Go FIGURE!

MCS entitlement to disability benefits: An Economic Aspect

The data used in this argument is abstracted from Canada Pension/Old Age Security Review Tribunals Annual report 2000 - 2002. The actual frequency of MCS in the general population is unknown because it is not entirely represented in any known study. The estimated number of persons disabled by MCS and applying for a disability benefit is based on the work by RAINET in representing cases to the Appeals Tribunal and research by the Chemical Injury Relief Foundation.

There were 6055 Appeals to Review Tribunals for the period 2001 to 2002.[35] Disability pension cases represent about 95 percent of all Review Tribunals [36] therefore in 2001-2002 there were 5752 appeals. During this period there were 4856 hearings held. [38] Salary and non-Salary Expenditures were $12,649,894. [58] Therefore, the average cost of an appeal was $2605.

The number of persons disabled by MCS is estimated at 58 per year or about one percent of the population applying for disability benefits. Every case of MCS we know of goes through the appeals process therefore, the HRDC cost of appeal is $149,846 per year, win or lose.

Assuming an average maximum benefit of $900 per month or $10,800 per year, the MCS group at most would present a yearly benefit expenditure of $621,243. The names and positions of high ranking bureaucrats whose salary is more than, or in combination, equal to, the entire expense of the MCS group is noted for comparison, but not listed. [Examples upon request]

By allowing MCS disability benefits without appeal, fiscal expenditures would be reduced by $149,846 per year and Review Tribunal would realize a proportional decrease in case loads. Hidden costs due to aggravation arising from systemic barriers include additional health care, accommodation of special needs, and material evidence of cruel and unusual treatment that may lead to further litigation.

Anyone who can observe, listen, read, and comprehend the medical and social impacts of chemical injury cannot deny that it happens, that it can be controlled, and therefore minimized. Knowingly shutting out an entire group of disabled persons from a disability benefit that costs less than the salaries of a few senior bureaucrats is sending the wrong signals to tax payers.

What can be done and who can do it?

Conspiracy?

What's happening at Ministry of Community, Family & Children's Services (MCF&CS)?

What's happening at Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC)?

Background to Chemical Injury

Allergies and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Distinguished

Reducing Our Toxic Burden

Herein, the word objective is meant as something real and observable. Adjudicators look to science for objective evidence to support their decisions. Applicants, appellants and advocates rely on doctors to observe, diagnose, and treat medical conditions. In all cases objective applies. In all cases limits must be acknowledged. One form of knowing does not outweigh or displace the other.

For every research study that makes a claim, another may appear to dispute it. For every diagnosis of illness, another may appear to dispute it. Every claim for a benefit denied, is based on assumptions that dispute the claim. In every case, objective evidence is present and used to support or dispute claims of both parties.

Although a Federal Court of Appeal explains The Appropriate Legal Test for Disability Under the Plan in each case the direction is either ignored or dismissed without explanation. The summary exclusion of one particular legal direction for another that is used to deny a benefit becomes an indicator of extreme prejudice and if present in more than one case, an indicator of collusion to deliberately circumvent and obscure one part of an Act of law in favour of another.

So, what exactly are tax dollars purchasing? Hypothesis coming soon.