disability (85% to 100%) and SISIP gives zero.

3rd,

Thanks for the info...I guess I'm just leery of the whole legal thing.
I've sent my share of letters (like Manuge, I have letters from the MND and VAC that state they've received my correspondence-but have yet to receive a real response), and have kept an eye on the situation.  There are many people working on this- MPs, the Ombudsman-and there are many of us that are biding our time, waiting for the policy to change through the work that they're doing.  Maybe I'm wrong to think it will, or just stupidly naive- but I do think that something so fundamentally flawed will have to be put right at some point.
If this class action goes through, and if it is successful, the claw back policy will change.  Won't it have to? Only those who join the class action are in jeopardy of losing part of what is their due (I hope, as you say, that they do go after the crown for legal costs). The rest- those like me who have just chosen to wait it out, unwillingly to commit financially to the fight out of fear of losing more- may benefit, it seems, more than those who are willing to take the risk.

I guess what I'm trying to ask, quite bluntly, is this: Is the class action suit being started in order to fight a fight that is already in the process of being won?  The publicity generated by the suit may speed up the process a bit, but will it change the eventual outcome?  That's what I'll have to research a bit more and become more comfortable with before deciding to join in on this thing.

I hope it works out for you all. What you're doing will help many others... and I'd like to say I had the courage to join you immediatetly. Recent events, however, have made me way cautious. I'm content to wait for a bit on this one.

As for the disparity in SISIP vs. VAC disability awards- are you talking about SISIP LTD?

I was referring to Long Term Disability- that SISIP is extending long term disability benefits past the normal two years because of extensive illness and yet VAC is giving low percentage assessments for the same illnesses.

Are you saying that you're seeing VAC give high disability assessments and yet SISIP is stopping LTD disability payments after the initial 24 months after release? Or is it another SISIP payout (lump sum type like ADIP-Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Program) that you're referring to?

Just to clarify...this interests me because SISIP and VAC are beginning to overlap benefits- ie. VAC now has the Economic Loss Benefits Program which will kick in for certain people if SISIP runs out. I beginning to wonder sometimes if SISIP and VAC aren't both sitting back and saying- "I'm not going to pay that because the other guy will".

It's getting awfully confusing...
Bren

 

[battleaxe]

Another article on the situation:

http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=19519&sc=93.

I still can't help but think that Boyne Clarke has picked up a case that's already in the process of being won.  Anybody else?

Bren

 

[schart28]

The Hill Times, July 30th, 2007
LETTERS

We need a public commission of inquiry into treatment of disabled veterans, says Canadian veteran
Re: "Disabled CF veterans proceed with class action suit against government," (The Hill Times, June 18, p. 1). We need the public's help in the most desperate way. We Canadian Forces Disabled Veterans are struggling, daily, to survive physically, mentally, and economically due to the appalling disrespect and neglect at the hands of the Conservative Government of Canada.

We are yelling out loud for your help.

The Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) and Veterans Affairs Canada are allowing us to be robbed of disability pensions and other monies that have been earned with blood, sweat, and tears during service to this great nation. We are losing our families, houses, going bankrupt, and struggling to get services and assistance from the two organizations, SISIP and VAC, that are supposed to be our main avenues of support.

How much more self-respect and dignity do we need to give up and sacrifice before you, the general public, help us and stand beside us in this life and death struggle for survival?

Together we can demand a public commission of inquiry into how disabled veterans have been and continue to be treated.

Dennis Manuge

Porter's Lake, N.S.

(The letter-writer has initiated a class action lawsuit in Federal Court in Halifax, N.S., against the Crown and is trying to reclaim about $10,000 of his disability pension.)

 

[DBA]

What it's about: long term SISIP disability benefits are clawed back by the amount of any disability pension provided by the federal government. Similar packages in some other government departments don't have the same claw back provisions. For all the emotional tugging in the letter that fact was made plain to me when I was given a SISIP presentation long ago. It was offered as a 'top up' for when you considered the base benefits too low for your needs and to cover more situations. That the package of benefits offered by SISIP don't match other departments seems reasonable since each should be tuned to the needs and desires of members of that department.

 

[Reccesoldier]

The fact that the person who wrote this letter did not point out that this claw-back has always been in place, and instead chooses to level an unfair accusation at a single political party shows that he is interested in more than getting an administrative injustice corrected. 

Axe, meet grindstone...