Military, Veterans Affairs won’t pay for Air Force officer’s prosthetic leg

[Navy_Pete]

Saddens me that it got this far.  This will be all over a bunch of peoples BBs right now, and odds are good someone will just say this is crap, and sort this out.

She had something awful happen in her life, fought her way back to FULLY DEPLOYABLE after being critically injured, and went into theatre with a prosthetic (that they seem to be refusing to pay for).  This is the kind of story that should be in the news as an example of the CAF supporting it's people and not because some arseclown didn't like a line item charge.

This is a complete loss; brutal treatment of a CAF member, yet another PR disaster, and also completely financially irresponsible. The staff work to reject the SI finding alone must have cost more than the prosthetic, let alone all the follow on. Mind is just blown here.

This should be some kind of case study in what not to do in staff college. And the big giant heads wonder why there is cynical laughter at the talking points of 'people are the top priority'.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just so we’re all in common agreement, the CF paid for everything while she was in rehab and still in the mob. This is a pension benefit issue that arose under the circumstances of her release from the military. Just because she retired or released doesn’t mean the need for new prosthetics, adjustments, upkeep and spares goes away.

 

[PMedMoe]

So the missing information in the story is "when did the government last pay for a leg".

I'm also curious as to whether a special or different prosthetic is required for her various athletic activities.

 

[ontheedge]

Wow I’m amazed she did all the legal work herself and self represented.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The CAF couldn't meet the government's direction to deploy X % of female members to the force in Mali.

Does a story like this paint the CAF like a good employer and make women want to join?  Doubt it.

If we want to debate counting bullets and beans we should take a look at the money we waste every March.

 

[PMedMoe]

The CAF couldn't meet the government's direction to deploy X % of female members to the force in Mali.

Does a story like this paint the CAF like a good employer and make women want to join?  Doubt it.

If we want to debate counting bullets and beans we should take a look at the money we waste every March.

As stated by Cloud Cover, the CF did cover her costs while she was still in.  Now we're talking about VAC but yes, the optics don't look good either way.

 

[dapaterson]

Wow I’m amazed she did all the legal work herself and self represented.

I have seen nothing stating that she is self represented and did all the legal work herself.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS, military members are required to have a FCP regardless of deployment status.  See here (note the word "mandatory").

You don't "execute" a FCP but you must have one.

DAOD 5004-1, see para 5.

I think we're debating different aspects, actually.  I was more looking at the 'was she on duty' at the time.  Going only off the story info, I thought "it seems so".

However, BlackAdder's post with the links to the court decision and the grievance add some clarity.  As a mbr who has dealt with a grievance that went to the Military Grievances External Review Committee, I trust that their analysis was very thorough and unbiased.  From the grievance committee F & R (Findings and Recommendations):

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor was on duty at the time of her motor vehicle accident and whether her injuries were attributable to military service.

The Committee acknowledged that the grievor and her service spouse were serving in high readiness units and had chosen to use their FCPs not only to prepare for unexpected duty absences, but also to address normal daily childcare requirements. The Committee noted that it was open to the grievor to design and use her FCP in the manner best fitting her needs, and that this was her personal choice. The Committee explained that the grievor's claim to have been on duty relied not on how she designed and used her FCP but on whether she was ordered by military authorities to use it on the day of her accident. In this regard the Committee noted that there was no evidence to suggest that she was ever ordered to activate her FCP.

Thanks, BlackAdder, for finding and providing the links.

 

[Rifleman62]

Trend - Equitas lawsuit appeal denied by Supreme Court, the PM's comment in Edm, etc.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a Cabinet Minister or an MP had an similar accident on their way to "work".

 

[PMedMoe]

I think we're debating different aspects, actually.  I was more looking at the 'was she on duty' at the time.  Going only off the story info, I thought "it seems so".

Actually, we were debating the same thing.  She wasn't on duty. She may have been in a high readiness unit that was next to go, but she wasn't deployed nor had she been recalled from leave.  She was taking her child to daycare. The article was, of course, biased in her favour.

However, BlackAdder's post with the links to the court decision and the grievance add some clarity.  As a mbr who has dealt with a grievance that went to the Military Grievances External Review Committee, I trust that their analysis was very thorough and unbiased.  From the grievance committee F & R (Findings and Recommendations):

Thanks, BlackAdder, for finding and proving the links.

