Source: http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php?topic=3445.15
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 22:20:02
Document Index: 215859838

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art; 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art; 3']

Yannick DesgagnÃ©
Sylvain Chartrand CD »
Author Topic: Yannick DesgagnÃ© (Read 20656 times)
Unick333
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -Answer intervention Services Ombudsman VÃ©tÃ©rans-
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2012, 02:27:40 PM »
OMB12-007844
Office 1560 Suite 1500
360 Albert Street 360 Alben Street
K1R7X7
2759, rue Vaudreuil
JonquiÃ¨re, QC
G7S 2A2
As agreed during your telephone conversation with our analystinitial interventions of April 19, we inform you in writing theconclusion of our review of your file your complaint with VeteransAffairs Canada (VAC). You have given us VAC has unfairlyend your rehabilitation program and in doing so, also put an end to yourallocations of revenue loss.
It has been a revision of several facts: Your statements that you have submitted,
. documents in your records physical VAC
. information annotated in the Service Delivery Network to(CSDN)
. Act rÃ©inserlion measures and compensate military andCanadian Forces Veterans (CFMVRCA)
. Regulations Re-establishment and Compensationmilitary veterans and Canadian Forces (RMRIMVFC)
. the Policy Manual veterans' pension (VPPM)and,
. National Operational Process.
You find sections and articles that apply to this decision
The 18 and May 27, 2010, you signed two agreements with ACC.
. an agreement concerning the physical component,
. the second addressing the psychological component.
The agreements were intended to document the steps required to achieve yourobjectives on which you and your case manager (CM) have been setagreement. By signing the agreements, you are committed to participate fully andactively in your plan.
The agreements included:
. a psychological evaluation and,
. therapy with CASA.
June 23, 2010, you had a telephone conversation with your GC duringwhich you were informed that your participation in therapy was to CASAa priority. According to the notes of RPSC, you then informed ACC that yourhealth care specialists recommended that you reportiez therapy tothat you can focus on physical appearance have occurred in your rehabilitation. ACCdoes not object to this recommendation, however, was asked ilvoussend documentation of your health experts reflect thisrecommendation within 15 days. Request that you also received in writing,by Purolator.
These recommendations are not received by the Department that you redid thewritten request at least two occasions either and THE July 30, 2010 August 24, 2010.Otherwise, the Department will conduct your program I'annulationrehabilitation and will end the fund for loss of income.
From that date, the Department is committed to trying to get you informationarrangements required for your rehabilitation plan are met.Unfortunately, this was not the case and a letter dated May 27, 2011, youinformed that since the recommendations have still not been received ACC,your rehabilitation plan will be canceled as of June 27, 2011 for lack ofparticipation in the program and consequently, your income loss benefitswill expire on that date.
Since you signed tentative agreement between ACC and the client for therapy toCASA and make a psychiatric assessment but you have resigned inindicating that your health experts recommended you not to follow theCASA therapy but have not provided written evidence as required, VAChave ended the program according to the laws (Article 17 and 18 of the CFMVRCA) andRegulation (14 (1) (a) of RMRIMVFC). ACC has determined that you be not partakersyour program to fully succeed in its objectives.
It was noted that a revision you want to level 3 by the Office of Ombudsman. Please note that we do not have level 3 in ouroffice. Your file has been reviewed by an analyst who has made a recommendation andYour file was then revised at the manager. According to the evidencepresent in your case, it was determined that you have been treatedfair. VAC's decision is consistent with laws and regulations that manage therehabilitation program. Your file with us will be closed. Asmentioned above, you will find the items that apply to you.
Please accept, Mr. DesgagnÃ©, greetings.
Manager of initial interventions
Office of Veterans I'ombudsman
AnnexAct
RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPENSATION AND VETERANS MILITATRESCANADIAN FORCESRehabilitation
Services and Vocational Assistance
17. The Minister may, in prescribed circumstances, cancel any programrehabilitation or vocational assistance.
Allowance for loss of income
End of the allocation
18. (3) Subject to subsection (4) and section 21, le veteran is no longer entitled to allocation from the earliest of the following days:
b) the time the program is canceled;
21.The Minister may, in prescribed circumstances, to cancel I'allocationloss of income paid under section 18.Loi on RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPENSATION AND VETERANS MILITATRESCANADIAN FORCES
14. (1) For the purposes of section 17 of the Act, the Minister may cancel anyrehabilitation program or professional assistance in the circumstances following:
Measures Act of rehabilitation and compensation of Members and VeteransCanadian ForcesMANUAL OF POLICIES OF BOARD OF VETERANS â€“ VOLUME FIVE
3.1.3 Plan of the rehabilitation program
Cancellation Plan Rehabilitation Program
In addition, section 17 of the Act and section 14 (1) of the Regulations provide that aplan may be canceled if:
b) the person does not participate in the program to succeed in fully objectives;
4.1.9 Benefits Program - Allocation of income for pearl
3.12 The allowance for loss of income may be canceled if:
c) the rehabilitation plan or vocational assistance plan was canceled. Payment of lost revenue for allocation cease on the date of cancellation Plan.
NATIONAL OPERATIONAL PROCESSUS
Process cancellation of the Rehabilitation Program and the allowance for loss of income.
The CS may cancel an action plan focused on rehabilitation or plancoaching for the following reasons:
b) the person does not participate to the extent necessary to achieve the plan;
1. If any of the above applies, the CS must contact the customer(By phone or in person) for the consequences that may I'informerensue, ie, d. I'annulation plan and I'allocation for loss of income. If thenon-compliance continues, the SC will decide, in consultation with I'ESC, if they reject theresponse plan focuses on rehabilitation or vocational assistance.2. The CS sends a letter of cancellation - 30 days notice letter (CDN 8007) to the customerto I'aviser that, within thirty calendar days, the intervention plan focusedon rehabilitation or vocational assistance plan will be canceled, whichincludes I'allocation for loss of income. The client is asked to contact CS to discuss the situation.
Services Ombudsman Veterans
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -RÃ©ponse demande de rÃ©vision Ã l'initiative du ministre-
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2012, 11:10:40 AM »
PROTÃ‰GÃ‰S - RENSEIGI{EMENTS PERSONNELS
NUMÃ‰RO DE DOSSIER : 5549001
Bureau de secteur de QuÃ©bec
Complexe Samuel-Holland
3e Ã©tage
305-830 Av Ernest-Gagnon
QuÃ©bec QC G1S 3R3
Monsieur Yannick DesgagnÃ©
2159, rue Vaudreuil
JonquiÃ¨re (QuÃ©bec) G7S 2A2
Monsieur DesgagnÃ©,
Nous accusons rÃ©ception de votre lettre datÃ©e du 21 fÃ©vrier 2072. que nous avons lu avec
attention.Nous prenons constat du fait que vous n'Ãªtes pas satisfait des dÃ©cisions rendues. Cependant Ã la rÃ©vision de votre dossier et en vertu du Processus de rÃ©vision -Partie 2 de la Loi sur les mesures de rÃ©insertion et d'indemnisation des militaires et vÃ©tÃ©rans des Forces canadienne,s, vos droits de rÃ©vision en tant qu'ancien combattant, en ce qui a trait au plan de rÃ©adaptation et Ã I'allocation pour perte de revenus, ont Ã©tÃ© respectÃ©s, aux termes de la Loi (LMRIMVFC) et du RÃ¨glement connexe (RÃ¨glemenT sur les mesures de rÃ©insertion et d'indemnisation des militaires et vÃ©tÃ©rans
des Forces canadiennes -RMRIMVFC).
Comme vous le savez, Anciens Combattants Canada a rendu, le 27 mai 2011, une dÃ©cision selon laquelle le programme de rÃ©adaptation cesserait dans les 30 jours suivants, soit Ã compter du 27 juin 201 1, et que cette annulation entraÃ®nerait la fin de votre allocation pour perte de revenus. Dans une lettre subsÃ©quente, datÃ©e du 2 juin 2011, Anciens Combattants Canada a confirmÃ© la dÃ©cision selon laquelle le paiement de l'allocation pour perte de revenus cesserait Ã compter du 27 juin 2011, ce qui a entraÃ®nÃ© un trop-payÃ© de 250,44 $. Le plan de rÃ©adaptation a Ã©tÃ© annulÃ© et le versement d'une allocation pour perle de revenus a cessÃ© en respect de la Loi, du RÃ¨glement
connexe et des politiques du ministÃ¨re.
ConformÃ©ment Ã l'article 83 de la Loi et aux ConformÃ©ment Ã l'article 83 de la Loi et aux procÃ©dures dÃ©crites aux articles 68 et 69 du RÃ¨glement, et vous avez Ã©tÃ© informÃ© en tant que requÃ©rant, que vous pouviez demander la rÃ©vision de ces dÃ©cisions Ã deux diffÃ©rents paliers.
Le 20 juin 2011, vous avez demandÃ© une rÃ©vision de ces deux dÃ©cisions. Dans le cadre du processus de rÃ©vision, ces dÃ©cisions ont donc Ã©tÃ© rÃ©examinÃ©es Ã chaque palier de rÃ©vision, par des reprÃ©sentants d'Anciens Combattants Canada qui n'ont pas pris part aux premiÃ¨res dÃ©cisions, et ce en vertu du Processus de rÃ©vision - Partie 2 dela Loi sur les mesures de rÃ©insertion et d'indemnisation des militaires et vÃ©tÃ©rans des Forces Canadiennes, arlicle 10 " La rÃ©vision ne doit pas Ãªtre effectuÃ©e par le mÃªme reprÃ©sentant qui a pris la dÃ©cision faisant l'objeT d'une rÃ©vision ou qui a pris part Ã cette dÃ©cision. La rÃ©vision Ã chacun des niveaux doit Ãªtre effectuÃ©e par un reprÃ©sentant n'ayant pas pris part aux dÃ©cisions antÃ©rieures."
