Proposal to reduce CAP death benefits

[RiverAux]

Buried in section 303 of S. 1789, "21st Century Postal Service Act", is a proposal to reduce the maximum death benefits allowed CAP members under FECA.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1789is/pdf/BILLS-112s1789is.pdf

(d) DEATH BENEFITS FOR CIVIL AIR PATROL VOLUNTEERS.—Section 8141 is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(2)(B) by striking ''75 per cent'' and inserting ''662⁄3 percent (except as provided in subsection (c))'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
''(c) If the death occurred before the date of enactment of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2011, subsection (b)(2)(B) shall be applied by substituting '75 percent' for '662⁄3 percent'.''.

Who introduced this stinker?  Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT) supported by Sens. Scott Brown (MA), Thomas Carper (DE), and Susan Collins (ME). 

In his remarks introducing the bill Sen. Lieberman just talks about how it will save the post office money.  I guess I missed us being made the Post Office Auxiliary.

Hey folks up in NE Region -- get on the ball! 

[a2capt]

Lieberman does begin with another three letter word, you know..

[Eclipse]

That's ridiculous, for starters, the death benefits paid by CAP in the last 10 years have to be very close to zero, if not
zero.  It's not like we all get anything...

And as you say, how is this related to the USPS?

How would this even come up in conversation, let alone a move to reduce benefits?

BTW - what's it "75%" of?

[RiverAux]

This is the FECA section being referred to in the bill:

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart G > CHAPTER 81 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 8141

§ 8141. Civil Air Patrol volunteers

(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, this subchapter applies to a volunteer civilian member of the Civil Air Patrol, except a Civil Air Patrol Cadet under 18 years of age.
(b) In administering this subchapter for a member of the Civil Air Patrol covered by this section—
(1) the monthly pay of a member is deemed the rate of basic pay payable for step 1 of grade GS–9 in the General Schedule under section 5332 of this title for the purpose of computing compensation for disability or death;
(2) the percentages applicable to payments under section 8133 of this title are—
(A) 45 percent for section 8133 (a)(2) of this title, if the member dies fully or currently insured under subchapter II of chapter 7 of title 42, with no additional payments for a child or children while the widow or widower remains eligible for payments under section 8133 (a)(2) of this title;
(B) 20 percent for section 8133 (a)(3) of this title for one child and 10 percent additional for each additional child, but not to exceed a total of 75 percent, if the member died fully or currently insured under subchapter II of chapter 7 of title 42; and
(C) 25 percent for section 8133 (a)(4) of this title, if one parent was wholly dependent on the deceased member at the time of his death and the other was not dependent to any extent; 16 percent to each, if both were wholly dependent; and if one was or both were partly dependent, a proportionate amount in the discretion of the Secretary of Labor;
(3) a payment may not be made under section 8133 (a)(5) of this title;
(4) "performance of duty" means only active service, and travel to and from that service, rendered in performance or support of operational missions of the Civil Air Patrol under direction of the Department of the Air Force and under written authorization by competent authority covering a specific assignment and prescribing a time limit for the assignment; and
(5) the Secretary of Labor or his designee shall inform the Commissioner of Social Security when a claim is filed and eligibility for compensation is established under section 8133 (a)(2) or (3) of this title, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall certify to the Secretary of Labor as to whether or not the member concerned was fully or currently insured under subchapter II of chapter 7 of title 42 at the time of his death.
(c) The Secretary of Labor or his designee may inform the Secretary of the Air Force or his designee when a claim is filed. The Secretary of the Air Force, on request of the Secretary of Labor, shall advise him of the facts concerning the injury and whether or not the member was rendering service, or engaged in travel to or from service, in performance or support of an operational mission of the Civil Air Patrol at the time of injury. This subsection does not dispense with the report of the immediate superior of the member required by section 8120 of this title, or other reports agreed on under that section.

[SARDOC]

Great Catch Riveraux.  I'm not in the NER but I'll be contacting my representatives.

[RiverAux]

How would this even come up in conversation, let alone a move to reduce benefits?

There is actually a big section in the bill about FECA stuff (not relating to the USPS) and I imagine someone happened to notice the CAP section.

[Major Lord]

Yet another excellent incentive not to die! I plan to live forever or die in the attempt....

Major Lord

[RiverAux]

for starters, the death benefits paid by CAP in the last 10 years have to be very close to zero, if not
zero. 

Well, close to zero.  We've had a dozen or so CAP deaths over the last decade.  At least a few of them were on missions where they should have gotten FECA coverage. 

