Re: Veterans Board responds to Bruyea Jan. 30, 2012
Article Content
Re: Veterans Board responds to Bruyea Jan. 30, 2012
VVi 02 Feb 2012 db
As an applicant and Veteran, I question the veracity of Mr Larlee's letter. There are several different ways that a Veteran may appeal decisions made by VAC. Too often the first type, a departmental review, is not considered as Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) refers applicants directly to VRAB. Referral to VRAB is a much more costly, time-consuming and undignified process than even the oft-criticised decisions by VAC.
The first opportunity and the only opportunity that most applicants have to communicate with VRAB is a review hearing. This is stated on the VRAB website “It is the only time in the process when applicants may appear before the decision-makers to provide oral evidence and tell their story.” An applicant may appear at their own expense for the second type of hearing, an appeal, but they may not address the board. "The legislation does not permit oral testimony at this level". The legal right to appear may exist, but the right of the individual to meaningfully participate is not recognised in practice. As such, the right to appear is essentially meaningless.
Mr Larlee also did not mention that there have been very few applications of compassionate appeals and ministerial reconsiderations. This leaves the dissatisfied applicant with one last option to seek justice in a federal court of law at their own expense, usually around $20,000 in costs if the veteran is lucky. As such, the whole process seems hypocritical as Mr Larlee says VRAB “is less formal, less costly and less time-consuming than the courts”. But if it is just a precursor to going to court how is it less of anything?
Another major failing of this quasi-judisicial system (and can anyone explain what this really means) is the absence of the most important information source, namely qualified medical practitioners. The majority of appeals are about the level of disability of the Veteran, and yet no doctors or nurses testify about the medical conditions and their impact on Veterans. On the VRAB website, it states “board members examine, interpret and evaluate medical evidence presented by
applicants. Members are also required to assess the credibility of this evidence.” How can the board make decisions without the testimony of attending physicians or health care providers? Instead, the board relies on the inexpert information from VAC and whatever information is provided by the applicant. In what court of law are decisions made without including the testimony of all qualified participants. It is like having a criminal case without the police, the forensic experts and other expert witnesses.
Why does Mr Larlee believe that Veterans should be satisfied with a success rate of 50% after review hearings, and less than 33% after appeals? He also fails to mention that his success stories include many Veterans who receive less than what their disability otherwise merits and must find an alternative to seek redress of their grievances.
The fact that Mr Larlee felt the need to defend his organisation in a letter which sidesteps all major criticisms of his management of the Board is just another indication of why a public inquiry into veterans' issues is necessary. Canadians, Parliamentarians and of course Veterans need to examine what should be happening instead of sugar-coated versions what bureaucrats' claim is happening.
As an executive of an organisation with a community of more than 110,000 Veteran and other Canadians dealing with Veterans' issues, the red-tape and indignity with which our government treats our Veterans needs to be cleaned-up now.
Perry Gray Chief Editor VeteranVoice.info chiefeditor@veteranvoice.info
_________________________________________
Original Larlee's Letter
Veterans Board responds to Bruyea
Jan. 30, 2012
Re: “Just one more reason for a commission of inquiry into veterans’ issues,” (The Hill Times, Jan. 23, p. 10, by Sean Bruyea.
In his column, Mr. Bruyea presents his opinions about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) and the administrative law process. I would like to clarify some information for the benefit of your readers.
Since 2004, the board has used a merit-based selection process to ensure that all members have the necessary skills to make fair and well-reasoned decisions for veterans, members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and their families. This rigorous screening includes a review of qualifications against pre-defined criteria, a written examination and an interview. Any Canadian can apply and only those who are successful are eligible to be considered for an appointment.
The process recognizes the value of military, medical, policing, and legal backgrounds: in fact, our two most recently-appointed members have a military and an RCMP background, respectively. All new members undergo comprehensive training before hearing cases and then receive on-going professional development.
The board is not made up of “predominantly lawyers”: only seven of the board’s 24 members are lawyers. The remaining 17 are drawn from all sectors of society, as is the case with many quasi-judicial tribunals.
Administrative tribunals like VRAB exist to give dissatisfied people a remedy that is less formal, less costly and less time-consuming than the courts. Tribunals are specialized and their members know their own legislation and jurisdiction intimately. Their role is to assess the evidence and make decisions on the matters that come before them.The board’s appeal process is unique in that a veteran needs only to be dissatisfied with a disability decision made by the Department of Veterans Affairs to request an independent review.
At board hearings, applicants have the opportunity to be heard and to bring forward new information. The hearings are non-adversarial: no one argues against the veteran. All applicants have access to free representation by lawyers from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates or by service officers from veterans organizations to obtain the best outcome.
I would like to put the board’s workload statistics into context. A large majority of first applications made to the Department of Veterans Affairs are successful. Only a small percentage come forward to the board and, of those, half are varied favourably at our review level and a further one-third at our appeal level. These favourability rates are due, in part, to the board’s ability to give applications a fresh new look, hear testimony and receive new evidence.
As independent adjudicators, board members are not bound by the department’s decisions and will change them to benefit veterans if there is credible evidence. We recognize that despite the generous aspects of the legislation, not all applications will be successful and some people will remain dissatisfied. However, we are committed to doing our very best to ensure those coming before us are treated fairly and have the benefit of all their rights to compensation for service-related disabilities.
John Larlee, Chairman Veterans Review and Appeal Board Charlottetown, P.E.I. Tel: (613) 232-5952 Fax: (613) 232-9055
OnLine Database