Une dÃ©cision issue d'une rÃ©vision de premier palier a Ã©tÃ© rendu le 30 aoÃ»t 2011, confirmant les dÃ©cisions initiales d'annuler le plan de rÃ©adaptation et de cesser le versement de l'allocation pour perte de revenus. La lettre de dÃ©cision, que vous avez reÃ§ue en date du 30 aoÃ»t 2011, vous mentionne clairement les preuves et les renseignements qui ont Ã©tÃ© pris en considÃ©ration ainsi que les raisons pour lesquelles la dÃ©cision originale a Ã©tÃ© maintenue.
Le l" novembre 20II, vous avez demandÃ© une rÃ©vision de la dÃ©cision issue de la rÃ©vision de premier palier. Une dÃ©cision issue d'une rÃ©vision de deuxiÃ¨me palier a Ã©tÃ© rendue le 20 janvier 2012, confirmant les dÃ©cisions initiales et la dÃ©cision issue de la rÃ©vision de premier palier, pour laquelle vous avez reÃ§u une lettre. Les raisons de maintenir la dÃ©cision initiale vous ont Ã©tÃ© clairement mentionnÃ©es dans cette lettre. Joint Ã cette lettre, se trouvait la feuille de travail de l'agent (avec les dÃ©tails des faits et des Ã©lÃ©ments dans votre dossier, pertinents Ã cette demande).Veuillez prendre note qu'Ã la relecture attentive de ces documents, vous avrez rÃ©ponses aux interrogations soulevÃ©es dans votre lettre Ã ce sujet.
Ã€ la lumiÃ¨re de ce qui prÃ©cÃ¨de, vos droits de rÃ©vision comme ancien combattant, en ce qui a trait au plan de rÃ©adaptation et Ã l'allocation pour perte de revenus, aux termes de la Loi sur les mesures de rÃ©insertion et d'indemnisation des militaires et vÃ©tÃ©rans des Forces canadiennes (LMRIMVFC) et du RÃ¨glement sur les mesures de rÃ©insertion et d'indemnisation des militaires et vÃ©tÃ©rans des Forces canadiennes -RMRIMVFC, ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©finitivement Ã©puisÃ©s, le second palier de rÃ©vision d'Ancien Combattant Canada Ã©tant le dernier niveau de rÃ©vision sur demande. Compte tenu de l'annulation du plan de rÃ©adaptation et de la cessation de l'allocation pour perte de revenus, aucune autre somme n'est exigible du MinistÃ¨re.
Si vous n'Ãªtes toujours pas satisfait de la dÃ©cision, vous pouvez consulter un avocat afin de dÃ©terminer quels autres recours, le cas Ã©chÃ©ant, s'offrent Ã vous.
Veuillez agrÃ©er, Monsieur DesgagnÃ©, I'expression de nos sentiments les meilleurs.
Johane Verville
Directrice Bureau de secteur de QuÃ©bec
Anciens Ã‡ombattants Canada
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ©-
« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2012, 11:13:32 AM »
PROTECTED - PERSONAL INFORMATIONS
FILE NUMBER: 5549001
Quebec Area Office
Complex Samuel-Holland
Quebec QC G1S 3R3
JonquiÃ¨re (Quebec) G7S 2A2
Mr. DesgagnÃ©
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 21, 2072. We have read with
attention.Nous take statement that you are not satisfied with the decisions. However the review of your case and under-Review Process Part 2 of the Act Re-establishment and Compensation military veterans and Canadian Forces, s, your review rights as a veteran, in regard to the rehabilitation plan and I'allocation for loss of income, have been met, under the Act (CFMVRCA) and Regulations (Regulations Re-establishment and Compensation Members and Veterans
CF-RMRIMVFC).
As you know, Veterans Affairs Canada rendered May 27, 2011, a decision that the rehabilitation program would cease within 30 days or after 27 June 201 1, and that this cancellation would mean the end of your allocation for loss of income. In a subsequent letter, dated June 2, 2011, Veterans Affairs Canada upheld the decision that the payment of the allowance for loss of income would cease as of June 27, 2011, which resulted in an overpayment of 250.44 $. The rehabilitation plan was canceled and the payment of an allowance for pearl income ceased in compliance with the Act, Regulations
and related policies of the Department.
In accordance with Article 83 of the Act and Pursuant to Article 83 of the Act and the procedures described in Articles 68 and 69 of the Regulations, and you have been notified as an applicant, you could request a review of these decisions on two different levels.
June 20, 2011, you requested a review of both decisions. As part of the review process, these decisions have been reviewed at each level of review by representatives from Veterans Affairs Canada who are not involved in earlier decisions, and under Review Process - Part 2 Measures Act beyond rehabilitation and compensation of military veterans and Canadian Forces, 10 arlicle "The revision should not be performed by the same representative who made the decision being reviewed or who took part in this decision. revision at each level must be performed by a representative who has not participated in previous decisions. "
A decision after a first-level review was made August 30, 2011, confirming the initial decisions to cancel the rehabilitation plan and stop the payment of the allowance for loss of income. The decision letter you received dated August 30, 2011, you clearly mentions the evidence and information that were considered and the reasons why the original decision was upheld.
On the 1 November 2011, you requested a review of the decision following the first-level review. A decision upon review of the second tier was made January 20, 2012, confirming the initial decisions and the decision from the first-level review, for which you received a letter. Reasons to uphold the original decision you have been clearly mentioned in this letter. Attached to this letter, was the worksheet of the agent (with the detailed facts and elements in your file, relevant to this application). Please note that the careful reading of these documents, you avrez answers to the questions raised in your letter on this subject.
In light of the foregoing, your review rights as a veteran in regard to the rehabilitation plan and the allowance for loss of income, under the Act Re-establishment and Compensation military veterans and Canadian Forces (CFMVRCA) and Regulations Re-establishment and Compensation military and Canadian Forces veterans-RMRIMVFC were definitely exhausted, the second level of review of Veteran Canada being the last level review upon request. Given the cancellation of the rehabilitation plan and the cessation of the allowance for loss of income, no further amount is payable from the Ministry.
If you are still not satisfied with the decision, you can consult a lawyer to determine what other remedies, if any, available to you.
Please accept, Mr. DesgagnÃ©, the expression of our feelings best.
Director Bureau of Quebec sector
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -RÃ©ponse PR 2012- Manque d'information -
« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2012, 11:23:14 AM »
PROTEGES . RENSÃ§IGNEMENTS PERSONNELS
NUMERO DE DOSSIER : 5549001
Bureau de district de QuÃ©bec
M. YANNICK DESGAGNE
2759 VAUDREUIL RUE
JONQUIERE QC G7S 2A2
Objet : Demande de participation au Programme de rÃ©adaptation
reÃ§ue au Bureau de secteur le 9 mai 2012
Dans le but de rendre une dÃ©cision Ã©clairÃ©e Ã l'Ã©gard de votre
demande de participation au programme de rÃ©adaptation, nous
avons besoin tel que mentionnÃ© Ã la section F du formulaire de
demande, d'un rapport mÃ©dical rÃ©cent de votre mÃ©decin traitant (datÃ©
de moins de 6 mois ). Ce rapport doit donner un aperÃ§u de votre Ã©tat
de santÃ© actuel incluant les diagnostics ou les problÃ¨mes de santÃ©,
le pronostic, ainsi que les rÃ©cents traitements reÃ§us et ce, pour
chacun des problÃ¨mes de santÃ© pour lesquels vous demandez Ã Ãªtre
admis au programme de rÃ©adaptation. ll devrait aussi fournir toute
autre recommandation de traitement ou de transfert vers d'autres
professionnels qui permettrait de vous aider dans votre rÃ©adaptation.
Je joins donc Ã cet effet, un formulaire d'Ã©valuation du mÃ©decin de
famille (VAC 1416)
Si des frais sont associÃ©s Ã la complÃ©tion de ce formulaire, nous
pourrons les rembourser conformÃ©ment Ã nos critÃ¨res. Veuillez
demander Ã votre mÃ©decin de joindre la facture au rapport puis
d'acheminer le tout Ã l'adresse suivante :
Bureau de distnct de QuÃ©bec
Complexe Samuel-Hol land
Veuillez aussi complÃ©ter le formulaire de divulgation de
renseignements VAC (1413) ci-joint et nous faire parvenir tous les
documents requis dans les 30 jours suivant la rÃ©ception de la
prÃ©sente lettre.
Je vous remercie de votre collaboration. Si vous avez des questions,
n'hÃ©sitez pas Ã communiquer avec nous en composant sans frais le
1-866-522-2022.
Je vous prie d'agrÃ©er, Monsieur, nos salutations distinguÃ©es.
Carol Savard
N.B. Cette demande me parraÃ®t Ãªtre une Ã©tude approfondie, le bien fondÃ© de ma demande de PR est mon genoux droit. Cette situation m'incommode d'avantage car venait plus de 20 jours dÃ©passÃ© les dÃ©lais de traitement d'admissibilitÃ© au PR. L'Ã©tude approfondie des besoins venant aprÃ¨s l'admissibilitÃ©, logiquement. Vous comprendrez que je me sens encore lÃ©sÃ© dans cette situation. Et je trouve ironique que le ministÃ¨re me rÃ©ponde qu'il connait trÃ¨s bien mes besoins, lors d'une demande de dÃ©lais de traitement concernant ma nouvelle demande de PR. On se fout de ma gueule!
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -Request to Participate Rehabilitation Program 6 june 2012-
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2012, 11:47:38 AM »
PROTECTED. PERSONAL RENSÃ§IGNEMENTSFILE
NUMBER: 5549001
CanadaQuebec District Office
3rd Floor305-830 Av Ernest-Gagnon
Mr. YANNICK DESGAGNE
2759 VAUDREUIL STREET
Subject: Request to Participate in Rehabilitation Program received at the Area Office May 9, 2012.
