Evidence of meeting #14 for Veterans Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
There's never been any downtime because of that?
Noon
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Okay, good.
You talked about your decisions that you make, and you analyze those decisions. Have you taken a look at it from all the decisions you've made? If you look at it scientifically and say, “Okay, this is our mean, this is our median, this is the most common type we see, these are repetitive strain injuries”, can you give us those percentages?
Noon
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Not really, because we see such a small subset of conditions that the department receives applications for. That's a scientific or data question that is probably best asked at the department's level, because they see all 30,000 applications and can talk about the larger population.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Do you think it would be of any benefit to veterans to know that this type of injury really doesn't fall in...and where they could have that information?
12:15 p.m.
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Cumulative trauma conditions... I don't think there is any type of injury that by definition wouldn't qualify for benefits. The facts of the case have to be looked at. If an individual was in a car accident unrelated to their service, then the related conditions won't be entitled. If an individual is in a car accident that was part of their service duties, then the related conditions will be covered.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Let's say we're dealing with a trooper who's sitting and driving a tank all day long, and he's cramped in small quarters, bouncing around in a tank all day with poor suspension and banging his head on this and that while wearing a helmet, etc. When he finally comes out and has a car accident, how do you determine if it's because he's been driving around in the tank that caused his osteoarthritis, or it's the fact of the car accident that caused the osteoarthritis?
12:15 p.m.
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
The answer to that question may not be all of one or all of the other. Without calling up particular cases, it may well be that a panel would say that the service partially contributed to the osteoarthritis. The practical reality is that we all suffer from osteoarthritis—it's just a function of our being—and the question we have to ask is to what degree service contributed to the onset of that condition.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Now when you said panel, what did you mean by panel?
12:15 p.m.
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
I meant the individual panel hearing the case.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
It's the two people who are hearing it?
12:15 p.m.
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
It would be either that or the appeal panel.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Now we're going back to my original question. If neither of the two people who are hearing the case has any medical training or is trained in that way, how are they making that decision?
12:15 p.m.
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
They make the decision based upon the facts of the case. They're not making a diagnosis with respect to the condition. The diagnosis of osteoarthritis is plainly made. They are required to evaluate the evidence put before them, just as a judge would in the normal course of circumstances in which credible medical evidence is led saying that this condition may or may not be related entirely to service.
They're also guided by the entitlement eligibility guidelines, which set out the requirements for determining whether osteoarthritis might be related to accumulated joint trauma. They factually say that if an individual did the following things for the following number of hours a day over a particular period of time, then there is a relationship to service.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
Mr. Vandal, you have six minutes. You said you may split the time, but six minutes goes quickly.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
First of all, my apologies for being late. I was running from a heritage committee meeting that went past the time.
Mr. Jarmyn, first of all, thank you for your commitment to the country. You are the chairperson of the Appeal Board?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
It's since April of last year.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
In 2014-15 the Federal Court directed the board to rehear two of the four decisions that had been appealed, and over the years the court has ordered a rehearing of more than 65% of the decisions it has reviewed. That strikes me as being a very high number. Can you offer an explanation or speak to this?
12:15 p.m.
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
I think there's been, as I say, since the reforms in 2011-12, a fairly dramatic change in the way the board approached things.
A couple of things happened. First of all, with the initial issues with respect to revision, some of that that comes from the fact that new legislation was brought in in 2006. That affected the overall approaches to entitlement. There has been some sort of interpretative back and forth as well.
But for example, in the year just closing, 2015-16, there were 10 cases taken to Federal Court. The board's decision was upheld in eight. Of the two that were returned to the board, one is actually about the pure legal question, which had never been adjudicated by the board before, about the effect of the benefits granted by another organization on the benefits granted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. We reheard the case in accordance with the instructions and carried on from there.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
You are saying, then, that it's because of the legislation that has gradually changed over the years. You also said something about a difference in the way the board heard the evidence.
12:20 p.m.
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
No. In 2011-12 we began to.... The organization is a relatively new one. It was founded in 1995. I think things just carried on. There was a significant impetus to look at how we did business in the 2008, 2009, 2010 period. This committee went through a fairly lengthy study. The veterans ombudsman went through a fairly lengthy study. We built upon all that to improve the way we did our work, including the handling of Federal Court decisions, including the designation of leading and noteworthy decisions, and including our commitment to plain language.
All those things went together, and there has been a really dramatic change, from what I can see and from what the numbers show, in both the number of cases that go to Federal Court and the number of cases that are returned to the board.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Veterans can speak at a review hearing, but not at an appeal hearing. Why is that?
12:20 p.m.
Acting Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
It's because of the way the statute is written. At the review hearing they give oral evidence. That having been said, they can still submit evidence. I often see statements from veterans and some of their colleagues who may have observed the incident in question. So we take statements from veterans; we just don't take testimony.