I received a message from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) following the publication of my last blog, where I mentioned my recent discussion with the chair, Mr. John Larlee about the publication of noteworthy decisions.
As always, I welcome feedback on my blog posts and I think it only fair that I publish VRAB’s response. In my last blog posting, I had stated that “Currently, the VRAB publishes its interpretation of these noteworthy decisions, but not the decision proper.” The Board responded to my blog posting by providing the Office with the following clarification:
VRAB has posted the full text of its Noteworthy Decisions on its Web site. We have provided a summary for every decision, which is common practice among administrative tribunals and courts. The decision summaries are not interpretations of the decisions (decisions speak for themselves), and are provided for the reader’s benefit.
The only ways in which these decisions differ from the original signed copies is that they: are depersonalized to protect applicants’ privacy; and may have a slightly different appearance (layout, spacing, font, etc.). This is addressed in our Disclaimer and How the Board depersonalizes decisions, found on the Noteworthy Decisions page of our Web site.
In response to my statement that “Mr. Larlee explained that privacy rules and lack of funds limit the Board’s ability to publish all decisions”, VRAB has clarified that:
The Board’s ability to publish all of its decisions is entirely related to funding and has nothing to do with privacy rules. We do not have the resources to publish all decisions (about 4500 annually) without compromising service to Veterans.
For this reason, the Board looked for a way to increase transparency in decision-making that would be both realistic financially and useful for Veterans. It decided that publishing Noteworthy Decisions would meet these criteria.
Noteworthy Decisions give Veterans access to the Board’s most relevant and instructive decisions, including decisions on the most commonly-claimed conditions. This allows applicants to be aware of decisions made in cases similar to their own. We will continue to post decisions in both official languages as new ones are identified and depersonalized.
Please add your comment below. Remember if your submission is a complaint about your circumstances please use the Submit a Complaint section.
View Important Notice Details
By participating, you are taking personal responsibility for your comments, your username and any information provided. To protect your own privacy and the privacy of others, comments containing personal information will not be published. "Personal information" means information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form. It may include, but is not limited to: name, address, email address, race, ethnic origin, medical and employment history, and identifying numbers. Note as well that the views or opinions expressed about another individual are considered personal information about and belonging to that individual.
View Privacy Notice Details
Provision of the information requested on this form is voluntary. It is collected under the authority of the Veterans Ombudsman Order in Council P.C. 2007-530. The information is collected for the purpose of providing an opportunity for the public to provide input on issues identified in the Veterans Ombudsman’s blog. Personal information that you provide is protected under the provisions of the Privacy Act.
The Act provides you with the right to access and request correction of your personal information.
Your personal information will be stored in Personal Information Bank number VAC PPU 210.
depersonalizing decisions as well as opinions supplied by peer groups/doctors/bPA rep= in my applictaion/bronchial pneumonia alaska 1970/all my info including two favorable decisions by SCC Judges/ ALL deemed to be ""speculative"", then compared to a landed immigrant/refugee claimant(granted status in 1987) BUTT the panel in question to "deporsonalize???" only show that this claim was denied in 1989.my claim denied??? to depersonalize= free reign on the DENY policy!! Plus Benefit of Doubt. 18 days in anoxygen tent in Base Hosp. Edmonton/Namao.Disability NOT Directly Connected To Military Service/Canada/ UER's denied/C-130 manifest denied/11 x-ray results opinions denied??? shame on these Merck Manual Graduates.NO hippocratic oath in this panel??BUTT definitely the Oath of Hypocrisy "pretence of virtue or benevolence"
this has been a 12 year fight.common mr Parent,lets try a flanking manouver??? Tiny/Airborne 1968
December 19, 2012 6:52 AM
willard kathan said:
Am concerned about upgrading my disability (hearing ) hsa deteroiated to extent of 0 hearing.
Till now have had no indication or response.
October 26, 2012 1:32 PM
Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Please call the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman at 1-877-330-4343 (toll free number) to discuss your case.
October 29, 2012 2:24 PM
Graham Godlien said:
To recap, you completed a full investigation forwarded your findings and the Minister boldly state that the findings will be implimented and the organization you were investigating says they don't recognize neither your authority nor the ministers and will continue as before. Perhaps the solution, as a minimum, is for you defer your position and at least save the tax payers some money.
September 29, 2012 10:07 PM
Ron Cundell said:
Oh wow look at that cherry. Ughhh this is so sour. I don’t understand it? This cherry looked exactly like the cherry I picked last week and it was the sweetest cherry I ever tasted?
I guess that’s God’s way of keeping similar cherry’s depersonalized so we normal people looking for the right cherry can’t count on consistency when it comes to similar cherries.
But it must be hard for God to keep all the cherries depersonalized. Afterall he has so many cherries he has to take care of year after year. Maybe God should try to find cherries that are consistent for us normal folks to understand which cherries are ripe and which are sour? It sure would make it easier for us normal folk in deciding if the cherry is the right one to pick.
But that would breach the cherries privacy and God has that very strict code to protect the cherries privacy. If God took the time to pick the right cherries for us simple folk to pick from it would make our life a lot easier picking the right cherries but each cherries privacy would be protected and he would still follow his own rules.
I guess in the end when God depersonalizes each cherry to protect it’s privacy we normal folk just have to put up with God’s counter productive, non-coherent reasoning, because after all he is God.
That God is one difficult dude to understand when he tries to make it easy for us normal folk.
September 5, 2012 8:52 PM
Ron Cundell said:
Oh look at that ripe cherry on the tree! Ughh it looked ripe compared to the cherry I saw and picked last week.
How confusing both cherries came from the same tree, looked exactly alike but one was ripe and the other was sour?
I guess that "depersonalized" appearance of each cherry confused me, as the ripe one was too depersonalized for me to make a logical decision on whether the one I just picked would be ripe or sour!
I guess that's my fault assuming that both cherries would BE the same because they looked the same.
I guess that's “God's” way of protecting the privacy of each cherry regardless of how similar they look.
Whoever said “God” is trying to be consistent is wrong because it seems “God” STILL decides the fate of every cherry on the tree regardless of how “God” presents common cherries for the picker to understand “God’s” decision-making process.