In order to make an informed decision regarding your request to participate in the rehabilitation program, we needed as mentioned in Section F of the form application, a recent medical report from your doctor (dated under 6 months). This report should outline your state current health including diagnostics or health problems, prognosis, and recent treatment history and, for each of the health problems for which you are applying for admitted to the rehabilitation program. It should also provide any.
Another recommendation for treatment or transfer to other professionals who would help you in your rehabilitation.I have attached there to, an evaluation form physician family (VAC 1416).
If fees are associated with the completion of this form, we can repay them according to our criteria. Please ask your doctor to attach the bill to the report then to route it to the following address:
Bureau of Quebec district
Samuel Holland complex
Please also complete the disclosure form information VAC (1413) attached and send us all required documents within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us toll 1-866-522-2022.
Please accept, Sir, Yours faithfully.
Case Manager Attachments
NB This request seem to be a comprehensive study, the validity of my application for PR is my right knee. This bothers me because advantage was more than 20 days processing time exceeded eligibility to PR. Close examination of the eligibility requirements coming after, logically. You will understand that I still feel wronged in this situation. And I find it ironic that the Department responds that he knows me very well my needs, at a request processing times for my new application for PR. We kiding me!
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -Lettre Ã ACC de mon MÃ©decin traitant du 21 juin 2012-
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2012, 11:58:49 AM »
OBJET : Monsieur Yannick DesgagnÃ© (1976-06-22)
Ã€ qui de droit,
La prÃ©sente lettre se veut un complÃ©ment d'informations au formulaire rempli ci-joint,
J'agis Ã titre de mÃ©decin traitant pour monsieur DesgagnÃ© depuis 1 mois maintenant.
Nous avons eu jusqu'Ã prÃ©sent 2 rencontres qui ont permises de dresser un portrait
de la situation actuelle de monsieur.
Ce qui ressort sommairement est le fait que monsieur DesgagnÃ© a subi un trauma
du genou droit en 1996 dans le cadre de l'exercice de ses fonctions dans les forces
armÃ©es canadiennes. De ce trauma est dÃ©coulÃ©e une dÃ©chirure partielle du ligament
croisÃ© antÃ©rieur. Depuis cet accident, monsieur Ã©prouve des douleurs importantes
au niveau du genou qui se sont ensuite transfÃ©rÃ©es au niveau lombaire secondaire Ã
une posture antalgique inadÃ©quate.
Par la suite, plusieurs accidents de travail sont venus compliquer le tableau, ajoutant
de nouvelles douleurs cervico-dorsale importantes. ll semble que, durant la pÃ©riode
de rÃ©adaptation octroyÃ© par ACC, monsieur n'ait pas bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'une Ã©valuation des
sÃ©quelles fonctionnelles et de l'adaptation de ses capacitÃ©s.
Depuis ce temps, monsieur vit dans l'insÃ©curitÃ© financiÃ¨re, ce qui gÃ©nÃ¨re un niveau
d'anxiÃ©tÃ© important qui contribue sans aucun doute Ã l'augmentation des douleurs.
La perte de ses capacitÃ©s motrices a entraÃ®nÃ© un tableau multi-systÃ¨me qui pourrait
faire penser Ã la fibromyalgie. En effet, il prÃ©sente 15/18 points douloureux, des
symptÃ´mes urinaires irritatif, de I'hyperhidrose, des migraines et de I'insomnie.
Devant ce cas complexe, monsieur bÃ©nÃ©ficierait d'abord d'une rÃ©adaptation ciblÃ©e
sur ses douleurs, une approche multidisciplinaire avec psychologue,travailleur
social, physiothÃ©rapeute et massothÃ©rapeute serait souhaitable. Dans un deuxiÃ¨me
temps, of devrait procÃ©der Ã une Ã©valuation fonctionnelle de monsieur DesgagnÃ©
par un physiatre de prÃ©fÃ©rence. Ã€ noter que monsieur est en attente d'une expertise
en orthopÃ©die mais qu'il n'a pas les moyens pour l'instant d'en couvrir les frais. Elle
pourrait toutefois Ãªtre trÃ¨s pertinente dans ce contexte. De mon cÃ´tÃ©, j'assure un
suivi de la gestion de la douleur et n'hÃ©siterai pas Ã le rÃ©fÃ©rer Ã la clinique de la
douleur ainsi qu'en physiatrie selon l'Ã©volution.
N'hÃ©sitez pas Ã me contacter au 695-8217 si vous avez besoin de plus amples
Je vous remercie et vous prie d'agrÃ©er mes salutations distinguÃ©es.
Alexandra GagnÃ©
AG/kf
DictÃ©e le 21 juin 2012
Transcrite le 21 juin 2012
NB. J'ai ajoutÃ© en bas de page, que le Dr. GagnÃ© Ã oubliÃ© de signifier que le tableau de douleur vient d'Ãªtre aggravÃ© par un accicent de la route le 27 octobre 2011, avec une contusion cervicale-dorsale-lombaire. Informations dÃ©ja fournit. De plus, je demande que l'ostÃ©opathie soit inclue dans les soins qui seront autorisÃ©s car j'ai eu de bons rÃ©sultats dans le passÃ©. Merci de votre considÃ©ration et d'agir dans l'urgence. J'ai Ã©tÃ© parter le document directement au District ACC de Bagoville le 22 juin 2012.
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ©
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2012, 12:04:52 PM »
SUBJECT: Yannick DesgagnÃ© (1976-06-22)
This letter is intended to complement information in completed form enclosed,I act as a physician for sir DesgagnÃ© for 1 month now. We had two meetings so far have allowed to paint a picturethe current situation sir.
What emerges is briefly that Mr. DesgagnÃ© suffered traumaright knee in 1996 as part of the line of duty in the military Canadian armed. Of this trauma is dÃ©coulÃ©e a partial tear of the ligament ACL. Since the accident, Mr. experiencing severe pain at the knee which are then transferred to secondary lumbarantalgic posture inadequate.
Subsequently, several accidents have complicated the picture, adding new pain cervicothoracic important. It seems that during the period rehabilitation provided by ACC, Mr. has not received an assessment functional sequelles and adaptation capabilities.
Since then, man lives in financial insecurity, which generates a level significant anxiety, which undo ubtedly contributes to increased pain.The loss of motor skills has resulted in a multi-array system that could to think of fibromyalgia. Indeed, it has 15/18 tender points, their ritative urinary symptoms, of I'hyperhidrose, migraines and I'insomnie.
Faced with this complex case, Mr. benefit first from a targeted rehabilitation of his pain, a multidisciplinary approach with worker or psychologist social, physical therapist and massage therapist would be desirable. In a second time of should conduct a functional assessment of Mr. DesgagnÃ© preferably by a physiatrist. Note that this gentleman is waiting for an expertin orthopedics but it did not afford the time to cover the costs.
It however, could be very relevant in this context. For my part, I assure amonitoring the management of pain and will not hesitate to refer him to the clinic pain as well as physiatry evolution.
Feel free to contact me at 695-8217 if you need more information.
AG / kf
Dictation June 21, 2012
Transcribed June 21, 2012
NB. I added in a foot note, that Dr. GagnÃ© forgot to mean that the picture of pain has been compounded by a road accicent October 27, 2011, with a bruised neck-dorsal-lumbar. Information already provided. In addition, I ask that osteopathy is included in care that will be allowed because I had good results in the past. Thank you for your consideration and act urgently. I was bring document directly to ACC District Bagoville June 22, 2012.
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© - Ã€ L'honorable Steven Blaney novembre 2011-
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2012, 02:36:15 PM »
M.Yannick DesgagnÃ©
2176 rue de Montfort
JonquiÃ¨re (Qc)
G7X 4P8
418-376-1438
14e Ã‰tage
66, rue Slater
JonquiÃ¨re, le 22-11-2011
Objet : Seconde rÃ©vision d'annuler tous mes programmes avec votre ministÃ¨re du
Honorable M.Blaney.
Cette lettre fait suite Ã celle de M.Richard Giroux, du 08 septembre 2011 (ANNEXE#1), et de la lettre de votre ministÃ¨re, du 1er novembre 2011 (ANNEXE#2) .
J'ai dÃ©cidÃ© de communiquer avec vous pour vous faire part de mon histoire qui concerne la gestion discutable de votre ministÃ¨re et sa dÃ©cision du 27 mai 2011(ANNEXE#3), dont la dÃ©cision fut maintenue dans la lettre du 30-08-2011(ANNEXE#4) d'annuler tous mes programmes pour le motif que je n'aurais soi-disant pas participÃ© au plan d'intervention Ã©laborÃ© par l'Ã©quipe de gestion concernant mon programme de rÃ©adaptation.
Je sais pertinemment que votre intervention n'est pas obligÃ©e, Ã©tant donnÃ© que cette dÃ©cision relÃ¨ve du chapitre II du LMRIMV, et que, normalement, vous n'avez Ã intervenir qu'au chapitre III, pour Ãªtre bref.
Mais votre position de ministre, et donc de responsable devant le pouvoir lÃ©gislatif de la bonne exÃ©cution des services que vous dirigez me mÃ¨ne naturellement Ã vous demander de prendre l'initiative d'intervenir auprÃ¨s du comitÃ© de rÃ©vision, et j'ose espÃ©rer que vous m'accorderez votre attention et votre comprÃ©hension afin que ce comitÃ© rende la juste et bonne dÃ©cision.
Je suis de ceux qui ont apprÃ©ciÃ© votre geste pour Pascal Lacoste et, jusqu'Ã maintenant, je me suis toujours retenu de rendre publique mon histoire et je souhaite que Ã§a reste ainsi. SincÃ¨rement et malgrÃ© moi, je crains que je dois procÃ©der par d'autres mesures si la dÃ©cision de votre ministÃ¨re demeure la mÃªme.