[Eclipse]

I know we've had a few, but the printing costs for this bill are probably more than were paid out.  it certainly isn't something which will an effect on anyone budget, but like all these types of conversations, will have an adverse effect
on member opinion of the respect for their volunteer service.

[RiverAux]

We're certainly on the same page overall, just pointing out that it wasn't zero. 

[lordmonar]

To be fair.......it is a bill to reduce the deathe benefits for just about every federal employee from 75 to 66 and 2/3 percent.

So CAP input is not going to make much difference.

[RiverAux]

To be fair.......it is a bill to reduce the deathe benefits for just about every federal employee from 75 to 66 and 2/3 percent.

So CAP input is not going to make much difference.

Oh, you never know about something like that when dealing with Congress.  Tweak the right ear and who knows what goes into or out of a bill....

[RiverAux]

Here is what Lieberman says about this portion of the bill:

In addition, our bill would help save the Postal Service, and the federal government, money by reforming the federal workers' compensation program — of which 40 percent of all claimants are postal workers — in a humane manner. It would bring federal benefits in line with compensation levels offered under most states' laws and encourage more employees who are able to work to shift back to the workforce.
[/url]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70261.html

[RADIOMAN015]

To be fair.......it is a bill to reduce the deathe benefits for just about every federal employee from 75 to 66 and 2/3 percent.

So CAP input is not going to make much difference.

According to this source http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/186301-house-republicans-lets-end-the-congressional-death-benefit  apparently congressional folks get 1 years pay if they die in office.  So it ranges from $174K to 223.5K depending upon duties/committees etc.   The article discuss some republicans as wanting to do away with that benefit for congress.   Now I think at least it needs to go to 66 2/3% IF the proposed bill to cut CAP death benefits is passed.

I think there's a vast difference between someone who just dies of a non work related illness/injury and someone who is performing a mission for America, unpaid, and dies in the direct performance of their duties e.g. aircraft crash, mail carrier gets shot delivering the mail, border agent is killed, etc.

Hmm, I wonder how that MA wing squadron that marched with Scott Brown awhile back when he was running for office/or just elected now feels
RM 

[titanII]

Hmm, I wonder how that MA wing squadron that marched with Scott Brown awhile back when he was running for office/or just elected now feels
RM

Before this year's Memorial Day Parade in Marlborough, several members of my squadron (myself included) shook hands and talked to Senator Brown (for all of 5 seconds) if that's what you're referring to...

[ProdigalJim]

Hmm, I wonder how that MA wing squadron that marched with Scott Brown awhile back when he was running for office/or just elected now feels
RM

Before this year's Memorial Day Parade in Marlborough, several members of my squadron (myself included) shook hands and talked to Senator Brown (for all of 5 seconds) if that's what you're referring to...

It still makes you a constituent, and you and your SM leadership would be listened to in a way that out-of-staters would not. Believe me, I speak from 27 years of professional experience in and around Capitol Hill. If you guys were to arrange a visit with him to explain how this is an unnecessarily bad thing for CAP, it might make a difference in his vote, and in how he handles the issue with members of his caucus.

It's worth a phone call to the appointments secretary.

[a2capt]

The thing that frustrates me the most with the legislative process is this kind of stuff in general. Adding things to bills that have nothing to do with it, using them to find a place to stuff in your pet project.

Especially with the way they all don't read the whole thing. They look for their own interests and skip the rest.  The whole thing should be of related interest only.

[Brad]

The thing that frustrates me the most with the legislative process is this kind of stuff in general. Adding things to bills that have nothing to do with it, using them to find a place to stuff in your pet project.

Especially with the way they all don't read the whole thing. They look for their own interests and skip the rest.  The whole thing should be of related interest only.

This. Riders SUCK!!!

And for the record, SC pays out this if I get killed/injured line-of-duty with the fire dept:

$25,000

Line Of Duty Death Benefit

$5,000

Seat Belt Benefit

$10,000

Dependant Child Benefit

$2,500

Bereavement Benefit to the Department

$25,000

Cosmetic Disfigurement from Burns Benefit

$25,000

Covered Illness Death Benefit

$50

Total Weekly Disability Benefit

$50

Partial Disability Weekly Benefit

$50

Transition Benefit

$7,500

Medical Expense Benefit-Injury

$7,500

Medical Expense Benefit-Illness

$1,875

Plastic Surgery Benefit

$20,000

Retraining Benefit

$1,000

Rehabilitation Benefit

$1,000

Family Expense Benefit

$1,000

Mental Stress Management Benefit
(Per Person, Per Incident)

$1,000

Traumatic Incident Benefit
(Per Covered Activity)

Anyone know if there's a similar such table for CAP?