Yes, thanks. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

So she actually wasn't on duty at the time of the accident as the article states?

The Canadian Armed Forces says Capt. Kimberly Fawcett was on duty during an accident in which her son died and she lost her leg, but as Mercedes Stephenson reports, the government is refusing to pay for Fawcett's prosthetic limb

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So she actually wasn't on duty at the time of the accident as the article states?

Not according to Finding and Recommendations detailed in the Case Summary.  Have a read of the Grievance Committee's F & R / Case Summary.  It has some key details.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/129529/post-1556304.html#msg1556304

Additionally, although the article says:

That position was directly disputed in a review by one of Canada’s top generals at the time, Major General Walter Semianiw who was the Chief of Military Personnel. In a review Major General Semianiw determining Fawcett was on duty and following military orders at the time of her accident, concluding “The execution of the Family Care Plan, is in fact, a military order.”

The Grievance case summary states:

The Initial Authority, the Chief of Military Personnel, denied the grievance, finding that the grievor's request to report to work late on that day was a routine circumstance which did not require invoking her FCP.

:dunno:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thanks.

I wonder if the CAF/VAC ultimately feels like it was worth the 10 year battle and subsequent PR that comes with the story.

 

[Remius]

Thanks.

I wonder if the CAF/VAC ultimately feels like it was worth the 10 year battle and subsequent PR that comes with the story.

If it avoids a precedent then I suppose so.

 

[PMedMoe]

So she actually wasn't on duty at the time of the accident as the article states?

And as escort to bereaved families, she also didn't serve "during the height of the Afghanistan war in Kandahar" either.

If it avoids a precedent then I suppose so.

This is my thought too.  I can see it now, someone will get in an accident going to get Kiwi polish and state they were on duty because it's a military order to have their boots polished.

I see now there's an update to the article.  Looks like she'll get some help.

Late on Dec. 12, officials from the Canadian Armed Forces told Global News they are willing to immediately sit down with Captain Kimberly Fawcett and examine any outstanding costs for her prosthetic. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also says he is looking into the file and the military adds Fawcett is receiving support through multiple military programs. Also, since Global News posted Fawcett’s story, a veteran’s charity has stepped up and is offering to pay some of her bills to alleviate the financial strain.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If it avoids a precedent then I suppose so.

Plus it might help people forget about the whole VAC paying for that police murderers medical/rehab bills.


[quote author=PMedMoe]

This is my thought too.  I can see it now, someone will get in an accident going to get Kiwi polish and state they were on duty because it's a military order to have their boots polished.[/QUOTE]

What if they were on their way to work and deviated from the quickest route to work in order to get some kiwi polish and got in an accident?

I'm fine with being wrong but a $30'000 leg hardly seems worth while battle for the CAF, monitairily, resource wise or morally.

I see now there's an update to the article.  Looks like she'll get some help.

I expected as much (and glad to hear). 

 

[PMedMoe]

What if they were on their way to work and deviated from the quickest route to work in order to get some kiwi polish and got in an accident?

I think that unless you've be recalled from leave (or something similar), you're not on duty when you're driving to work.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think that unless you've be recalled from leave (or something similar), you're not on duty when you're driving to work.

Recalled while on standby/duty, AFAIK, also falls under the "on duty" side from the moment you get the call.  I'd have to find the ref, but this was a topic once at the unit because there are "Ready" air and ground crews at home after Sqn Duty normal duty hours, 24/7/365.

 

[PMedMoe]

Recalled while on standby/duty, AFAIK, also falls under the "on duty" side from the moment you get the call. 

And that would fall into the "something similar". 

But just driving to work on a regular work day?  Not "on duty".

For reference, an almost verbatim article from June:  She lost her child and her leg in a horrific car crash. Now, an air force officer is fighting her military bosses

Idle curiosity made me look this up.  The National Post is owned by CanWest Global Communications Corp, who also owns Global News.  So, not terribly shocking.

 

[Rifleman62]

Global News is the news and current affairs division of the Global Television Network in Canada, itself owned by Corus Entertainment which was formed in 1999 as a spin-off from Shaw Communications.