Ceci Ã©tant dit sous toutes rÃ©serves, ce n'est point une menace mais une Ã©ventualitÃ© car je demeure absolument convaincu que je suis victime de reprÃ©sailles de la part de mon groupe gestionnaires ACC. C'est pourquoi je demande votre attention et d'y voir de ma part la motivation sincÃ¨re que nous trouvions Ã nous entendre dans le meilleurs intÃ©rÃªts de chacun des partis, moi et votre ministÃ¨re.
Je dÃ©plore que votre ministÃ¨re ne recommande une expertise mÃ©dicale avant de se prononcer sur une annulation totale des programmes dont je disposais. Je comprendrais une suspension temporaire de la rÃ©adaptation, mais la continuitÃ© de la compensation financiÃ¨re dans l'attente de l'examen et de l'approbation de mon mÃ©decin traitant, comme la Loi l'exige dans un mandat comme celui que le ministÃ¨re a acceptÃ©, en ce qui me concerne.
Face Ã la dÃ©cision rendue par votre ministÃ¨re le 27 mai 2011, qui a Ã©tÃ© maintenue le 30 aoÃ»t 2011, qui manque totalement de clartÃ© et oÃ¹ l'on m'accuse de ne pas avoir participÃ© au plan d'intervention, j'ai donc tentÃ© de prouver, dans mes lettres prÃ©cÃ©dentes et demandes de rÃ©visions;
1) que je n'ai jamais cessÃ© de participer Ã mon programme.
2) que j'ai du m'adresser Ã votre prÃ©dÃ©cesseur pour que mon dossier redevienne actif et qu'un agent me soit attribuÃ©.
3) J'ai tentÃ© de prouver que mon groupe gestionnaire a cessÃ© de s'occuper de mon dossier jusqu'Ã ce que la date limite du plan d'intervention soit atteinte pour valider le motif recherchÃ© de non participation.
4) J'ai dÃ©montrÃ© qu'une invaliditÃ© importante, me concernant, fut la conclusion de la rÃ©adaptation physique, auprÃ¨s de la Clinique George Morissette de QuÃ©bec en 2008, que votre ministÃ¨re Ã sÃ©lectionnÃ©, et que ce rapport fut occultÃ© pendant plus de 9 mois. Remarquez qu'aucune prise en considÃ©ration de ce fait encore jusqu'Ã aujourd'hui. (ANNEXE NÂ°5)
5) J'ai tentÃ© de prouver qu'il y a eu un nombre important d'irrÃ©gularitÃ©s dans la gestion de mon dossier de la part de mon groupe gestionnaire, dont la pÃ©riode de 10 mois durant lesquels mon dossier Ã©tait classÃ© orphelin, donc sans aucun suivi. J'ai donc soulevÃ© clairement la gestion problÃ©matique Ã©vidente, je veux dire que, entre 2006 Ã 2011, votre ministÃ¨re aurait eu l'opportunitÃ© d'annuler tous mes programmes bien avant ce jour si rÃ©ellement je n'avais pas participÃ© ou que tout autre motif soit valable pour annuler mes programmes.
6) J'ai tentÃ© de prouver que le ministÃ¨re refuse d'adapter le plan d'intervention Ã mes besoins, et qu'il a tentÃ© d'imposer des soins inappropriÃ©s comme un examen psychiatrique et une dÃ©sintoxication que j'ai toutes deux contestÃ©es dÃ¨s leurs apparitions. (ANNEXES NÂ°6) le groupe gestionnaire n'a pas apportÃ© les modifications justifiÃ©s, (ANNEXES NÂ°7), et se sont contentÃ© d'attendre la date qu'ils avaient fixÃ©s dans la derniÃ¨re entente.
Maintenant, mon problÃ¨me n'est plus de valider ma nÃ©cessitÃ© de rÃ©adaptation mais de prouver mon intÃ©rÃªt et ma motivation Ã ce qu'un tel programme me soit attribuÃ©, ou en lâ€™occurrence, obtenir la continuitÃ© de ce programme dÃ©jÃ commencÃ©.
Je remarque que le comitÃ© de 1er palier, dans sa lettre du 30 aoÃ»t 2011, reconnaÃ®t lui-mÃªme qu'il n'a pas les compÃ©tences pour se prononcer sur ma condition. Pourtant, il dÃ©cide tout de mÃªme que le ministÃ¨re conserve sa position et refuse de reconnaÃ®tre le droit de la continuitÃ© de la compensation financiÃ¨re , malgrÃ© que je suis toujours dans l'incapacitÃ© de pratiquer un emploi rÃ©munÃ©rateur et de contribuer Ã la sociÃ©tÃ© ainsi que de jouir de la vie dÃ©cemment. Je vis dans des conditions prÃ©caires avec une condition physique dÃ©tÃ©riorÃ©e de faÃ§on importante, surtout si on compare en date de septembre 2006. Je crois que ce motif valide pertinemment la nÃ©cessitÃ© d'une Ã©valuation mÃ©dicale professionnelle avant d'annuler un seul de mes programmes.
Que le ministÃ¨re prouve que je ne suis plus dans le besoin de rÃ©adaptation et/ou que je suis apte au travail, mais qu'il ne m'abandonne pas comme les faits le dÃ©montrent dans le cas prÃ©sent...
Il m'est absolument impossible de dormir tranquille, je ne cesse de rÃªver que votre ministÃ¨re Ã conspirÃ© contre ma personne pour que les choses en soient ainsi. Je ne vois plus la lumiÃ¨re au bout du tunnel sans que quelqu'un me vienne en aide. Je crois que votre ministÃ¨re s'en portait garant en 2006. Aujourd'hui, le rÃ©sultat me laisse dans la souffrance quotidienne. Ceci n'est pas du Ã un faible potentiel de rÃ©adaptation de ma part, mais bien Ã cause de la gestion problÃ©matique et l'acharnement de votre ministÃ¨re Ã fermer mon dossier.
Je considÃ¨re que l'annulation de tous mes programmes fait partie des reprÃ©sailles envers ma personnes, pour les propos que j'ai tenus dans les lettres que j'ai adressÃ©es Ã votre ministÃ¨re et votre prÃ©dÃ©cesseur ; lettres qui vous prouveront clairement que je n'ai pas cessÃ© de participer mais que, au contraire, j'ai tout fait pour que mon programme redÃ©marre adÃ©quatement et avec continuitÃ©.
Tout ceci a eu pour consÃ©quence que je suis devenu extrÃªmement mÃ©fiant concernant les services publiques, du fait de l'Ã©thique non exemplaire qui m'a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ©e trÃ¨s souvent.
J'ajoute que je reÃ§ois trÃ¨s mal le message qu'envoie votre ministÃ¨re, et qu'il serait pertinent que je partage mon avis avec d'autres personnes compÃ©tentes.
Je vous suggÃ¨re fortement de communiquer avec moi pour en discuter de personne Ã personne.
Pour une meilleure comprÃ©hension, il serait judicieux de consulter mes lettres prÃ©cÃ©dentes jointes Ã mon dossier. Si vous ne les avez pas, il me fera plaisir de vous les faire parvenir rapidement. Je suis prÃªt Ã discuter et de m'entendre avec vous.
Dans l'attente d'une intervention judicieuse de votre part, je juge qu'il est de ma responsabilitÃ© de dÃ©poser une plainte auprÃ¨s de la fonction publique concernant le comportement de certains membres de votre ministÃ¨re
Mes attentes sont claires et j'implore votre comprÃ©hension et intervention dans le dossier qui me concerne, car la dÃ©cision rendue par le ministÃ¨re ne relÃ¨ve pas du tribunal ACC et vous pouvez donc avoir l'initiative et le dernier mot.
Veuillez accepter mes sincÃ¨res salutations et mes vÅ“ux les meilleurs.
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© - L'honorable Steven Blaney -
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2012, 02:47:13 PM »
JonquiÃ¨re (QC)G7X 4P8
The Honorable Steven Blaney
14th Floor 66 Slater
JonquiÃ¨re, the 22-11-2011
Subject: Second Revision to cancel all my programs with your Department of M.Blaney.
This letter follows that of Mr. Richard Giroux, 08 September 2011 (ANNEX # 1), and letter from your department, November 1, 2011 (Appendix # 2).
I decided to contact you to share with you my story about the questionable management of your department and its decision of May 27, 2011 (Appendix # 3), whose decision was upheld in the letter dated 30-08-2011 (Appendix # 4) to cancel all my programs on the basis that I would supposedly not involved in the action plan developed by the management team regarding my rehabilitation program.
I know that your intervention is not required, since this decision is in Chapter II of LMRIMV, and that normally you have to intervene in Chapter III, to be brief.
But your position as Minister, and therefore accountable to the legislature for the proper performance of the services that you lead me naturally leads you to take the initiative to approach the review committee, and I hope you grant me your attention and understanding that this committee makes the fair and right decision.
I am among those who appreciated your gesture for Pascal Lacoste and so far, I have always chosen to not publish my story and I hope it stays that way. Sincerely and in spite of myself, I am afraid I must proceed with further action if the decision of your department remains the same. That being said without prejudice, it is not a threat but a possibility because I remain absolutely convinced that I am a victim of retaliation by ACC managers in my group. Therefore I request your attention and to see my part sincere motivation that we find to hear us in the best interests of each party, me and your ministry.
I regret that your department does not recommend a medical examination before deciding on a total cancellation of programs available to me. I understand a temporary suspension of rehabilitation, but the continuity of financial compensation pending review and approval of my physician, as required by the Act as a mandate that the Department has accepted in my case.
Faced with the decision of your ministry May 27, 2011, which was held August 30, 2011, which is anything but clear and when they accuse me of not having participated in the intervention plan, so I attempted to prove, in my previous letters and requests for revisions;
1) I have never ceased to participate in my program.
2) I had to speak to your predecessor for my file and an agent becomes active again be issued to me.
3) I have tried to prove that my group manager has ceased to care for my application until the deadline of the intervention plan is reached to confirm the desired pattern of non-participation.