[lordmonar]

GS-9 step 1 gets $41,563/year.
Do the math from there.

[ZigZag911]

I have reliable information that National CC and Executive Director have been told about this and are addressing the issue.

[RiverAux]

I have reliable information that National CC and Executive Director have been told about this and are addressing the issue.

I really hope that they're not depending on little old RiverAux to discover such things.  All it takes is checking the "Thomas" system every now and again and doing a search for "civil air patrol" to see what bills we're being mentioned in.  I would have thought some of our top-level legislative folks would have seen it right away. 

[CAP_truth]

Maybe they should cut their benefits by 75% and see how much that would save the tax payers. I don't think they would vote on that one.

[jimmydeanno]

Maybe they should cut their benefits by 75% and see how much that would save the tax payers. I don't think they would vote on that one.

Practically nothing, when your debt is Trillions, you don't get a balanced budget by cutting "hundreds of thousands." 

They need to look at Medicare, DoD, and Social Security.  If they eliminate every other part of government we'll still be running a deficit.

[CAP_truth]

I'm sorry, but I am one of those people who receive those benefits and they are area that they should never cut. They could recontruct them into a better system. They need to look at the riders that are attached to each and every bill, that adds millions of dollars spent. They should adopt a one bill one topic. They should give the president a line item veto. They should stop the many give aways. They should but they won't
My 2 cents worth.

[RADIOMAN015]

I'm sorry, but I am one of those people who receive those benefits and they are area that they should never cut. They could recontruct them into a better system. They need to look at the riders that are attached to each and every bill, that adds millions of dollars spent. They should adopt a one bill one topic. They should give the president a line item veto. They should stop the many give aways. They should but they won't
My 2 cents worth.

Got to agree with you at this one!!!
Of course they (all of those *censored* we have in congress on both sides of the aisle) agreed to another Viet Nam type war allegedly against terrorism (invading Iraq), that was "unfunded" with no tax increase, but more tax give aways/breaks (and the countless "insiders" that made plenty of money on all those government contracts to support this war)  -- The cold war ending peace dividend evaporated quickly .   Of course we finally found Bin Laden living in plain view in one of our alleged allie's country that we had given countless billons of "our" hard earned dollars to combat terrorism 

Now a few more of the congressional *censored* go to cut benefits for people that get seriously injured and die in the line of duty.  Especially a 'true' volunteer such as a CAP member who isn't getting any compensation while performing the duty that gets them killed.  Pretty sad state of affairs.  Those congressional members supporting this bill should be personally ashame of what they are doing, pure and simple   

Surely we are in a fiscal mess, and this is going to require EVERYONE, and EVERY program to tighten its' belt.  It also means that revenue is going to have to increase, with everyone paying their "fair share".  Of course the issue to some (or perhaps many) is there's no such thing as "fair share" IF  they have to pay more or give up something.

Even from a Civil Air Patrol standpoint, is the USAF really getting it's money worth from this whole operation, or could there be more improvements to efficiency/effectiveness and perhaps even cut some programs back  
RM     
   

[lordmonar]

The USAF is certainly getting their money's worth from CAP......just the savings that they get from their inland SAR budget...they also get a CP and AE program!

From my point of view.....the 8 1/3 % reduction in death benifits is not going to stop me from volunteering to CAP.

But from the Federal Government's point of view.....that less then 9% saveings will save millions each year and may save the USPS.

I agree that Congress is NOT doing their job........and if they were any other government employee they would all have been fired.

Okay....end of my political argument.

[SARDOC]

From my point of view.....the 8 1/3 % reduction in death benifits is not going to stop me from volunteering to CAP.

Agreed...After all it doesn't impact me either way...If I needed this benefit...I'd be dead. This is only really a benefit to my widow and kids... if I'm dead they are on their own.

Wait a minute....that doesn't seem right

[RiverAux]

Anyone working for the federal government, whether civilian, military, or volunteer, should be eligible for the same death benefits. 

[titanII]

the 8 1/3 % reduction in death benifits is not going to stop me from volunteering to CAP.

+1
not that I'm ever in any danger, though..

[SarDragon]

These are two year old data, but the principle remains the same.

Obama Budget Cuts Visualization

There are more videos from the same person on YouTube. Search for "10000 pennies".