4) I have shown that a significant disability, for me, was the conclusion of physical rehabilitation, with the Clinic of George Morissette Quebec in 2008, your department has selected, and that this report was hidden for more than 9 months. Note that no consideration of what is still to this day. (ANNEX No. 5)
5) I tried to prove that there was a significant number of irregularities in the management of my file from my group manager, whose 10-month period during which my case was classified an orphan, so no monitoring. So I raised management issues clearly obvious, I mean that from 2006 to 2011, your department would have had the opportunity to cancel all my programs well before that day if I had not actually participated or any other be valid grounds for canceling my programs.
6) I have tried to prove that the Department refuses to adjust the response plan for me, and he tried to impose inappropriate care as a psychiatric examination and a detox I have both challenged from their appearances. (ANNEXES No. 6) the group manager has not made the changes justified (Annexes No. 7), and are content to wait for the date they had set in the last agreement.
Now my problem is no longer need to validate my rehabilitation but to show my interest and motivation for such a program be issued to me, or for that matter, get the continuity of this program already.
I notice that the committee first step, in his letter of August 30, 2011, acknowledges himself that he has not competent to decide on my condition. Yet, he still decided that the Department maintains its position and refuses to recognize the right of the continuity of financial compensation, although I am still unable to perform gainful employment and contribute to society as well as enjoy life decently. I live in precarious conditions with a physical condition deteriorated significantly, especially compared dated September 2006. I think this a valid ground for a fact the need of a medical professional before canceling one of my programs.
That the Department proves that I am no longer in need of rehabilitation and / or that I am able to work, but it does not leave me as the evidence shows in this case ...
I find it absolutely impossible to sleep quietly at night, I keep dreaming (nightmare) that your department conspired against me for things that are as well. I can not see the light at the end of the tunnel without somebody help me. I think in your department vouched in 2006. Today, the result leaves me in pain everyday. This is not due to a low potential for rehabilitation of mine, but because of management problems and the tenacity of your ministry to close my file.
I consider that the cancellation of all my programs is part of retaliation against my people, for about what I said in the letters that I sent to your department and your predecessor; letters that will prove to you clearly that I don ' have not ceased to participate but, instead, I made sure that my program restarts properly and with continuity.
All this has meant that I became very suspicious regarding public services, because of ethics not copy me has been demonstrated very often.
I add that I get very badly the message of your ministry, and it would be appropriate that I share my opinions with other competent persons.
I strongly suggest you contact me to discuss person to person.
For better understanding, it would be wise to consult my previous letters attached to my file. If you have not, I will be happy to send them to you quickly. I am ready to talk and get along with you.
Pending a judicious intervention on your part, I consider it my responsibility to file a complaint with the Public about the behavior of certain members of your departmentMy expectations are clear and I ask your understanding and intervention in the case for me, because the decision of the Department is not within the court ACC and you can have the initiative and the last word.
Please accept my sincere greetings and best wishes.
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -RÃ©ponse de l'Honorable Blaney-
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2012, 02:48:49 PM »
2176, rue de Montfort
JonquiÃ¨re (QuÃ©bec)
Monsieur, cher VÃ©tÃ©ran DesgagnÃ©
Je vous remercie de votre lettre au sujet de votre participation au
programme de rÃ©adaptation d'Anciens Combattants Canada.
J'ai pris connaissance de vos prÃ©occupations et je tiens Ã vous assurer que
les dÃ©cisions concernant I'annulation de votre programme ont Ã©tÃ© rendues
suite Ã un examen minutieux de tous les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve soumis au
MinistÃ¨re Ã I'appui de votre demande.
Comme vous le savez, les personnes qui ne sont pas satisfaites des dÃ©cisions
rendues aux termes du RÃ¨glement sur les mesures de rÃ©insertion et
d'indemnisation des militaires et vÃ©tÃ©rans des Forces canadiennes peuvent
avoir recours Ã un processus d'examen. Dans le cadre de ce processus, les
dÃ©cisions sont rÃ©examinÃ©es par le personnel du MinistÃ¨re qui n'a pas pris
part aux premiÃ¨res dÃ©cisions.
Je crois comprendre que la Direction gÃ©nÃ©rale de la recherche et des
politiques Ã©tudie prÃ©sentement votre demande pour le programme de
rÃ©adaptation. Soyez assurÃ© que votre demande recevra toute I'attention
qu'elle mÃ©rite. Vous serez informÃ© du rÃ©sultat, par Ã©crit, dÃ¨s qu'une dÃ©cision
aura Ã©tÃ© rendue, si cela n'a pas dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© fait.
Si vous avez d'autres questions, n'hÃ©sitez pas Ã communiquer avec le
MinistÃ¨re, sans frais, au 1-866-522-2022 [Jn reprÃ©sentant se fera un plaisir
Je vous prie d'agrÃ©er, Monsieur, mes salutations les meilleures.
Steven Blaney, C.P., dÃ©putÃ©
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -Answer Ministre Blaney-
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2012, 02:51:32 PM »
JonquiÃ¨re (Quebec)
Gentlemen, Dear Veteran DesgagnÃ©
Thank you for your letter regarding your participation in Rehabilitation Program for Veterans Affairs Canada.
I have read your concerns and I want to assure you that decisions about your program I'annulation were made Following careful consideration of all evidence submitted to Ministry to I'appui your request.
As you know, people who are dissatisfied with decisions made under the Regulations and Re- Compensation for members and veterans of the Canadian Forces can use a review process. As part of this process, decisions are reviewed by departmental staff who did not from the initial decisions.
I understand that the Directorate General for Research and policies currently studying for your application program rehabilitation. Rest assured that your request will receive any I'attention it deserves. You will be informed of the outcome, in writing, a judgment has been made??, if it has not already been done.
If you have further questions, please contact the Department, toll free at 1-866-522-2022 [Jn representative will be happy help you. Please accept, Excellency, my best regards.
Steven Blaney, P.C., MP
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -Mon argumentation fait au MinistÃ¨re-
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2012, 03:09:01 PM »
Fait Ã JonquiÃ¨re, le 21 FÃ©vrier 2012
Le ministÃ¨re a basÃ© sa dÃ©cision sur des erreurs de faits et des conclusions biaisÃ©es et sur des motifs Ã caractÃ¨re insuffisants. Il est faux et impertinent de m'accuser de ne pas avoir participÃ© de faÃ§on Ã atteindre les objectifs du Programme de rÃ©adaptation.
Pour ce qui est des lignes directrices relatives Ã l'Ã©quitÃ© procÃ©durale en matiÃ¨re de motif de dÃ©cision, il est flagrant ce ministÃ¨re s'est obstinÃ© Ã ne pas considÃ©rer les recommandations claires de l'Ombudsman et du Commissaire Ã la vie privÃ©e, face Ã un problÃ¨me d'ordre systÃ©mique.
Je soulÃ¨ve ici le fait que le ministÃ¨re n'a pas :
a) ExposÃ© les conclusions de faits du dÃ©cideur.
b) ExposÃ© clairement les principaux Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve sur lesquelles les conclusions sont fondÃ©es.
c) AbordÃ© les principaux points en litige.
d) Pris en compte des principaux facteurs pertinents pour rendre la dÃ©cision.
e) Ã‰noncÃ© les Lois, les RÃ¨glements et les Politiques sur lesquelles la dÃ©cision est fondÃ©e.
f) ExposÃ© le processus de raisonnement adoptÃ© par le dÃ©cideur.
Ces faits sont connus publiquement aujourd'hui ; j'ai Ã©tÃ© lÃ©sÃ© dans mes droits fondamentaux et j'ai Ã©tÃ© traitÃ© d'une maniÃ¨re inacceptable, comme dans biens d'autres cas apparemment.
Les preuves que ce ministÃ¨re n'ont pas respectÃ© leurs Lois, RÃ¨glements et Politiques, ni les Normes relatives Ã l'Approche pour un service axÃ© sur le client (ASAC) abondent. La bonne prise en charge de mon dossier par ce ministÃ¨re est loin d'Ãªtre exemplaire. Ce qui a eu un impact grave et nÃ©gatif sur tous les niveaux de ma vie personnelle, et de mon Programme de RÃ©adaptation. J'ai Ã©tÃ© privÃ© d'un accÃ¨s rapide et efficace, privÃ© de programmes et de soins, et privÃ© d'un suivi adÃ©quats durant toute la durÃ©e du programme.
Je conteste la dÃ©cision de l'appel du 20 janvier 2012, pour les raisons suivantes;
1) J'affirme que le ministÃ¨re n'a pas rencontrÃ© les circonstances rÃ©glementaires pour annuler mon Programme de rÃ©adaptation et mon programme d'Allocation de Perte FinanciÃ¨re, en vertu du paragraphe 17 Annulation du LMRIMVFC. Le ministÃ¨re se devait de considÃ©rer le paragraphe 15(1)(2) du LMRIMVFC, qui dicte ceci; Â« Lors de l'Ã©valuation d'un programme de rÃ©adaptation ou lors de l'Ã©valuation d'un programme d'assistance professionnelle, le ministre peut exiger de l'intÃ©ressÃ© qu'il subisse un examen mÃ©dical ou une Ã©valuation par la personne qu'il prÃ©cise Â».
Aucun examen mÃ©dicale n'a Ã©tÃ© recommandÃ© par ce ministÃ¨re malgrÃ© que je bÃ©nÃ©ficiais de services et d'avantages depuis 5 ans. Je n'ai commis aucun dÃ©faut de me prÃ©senter Ã un examen mÃ©dicale car aucun examen mÃ©dical, ni Ã©valuations de mes entraves et limitations n'a Ã©tÃ© recommandÃ©es.
L'article 14 du RMRIMVFC pour l'application du paragraphe 17 du LMRIMVFC dicte ceci :
Â« le ministre peut annuler tout programme de rÃ©adaptation ou d'assistance professionnelle dans 3 circonstances;
a) Si le bÃ©nÃ©ficiaire ne participe pas pleinement de maniÃ¨re Ã atteindre pleinement les objectifs du PR.
b) Si l'admissibilitÃ© du bÃ©nÃ©ficiaire relevait d'une dÃ©claration trompeuse ou dissimulation de fait importants.
c) Si le bÃ©nÃ©ficiaire ne s'est toujours pas conformÃ© Ã la demande du ministre visÃ©e au paragraphe 12(1) six mois aprÃ¨s la prise d'effet de la suspension. Â»
Or, aucun de ces trois critÃ¨res ne me correspond.
2) Le ministÃ¨re n'a pas rencontrÃ© les circonstances rÃ©glementaires pour annuler mon allocation pour perte financiÃ¨re (APF) dictÃ©e dans le MPPAC Vol.5 Ch. 4.1.9, article; 3.10, 3.11, 3.12 c) et 3.13, dans les 30 jours suivant l'annulation du Programme de RÃ©adaptation dont je bÃ©nÃ©ficiais depuis le 21 juillet 2006 jusqu'au 27 juin 2011, soit 5 ans moins 28 jours.
Le paragraphe 18(4)a) et b) du LMRIMVFC , dit que pour rencontrer les circonstances rÃ©glementaires, en ce qui concerne la cessation de mes allocations (APR), le ministÃ¨re se devait de considÃ©rer l'article 18(3) qui dicte ce qui suit; Sous rÃ©serve du paragraphe (4) Continuation, qui dicte ceci; Â« Si le ministre est d'avis que le vÃ©tÃ©rans prÃ©sente un problÃ¨me de santÃ© physique ou mentale pour lequel un programme de rÃ©adaptation a Ã©tÃ© Ã©laborÃ© et que ce problÃ¨me de santÃ© entraÃ®ne son incapacitÃ© totale et permanente Ã occuper un emploi rÃ©munÃ©rateur et convenable, l'allocation continue d'Ãªtre versÃ©e mÃªme si le vÃ©tÃ©ran Ã terminÃ© le programme ou si celui-ci a Ã©tÃ© annulÃ©, et ce jusqu'au premier en date des jours suivants :
a) celui ou le ministÃ¨re est d'avis que le vÃ©tÃ©rans ne prÃ©sente plus le problÃ¨me de santÃ© qui a entraÃ®nÃ© son incapacitÃ© a occuper un emploi rÃ©munÃ©rateur et convenable.
b) celui ou le vÃ©tÃ©rans atteint l'Ã¢ge de 65 ans. Â»
L'article 3.3 du MPPAC Vol.5 Ch. 3.1.5, qui dit ceci;
Â« Emploi rÃ©munÃ©rateur et convenable Â» : dÃ©signe tout emploi pour lequel le vÃ©tÃ©ran est raisonnablement qualifiÃ© en raison de sa scolaritÃ©, de sa formation et de son expÃ©rience, et dont le taux de rÃ©munÃ©ration mensuel est Ã©gale Ã au moins Â« 66 2/3% du revenus attribuÃ© du vÃ©tÃ©rans Â» visÃ© au paragraphe 19(1) de la Loi.
Ce ministÃ¨re Ã©tait tenu de vÃ©rifier, avant l'annulation, si j'Ã©tais admissible Ã une allocation (ITP), invaliditÃ© totale et permanente, ou admissible Ã un (APR) Allocation pour Perte de Revenus ou encore un (ADP), Allocation pour DÃ©ficience permanente en vertu de l'article 1.1 du MPPAC Vol.5 Ch.3.1.5- IncapacitÃ© Totale et Permanente, avant de me couper les vivres.
Il y avait prÃ©valence de problÃ¨mes de santÃ© particuliers dans mon cas et bien documentÃ©es et dÃ¨s la premiÃ¨re rencontre avec mon CS de 2006, et qui entravait ma rÃ©insertion. Il Ã©tait, dans les circonstances, non raisonnable de ne pas m'accorder les services nÃ©cessaires pour rencontrer les objectifs du PR article 3.3 Ã‰valuation du MPPAC Vol.5 Ch.3.1.3. J'ajoute que le ministÃ¨re Ã manquÃ© Ã son obligation d'Ã©tablir des recherches approfondies qui Ã©tablissaient la prÃ©valence de problÃ¨mes de santÃ© particuliers de l'intÃ©ressÃ©.
DÃ©claration solennelle;
Ma demande d'examen est faite de bonne foi. Je dÃ©clare solennellement avoir toujours dÃ©montrÃ© le plus grand intÃ©rÃªt et de m'Ãªtre complÃ¨tement investi avec l'intention de rÃ©ussir mon programme de rÃ©adaptation, et tous ses volets, et de rÃ©intÃ©grer la sociÃ©tÃ© de faÃ§on Ã exercer un travail convenable et de jouir de la vie dÃ©cemment. Je n'ai fait aucune dÃ©claration frauduleuse ni cachÃ© quelconque renseignement important. J'ai toujours Ã©tÃ© honnÃªte et motivÃ© et comprÃ©hensif. De plus, ma condition n'est pas due Ã une mauvaise conduite ou auto-mutilation de ma part. Mes limitations, non expertisÃ©es, compromettent ma sÃ©curitÃ© dans l'environnement physique. Et les 2 seules choses auxquelles j'ai refusÃ© de participer sont :
1) Ã la thÃ©rapie de CASA (dÃ©sintoxication) et ,
2) l'examen psychiatrique CTSO (trouble psychiatrique).
Pour la simple raison qu'aucun de ces examens n'aurait apportÃ© les rÃ©ponses pertinentes et les recommandations adÃ©quates et ne rÃ©pondaient pas Ã mes besoins rÃ©els. J'ajoute qu'ils Ã©taient totalement discriminatoires et non fondÃ©s sur des renseignements pertinents et ne pouvais Ãªtre activÃ©s. En fait, le ministÃ¨re n'a jamais appuyÃ© ma rÃ©insertion et tente d'ignorer mon incapacitÃ© physique et de me discrÃ©diter et de se dÃ©sister de son mandat envers ma personne.
Maintenant, je dois faire une Â« MISE EN SITUATION IMPORTANTEÂ»
J'affirme avoir envoyÃ© une mise en demeure le 23 dÃ©cembre 2010, par les services de Me Bruno Cantin (ANNEXE No.1), dans laquelle votre ministÃ¨re Ã©tait invitÃ© Ã redresser la situation dans mon Programme de rÃ©adaptation, Ã dÃ©faut de quoi le mandat de Me Cantin l'aurait menÃ© Ã d'introduire des procÃ©dures lÃ©gales pour l'incurie et l'incompÃ©tence de ce ministÃ¨re.
Voici la confirmation que votre ministÃ¨re a mandatÃ© une avocate le 12-01-2011(ANNEXE No.2). Voici la preuve Ã©crite de Me Cantin Ã Me Doucette (ANNEXE No.3) concernant la conversation tÃ©lÃ©phonique du 11 mai 2011. Me Doucette Ã dit Ã Me Cantin que le ministÃ¨re allait sous peu;
1) Me faire une Â« proposition monÃ©taire Â» pour les prÃ©judices divers (elle a ajoutÃ©e que le montant ne serait probablement pas satisfaisant mais quelle ne pouvait se prononcer plus pour l'instant attendant la rÃ©ponse du ministÃ¨re);
2) Me Doucette Ã confirmÃ© que Â« la continuitÃ© de mes allocation pour perte financiÃ¨re Â» allaient continuer, que c'Ã©tait le plus important.
3) Que le programme de rÃ©adaptation allait Ãªtre rÃ©activÃ©.
4) Me Cantin Ã demandÃ© si Mme Johanne Bouchard (CS) allait Ãªtre attitrÃ©e au dossier par la suite, car il Ã©tait Â« Ã©vident que M. DesgagnÃ© ne veut plus communiquer avec cette personne dans aucune circonstance Â», Me Doucette Ã dit que Ã§a n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© discutÃ© encore pour l'instant mais qu'elle fera la recommandation et que c'Ã©tait Â« logique d'aprÃ¨s elle. Â»
Maintenant, vous comprendrez quelle a Ã©tÃ© ma rÃ©action quand, 2 semaines plus tard, soit le 01 juin 2011, j'ai reÃ§u par courrier une lettre de Mme Johanne Bouchard qui m'avisait que tous mes programmes allaient Ãªtre suspendus dans les 30 jours suivant.
J'ai Ã©tÃ© victime d'un leurre.
Le ministÃ¨re Ã dÃ©passer leur mandat ainsi que ignorÃ© celui de Me Sandra Doucette, qui ne pouvait intervenir pour les conseiller Ã se dÃ©filer de leurs responsabilitÃ©s et ou enfreindre la Loi au sein de la fonction publique Elle aurait du m'aviser, par le biais de mon avocat, que ce ministÃ¨re envisageait d'annuler mes services. Ce qui ne fut pas le cas, et les faits son les faits et ils sont biens dÃ©crits dans les preuves que je vous ai partagÃ©es.
Â« AUTRES FAITS PERTINENTS Ã€ DÃ‰NONCER. Â»
Je dÃ©nonce les faits suivants;
1) L'Ã©vidence qu'il n'y a pas eu d'intervention prÃ©coce et globale, dans mon dossier est Ã soulever. Art. 3.3 et 3.10 du MPPAC Vol.5- Ch.3.1.3. Le fait de ne pas m'Ãªtre fait offrir les services plus tÃ´t, de ne pas avoir bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'une intervention prÃ©coce, ni bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'examens approfondis pour identifier mes entraves, en vertu de l'Art. 3.1 Ã 3.4 et 3.10 du MPPAC Vol.5 Ch.3.1.3, que 1) ces malheureux Ã©vÃ©nements ont grandement contribuÃ© Ã ma mauvaise condition physique et psychologique actuelles qui sont aggravÃ©es , et selon ACC complexifiÃ©es, par la gestion problÃ©matique et les mesures discriminatoires dont j'ai Ã©tÃ© victime. J'ai Ã©tÃ© lÃ©sÃ© dans plusieurs de mes droits les plus fondamentaux et en plus de me voir plonger dans des problÃ¨mes financiers majeures en guise de reprÃ©sailles.