[RADIOMAN015]

From my point of view.....the 8 1/3 % reduction in death benifits is not going to stop me from volunteering to CAP.

Well that just about $3.5K reduction of non taxable payout.  That would likely cover cremation and buying a nice urn for the ashes, probably pay for part of the funeral also.

Hey, may CAP Inc, with its' unqualified audited financial statements, could find a sponsor to make up the difference :angel:  Maybe CAP could just fund it out of our corporate funds   Maybe just jack up the price for those Wreaths for the "Wreaths Across America" program and throw it into a fund at National HQ


When someone dies in a tragic unexpected accident, normally the family/survivors needs all the money they can possibly get to tie up loose ends that likely existed, because many folks don't have a good plan in effect if they meet their demise unexpectedly (e.g. the plan never got finished prior to their untimely death)    
RM

[lordmonar]

Anyone working for the federal government, whether civilian, military, or volunteer, should be eligible for the same death benefits.

Well....they are to a point.

The military has a different set of benifits....and this legislation will affect all the government employees covered by FECA....including CAP on AFAM.

[lordmonar]

From my point of view.....the 8 1/3 % reduction in death benifits is not going to stop me from volunteering to CAP.

Well that just about $3.5K reduction of non taxable payout.  That would likely cover cremation and buying a nice urn for the ashes, probably pay for part of the funeral also.

Hey, may CAP Inc, with its' unqualified audited financial statements, could find a sponsor to make up the difference :angel:  Maybe CAP could just fund it out of our corporate funds   Maybe just jack up the price for those Wreaths for the "Wreaths Across America" program and throw it into a fund at National HQ


When someone dies in a tragic unexpected accident, normally the family/survivors needs all the money they can possibly get to tie up loose ends that likely existed, because many folks don't have a good plan in effect if they meet their demise unexpectedly (e.g. the plan never got finished prior to their untimely death)    
RM

I don't disagree.
Currently your widow will get a monthly paycheck for $1731 for life or remarries.
If you have kids it is %45 + 15% per kid up to 75% or $2597/month
Add to that you get $800 for funeral expenses.

All of this is above and beyond any other insurance or death benifits the member may have outside of CAP.

So....anyone trying to say this is screwing CAP....I think is a little out of line.

[ZigZag911]

I agree that Congress is NOT doing their job........and if they were any other government employee they would all have been fired.

What a shame we can't vote them all out at once!

Oh, wait, we could...at least the House of Representatives!

I'd love to see a grassroots movement -- vote out all the incumbents (and if the new bunch doesn't get things done, in two years "fire" them, too!)

[RiverAux]

Hmm, the "Thomas" system you use for searching for pending federal legislation no longer comes up with this bill when you do a search on civil air patrol.  I searched it out the hard way and confirmed that the proposal is still part of the bill so it hasn't been amended.  Wonder what was going on.  If the search function is this bad no wonder it could easily be missed. 

[JeffDG]

Hmm, the "Thomas" system you use for searching for pending federal legislation no longer comes up with this bill when you do a search on civil air patrol.  I searched it out the hard way and confirmed that the proposal is still part of the bill so it hasn't been amended.  Wonder what was going on.  If the search function is this bad no wonder it could easily be missed.

The bill has been through markup in the Senate Homeland Security Committee and they have reported back with an amendment "in the nature of a substitute", which means (effectively), the original bill doesn't exist anymore, but I can't find the text of the substitute amendment.

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s1789

[RRLE]

Based on the subjects covered by the original bill S.1853  Postal Service Protection Act of 2011 introduced the day after the original bill was sent back to committee and referred to the same committee and/or S.2014 : Postal Investment Act of 2011 introduced 12/16/2011 and referred to the same committe may be the substitutes.

[Johnny Yuma]

Kansas Wing has had 2 incidents that have proven to me that the death/injury benefits are worth the paper they're printed on.

First one was a Senior member who broke his leg on an ELT mission, slipped on ice getting out of the vehicle and it snapped. Payment on all the bills took years and they found out the hard way that unless you're permanently disabled or killed there are no worker's compensation benefits.

I'd tell you that if you're injured on a mission, you'd be better off to die, however one of our own did just that while on a mission in a vehicle accident. It appears that the Department of Labor is the final arbiter on who gets benefits and per the law there is no appeal or recourse if they deny benefits. Well guess what they did? Widow got the $10K that CAP, Inc. gives and that didn't cover the funeral.