2) Le comportement du GESC en ce qui concerne la rÃ©adaptation active faite Ã la clinique George Morisset de QuÃ©bec en 2008 (ANNEXE No.4).
- Pourquoi il m'est Ã©tÃ© possible de prendre connaissance et mon mÃ©decin, du rapport produit le 19 aoÃ»t 2008, que le 09 mai 2009? Soit 9 mois suite Ã la date du rapport de la mÃªme clinique?
- Pourquoi aucun examen approfondie de mes limitations n'a Ã©tÃ© activÃ© suite aux conclusions de la clinique G. Morisset, selon quoi j'Ã©tais valide Ã exercer un emploi Â« rÃ©munÃ©rateur et convenable Â» Ã raison de 3 X 2.5Hrs X semaine?
Dans l'article 3.3 du MPPAC Vol.5 Ch. 3.1.5, qui dit ceci;
3) Dans la rÃ©vision du 1er pallier, on m'accuse de ne pas avoir participer au programme de rÃ©adaptation professionnelle. Je vais vous prouver que CANVET (ANNEXE No.5) Ã accepter de suspendre le PRPP , au mois de juin, en prÃ©textant qu'ils (ACC) attendaient le rapport d'Ã©valuation psychiatrique demandÃ© par le CS, Mme Johanne Bouchard, avant de poursuivre dans le dossier. Ce n'est que trÃ¨s rÃ©cemment que j'ai appris que le rapport de GP. Personnel (ANNEXE No.6), mandatÃ© par CANVET dans le cadre du PRPP, avait Ã©tÃ© qualifiÃ© de Â« irrÃ©aliste Â»(ANNEXE No.7) sans m'aviser ni mÃªme aviser M. Richard Giroux, propriÃ©taire et orienteur professionnel de plus de 30 ans de carriÃ¨re, qui avait fait des recommandations trÃ¨s claires. Voici sa rÃ©action GP. Personnel (ANNEXE No.8), et ceci Ã©tait le 3e rapports que le ministÃ¨re choisissait d'occulter ou refusait de considÃ©rer.
4) Les rapports d'activitÃ© tenus par Johanne Bouchard sont trafiquÃ©s et rendent impossible une bonne comprÃ©hension des faits. De plus elle s'est permise d'y faire mon procÃ¨s.
5) Johanne Bouchard Ã compromis ma relation avec mon mÃ©decin traitant, en outrepassant ses fonctions et ses compÃ©tences, en l'appelant mon mÃ©decin traitant, le 28-09-2010, pour l'induire Ã recommander un rapport psychiatrique de faÃ§on illÃ©gale et sans m'en aviser et sans autorisations au prÃ©alable.
6) Dr Anne Leclerc (ANNEXE No.9) Dont l'intervention en aoÃ»t 2010 et ses recommandations ont totalement Ã©tÃ© occultÃ©s des rapports d'activitÃ©s.
7) Je dÃ©plore que je n'ai jamais pu assister Ã l'une de mes confÃ©rences de cas me concernant, le7) GESC s'est obstiner dans leur mauvaise prise en charge et on tout tenter pour mettre fin Ã mon programme.
La liste s'allonge mais je ne vais pas plus dans les dÃ©tails pour l'instant car je crois avoir dÃ©montrÃ© convenablement que ce ministÃ¨re Ã mal exÃ©cutÃ© leurs obligations, et qu'il a ainsi empÃªchÃ© le bon dÃ©roulement dÃ©mocratique dans l'Ã‰tat du Canada, tout en donnant l'exemple Ã ne pas suivre.
8) Dans l'(ANNEXE No.10), vous trouverez une lettre de mon mÃ©decin traitant qui questionnait le GESC sur les motifs d'exiger une thÃ©rapie Ã la clinique CASA.
9) Dans L'(ANNEXE No.11), vous trouverez le certificat mÃ©dical produit par le Dr Beaulieu.
10) Dans l'(ANNEXE No.12), vous trouverez que Dr Beaulieu a donnÃ© une prescription verbale au MÃ©decin mandatÃ© par ACC et que cette prescription n'a pas Ã©tÃ© honorÃ©e et non appuyÃ© par des motifs valables.
En connaissance des faits susmentionnÃ©s, nous demandons :
1) Que soit annulÃ©e la dÃ©cision du 27 mai 2011 en vertu du paragraphe 68(3) du RMRIMVFC et de poursuivre, cette fois, rigoureusement le PR et autres services adaptÃ©s, dont je tirerais avantages dans le but d'atteindre les objectifs d'une rÃ©intÃ©gration sociale efficace.
2) Que soit annulÃ©e la dÃ©cision du 27 mai 2011 concernant mon allocation pour perte financiÃ¨re (APF) et sa continuitÃ©.
3) Le remboursement de mes allocations non payÃ©es depuis le 27 juin 2011.
4) Que la demande de trop perÃ§u du 06-06-2011 soit annulÃ©e en vertu Â«Art; 3.7 PrÃ©judice injustifiÃ©, du MPPAC Vol.5- Ch. 4.1.11.
5) Une compensation monÃ©taire, comme proposÃ© par Me Sandra Doucette en mai 2011, pour les prÃ©judices divers.
6) Le tout dans la plus grande URGENCE, merci.
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -My version of facts based on Law and Politic of VAC-
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2012, 03:22:10 PM »
Done at JonquiÃ¨re, February 21, 2012
The department based its decision on factual errors and biased conclusions and reasons for insufficient character. It is wrong and impertinent to accuse me of not having participated in order to achieve the rehabilitation program.
In terms of guidelines for procedural fairness on grounds of decision, it is obvious that department has determined not to consider the clear recommendations of the Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner, facing a systemic problem.I raise here is that the Department did not:
a) Presentation of the findings of fact of the decision maker.
b) Statement clearly the main evidence on which the conclusions are based.
c) Considered the main issues in dispute.
d) Taken into account the main factors relevant to decision making.
e) Statement of the Laws, Regulations and Policies on which the decision is based.
f) Briefing the reasoning process adopted by the decision maker.
These facts are known publicly today, I was injured in my rights and I was treated in an unacceptable manner, as in other cases apparently real.
Evidence that the department failed to meet their Laws, Regulations and Policies, Standards nor the Service Approach focuses on the client (ASAC) abound. Good care of my file by this department is far from exemplary. This had a negative impact on serious and all levels of my personal life, and my rehabilitation program. I was deprived of a fast and efficient access, private programs and care, and deprived of adequate monitoring throughout the duration of the program.
I challenge the decision of the Appeal of 20 January 2012, for the following reasons;
1) I stated that the Department has not met the prescribed circumstances to cancel my rehabilitation program and my program of Financial Loss Allowance, under subsection 17 Cancellation of CFMVRCA. The Ministry had to consider paragraph 15 (1) (2) of CFMVRCA, which dictates this; "When evaluating a rehabilitation program or in the evaluation of a coaching program, the Minister may require the respondent to undergo a medical examination or evaluation by the person specified.
"No medical examination has been recommended by this department although I benefited from services and benefits for 5 years. I have committed no fault to introduce myself to a medical examination because no medical examination or evaluation of my impediments and restrictions have been recommended.
Section 14 of RMRIMVFC for the purposes of subsection 17 of CFMVRCA dictates this:"The Minister may cancel any rehabilitation or vocational assistance in three circumstances;
a) If the person does not participate fully in order to fully achieve the objectives of PR.
b) If the beneficiary's eligibility was part of a misrepresentation or concealment of fact significant.
c) If the beneficiary has still not complied with the request of the Minister under subsection 12 (1) six months after the effective date of the suspension.
"However, none of these three criteria is not me.
2) The Department has not met the prescribed circumstances to cancel my financial loss allowance (APF) in the dictation VPPM Vol.5 Ch 4.1.9, Article, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12 c) and 3.13, within 30 days of cancellation of the Rehabilitation Program which I benefited from 21 July 2006 until 27 June 2011, five years less 28 days.
Subsection 18 (4) a) and b) the CFMVRCA, said that to meet the prescribed circumstances, as regards the termination of my benefits (APR), the Ministry had to consider section 18 (3) that dictates the following; Subject to subsection (4) Continuation, which dictates this; "If the Minister believes that the veteran has a problem of physical or mental health for which a rehabilitation program was developed and that this problem health causes his total inability to occupy a suitable gainful employment, the allowance is still paid to the veteran to complete the program or if it was canceled, until the earlier of the day following:a) one or the Department believes that the veteran no longer has the health problem that resulted in his inability to occupy a suitable gainful employment.b) one or veterans under the age of 65.
"Section 3.3 of Vol.5 VPPM Ch 3.1.5, which states;"Suitable gainful employment" means any employment for which the veteran is reasonably qualified by reason of his education, training and experience, and whose monthly rate of pay is equal to at least "66 2/3% of income attributed the veteran "under subsection 19 (1) of the Act.
This ministry was required to verify, before cancellation, if I was eligible for an allowance (ITP), total and permanent disability, or eligible for a (APR) Allowance for loss of income or an (ADP) Allowance permanent impairment under section 1.1 of Vol.5 VPPM Ch.3.1.5-Total and Permanent Disability, before I cut them off.
There was prevalence of specific health problems in my case, well documented and at the first meeting with my CS 2006, and that hindered my rehabilitation. It was, in the circumstances, unreasonable not to grant me the necessary services to meet the objectives of Article 3.3 Evaluation of PR VPPM Vol.5 Ch.3.1.3. I add that the department failed to establish extensive research that established the prevalence of particular health problems of the individual.
Statutory declaration;
My request for examination is made in good faith. I solemnly declare to have always shown the greatest interest and of myself completely invested with the intention of my successful rehabilitation program, and all its components, and reintegrate into society in order to perform suitable work and to enjoy a decent living. I have not made any fraudulent statement or concealed any material information. I've always been honest and motivated and understanding. Also, my condition is not due to misconduct or self-mutilation on my part. My limitations, not appraised, jeopardize my security in the physical environment. And the only 2 things I refused to participate are:
1) to CASA therapy (detoxification) and
2) the psychiatric examination CTSO (psychiatric disorder).
For the simple reason that none of these tests would provide the relevant answers and appropriate recommendations and did not meet my needs. I add that they were totally non-discriminatory and based on relevant information and could be activated. In fact, the department has never supported my rehabilitation and trying to ignore my physical disability and discredit me and to withdraw its mandate to me.
Now, I must make a "BACKGROUND IMPORTANT"
I claim to have sent a formal notice on 23 December 2010, by Mr. Bruno Cantin services (Annex No.1), in which your department was invited to address the situation in my rehabilitation program, failing which the warrant of Mr. Cantin would have led to the introduction of legal proceedings for negligence and incompetence of this ministry.
Here is the confirmation that your department has appointed a lawyer on 12-01-2011 (Appendix No.2). Here is the written evidence of Mr. Cantin Me Doucette (Annex No.3) on the telephone conversation of May 11, 2011. Doucette told me to Mr. Cantin that the Ministry would shortly;
1) Make me a "monetary proposal" for various injuries (she added that the amount would probably not be satisfactory but what could not comment further at this time pending the department's response);
2) Mr. Doucette confirmed that "the continuity of my financial loss allowance" would continue, that it was most important.
3) That the rehabilitation program would be reactivated.
4) Me Cantin asked if Johanne Bouchard (CS) would be of record in the file later as it was "obvious that DesgagnÃ© no longer wants to communicate with that person under any circumstances," Mr. Doucette said it n had not been discussed yet but for now it will make the recommendation and that it was "according to her logic.
"Now you understand what was my reaction when, two weeks later, on June 1, 2011, I received by mail a letter to Ms. Johanne Bouchard, who informed me that all my programs would be suspended within 30 days .
I was the victim of a trap.
The Department to exceed their mandate and ignored that of Ms. Sandra Doucette, who could not intervene to advise them to shirk their responsibilities or violate the Act in the Public She should have let me know, through my lawyer, that this ministry was planning to cancel my services. This was not the case, its facts and the facts and they are well described in the evidence that I have shared.
"OTHER RELEVANT FACTS TO REPORT IT.
"I denounce the following facts;
1) Evidence that there was no early intervention and comprehensive, in my case is to be lifted. Art. 3.3 and 3.10 of Vol.5 VPPM-Ch.3.1.3. The fact that I had not been offered the services earlier, not having benefited from early intervention, or enjoyed my depth reviews to identify obstacles, under Art. 3.1 to 3.4 and 3.10 of Vol.5 VPPM these unfortunate events have greatly contributed to my poor physical condition and emotional current that are aggravated, according to ACC and more complex, the management issues and discriminatory measures I have been a victim.
I was injured in several of my most basic rights and more to see me dive into major financial problems in retaliation.
2) The behavior of the ECMG with respect to the active rehabilitation clinic made George Morisset of Quebec in 2008 (Annex No. 4).Questions:
- Why he is been possible to read and my doctor, the report produced 19 August 2008, as May 09, 2009? Or 9 months following the date of the report from the same clinic?
- Why no thorough examination of my limitations have been activated following the conclusions of the clinic G. Morisset, according to what I was exercising a valid use "suitable gainful" at 3 X X 2.5hrs week?
In section 3.3 of Vol.5 VPPM Ch 3.1.5, which states;"Suitable gainful employment" means any employment for which the veteran is reasonably qualified by reason of his education, training and experience, and whose monthly rate of pay is equal to at least "66 2/3% of income attributed the veteran "under subsection 19 (1) of the Act.
3) In the first revision of the remedy, I am accused of failing to participate in vocational rehabilitation program. I will prove that CANVET (ANNEX No.5) to agree to suspend the PRPP, in June, claiming that they (ACC) were waiting for the psychiatric assessment report commissioned by the CS, Johanne Bouchard, before continue in the folder. It is only recently that I learned that the report of GP. Staff (ANNEX No.6), mandated by CANVET within the PRPP, was described as "unrealistic" (ANNEX No.7) without notifying me or even notify Richard Giroux, career counselor and owner of more than 30 year career, which had made very clear recommendations. Here is his reaction GP. Staff (ANNEX No.8), and this was the third report that the Department chose to ignore or refused to consider.
4) Progress reports maintained by Johanne Bouchard are trafficked and render impossible a clear understanding of the facts. Also it is permitted to make my trial.
5) Johanne Bouchard to compromise my relationship with my doctor, in excess of his duties and powers, calling my doctor, on 28-09-2010, to induce him to recommend a psychiatric report illegally and without notify me in advance and without permission.
6) Dr. Anne Leclerc (ANNEX No.9) Whose intervention in August 2010 and its recommendations have been totally obscured activity reports.
7) I regret that I have never been able to attend one of my case conferences concerning me, LE7) ECMG was obstinate in their poor management and we try everything to stop my program.The list goes on but I'm not going into detail for now because I think I have adequately demonstrated that this ministry poorly performed their duties, and has thus prevented the success of democracy in the State of Canada while setting an example not to follow.
8) In (ANNEX No.10), you will find a letter from my doctor who questioned the ECMG on the grounds to require therapy in the clinic CASA.
9) In The (APPENDIX No.11), you will find the medical certificate produced by Dr. Beaulieu.
10) In (ANNEX No.12), you will find that Dr. Beaulieu gave a verbal prescription physician appointed by ACC and that this requirement has not been honored and not supported by valid reasons.
Informed of these facts, we ask:
1) That the decision be rescinded May 27, 2011 under subsection 68 (3) of RMRIMVFC and continue, this time strictly the PR and other appropriate services, which I would draw benefits in order to achieve the objectives of an effective social reintegration.
2) That the decision be hold in May 27, 2011 regarding my financial loss allowance (APF) and its continuity.
3) The refund of my unpaid allowances since June 27, 2011.
4) That the request for overpayment of 06-06-2011 is canceled under "Art; 3.7 Undue hardship, the VPPM Vol.5-Ch 4.1.11.
5) A monetary compensation, as proposed by Mr. Doucette Sandra in May 2011, for various injuries.
6) All in the largest EMERGENCY, thank you.
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© -Rapport MassothÃ©rapie juin 2012-
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2012, 03:34:36 PM »
JonquiÃ¨re le 28 juin 2012
Sujet : Yannick DesgagnÃ©s
DDN : 1976-06-22
MÃ©decin : Alexandra GagnÃ©
Objet : Compte rendu de traitement en massothÃ©rapie.
M. DesgagnÃ©s est suivi en massothÃ©rapie Ã mon bureau de JonquiÃ¨re depuis 23 dÃ©cembre 2009.
ll nous a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© au dÃ©part pour problÃ©matique genou D. Depuis, les besoins se sont Ã©tendusde faÃ§on gÃ©nÃ©rale Ã tout le corps. Nous avons vu M.DesgagnÃ©s Ã©voluer en dent de scie malgrÃ© les traitements en continus ou mÃªme aprÃ¨s un pÃ©riode d'arrÃªt. ll na pas fait de gain notable en gÃ©nÃ©ral de sa condition physique. PhÃ©nomÃ¨ne de douleur chronique est bien installÃ©e.
Le soulagement que procure la massothÃ©rapie n'est que temporaire. ll tolÃ¨re bien le massage profond musculaire. Nous avons fait, Ã quelques reprises, des rapports d'Ã©volution suggÃ©rant un encadrement multidisciplinaire pour sa condition tel que support psychologique, pharmacologique, thÃ©rapeutique physique et entrainement physique avec groupe de douleur chronique idÃ©alement.
Actuellement M. nous dit Ãªtre en pÃ©riode de grand stress. Les signes et symptÃ´mes physiques sont d'autant plus intenses et constants. On note plusieures zones de tension musculaire et articulaire. Certaines reviennent de faÃ§on rÃ©guliÃ¨re tel que : Q.inf. Lombaire D at,ec irradiation Ml's - Q.sup D+G - MÃ¢choires - Abdomen.
Si d'autres renseignements supplÃ©mentaires vous sont nÃ©cessaires, n'hÃ©sitez pas Ã nous
Nancy Dando
MassothÃ©ra peute FQM #3608
Re: Yannick DesgagnÃ© _Medical Ã©volution report MassothÃ©rapie june 2012-
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2012, 03:36:34 PM »
JonquiÃ¨re June 28, 2012
Subject: Yannick DesgagnÃ©s
DOB: 1976-06-22
Doctor: Alexandra Gagne
Subject: Minutes of massage therapy treatment.
Mr. DesgagnÃ©s is followed by massage therapy in my office in JonquiÃ¨re since December 23, 2009.
It was referred to us initially for knee problems D. Since then, the needs have Ã©tendusde generally to the whole body. We have seen evolve M.DesgagnÃ©s sawtooth despite treatment with continuous or even after a break. It has neither made a significant gain in overall fitness. Phenomenon of chronic pain is well established.
The relief provided by massage therapy is only temporary. It tolerates deep muscle massage. We made a couple of times, progress reports suggesting a multidisciplinary framework for its status as psychological support, pharmacological, physical therapy and physical training group with chronic pain ideally.
Currently Mr. tells us to be in times of great stress. The physical signs and symptoms are more intense and constant. We note several areas of tension in muscles and joints. Some come on a regular basis such as: Q.inf. Lumbar D at, ec irradiation Ml's - Q.sup D + G - Jaws - Abdomen.
If other additional information you need, do not hesitate to
MassothÃ©ra physiotherapist FQM # 3608