I cannot believe that a Federal corporation with 60,000 members and a multimillion dollar budget cannot provide some sort of group death and injury plan to cover members on missions and activities. I work with other volunteer groups that do far more hazardous activities on a much smaller scope and have coverage. If you don't have good health insurance and disability insurance on your own, I would reconsider doing any ES activity for CAP. The only reason why I continue to do so is I have good health benefits through my work as well as 2 separate disability plans. Otherwise my 101 card would have been shredded by now.

[RiverAux]

Kansas Wing has had 2 incidents that have proven to me that the death/injury benefits are worth the paper they're printed on.

From the rest of your post, I assume you meant that they are NOT worth the paper they're printed on.

[Ned]

Remind me again, is there any part of CAP that you actually enjoy and share good news about?

[Blah blah blah]unless you're permanently disabled or killed there are no worker's compensation benefits.

Before putting this kind of stuff out, please consider actually reading the regulations, starting with CAPR 900-5

First, as most CAP members already know, we are only eligible for FECA coverage on AFAM.  And by law, the coverage is based on GS-9, step one, which is currently $41,563 annualy.  In the event of permanent disability, CAP members receive a tax-free pension equalling 66% of the GS 9 amount, which is a little over $27,000 a year. 

Second, Uncle Sam will indeed pay for temporary disability, incurred on AFAM but it is probably not enough to replace civilian income for most members.  For temporary disability, Uncle Sam starts with the same amount as permanent disability, but is reduced by the amount a member can earn after the start of the temporary disability.  IOW, after you become partially disabled, if you could still earn $27k per year, you cannot receive temporary disability payments under FECA.

[blah blah blah]  It appears that the Department of Labor is the final arbiter on who gets benefits and per the law there is no appeal or recourse if they deny benefits.

Yup, kinda like every other person covered by FECA.  The whole point of workers compensation laws is to provide benefits outside of the court system and the attendant litigation, appeals, lawyers fees, delays, etc..

If you don't have good health insurance and disability insurance on your own, I would reconsider doing any ES activity for CAP.

I actually agree with you here.  Everybody should have adequate health and disability insurance to provide for themselves and their families in the event of illness, death, or disability.  And that applies whether or not you volunteer for CAP or any other worthwhile organization.

[Johnny Yuma]

Actually Ned, there's plenty of great things in CAP. However many of us are sick and tired of chairwarmers and lawyers spewing BS.

Yeah, I've read the the 900-5. Notice that the part about member needing to be totally disabled wasn't entered until November 2008. Funny this wasn't the reg until AFTER our GTL broke his leg in JANUARY 2008. So yeah, the 900-5 outlined coverage that we didn't have.

The medical bills _finally_ got paid, but it took over 2 years for them get paid and hits to his credit history when the unpaid bills went to collection in his name.

It's already been shown in Ed Hill's case that if the DOL doesn't want to pay CAP members FECA benefits they can deny the claim at their whim, which pretty much means we may have coverage on paper, but don't trust them to pay out.

I'll say it again Ned, not worth the paper they're printed on.

[lordmonar]

And yet four year later you are still with CAP?

Kind of a long time to let things brew.

Yes the government is a PITA.  What else is new?

Get your own insurance......It's what I do.

[RADIOMAN015]

And yet four year later you are still with CAP?

Kind of a long time to let things brew.

Get your own insurance......It's what I do.

It's interesting that just about always when someone brings up about an incident that significantly harmed an individual member, the thought process is well you can always quit to avoid that happening to you   --  Surely the happy face of happy people in CAP is what we want to strive for BUT if something terrible happens to a devoted member, isn't it a reasonable moral expectation that the member will be properly taken care of, especially on USAF authorized missions.  

As far as getting your own insurance, some members have looked into even a simple rider on their insurance to drive a CAP van (with those 12 teenagers being transported) (make sure your insurance carrier understands what you will be doing) and have found that the premiums would become cost prohibitive (so consequently they couldn't take the chance to drive the van).

Even on disability insurance, your insurance broker needs to understand how you could become disabled BECAUSE there just might be an exclusion clause buried in that insurance policy based upon certain things you might be volunteering to do (because the premise might be that organization you are volunteering for should have adequate insurance protection for those volunteers).     

One thing to remember about all insurance companies is they love to get those premium payments in BUT they hate to pay out ANY money, and will look to either limit or transfer those payouts to someone else.   Sometimes the policy holder can get stuck in the middle. :(At the very least I would think there would be an attempt at subrogation by the insurance company.

The bottom line on this is as adult senior members each of us has to decide what we are willing to risk financial (to our well being) while freely volunteering our time to Civil Air Patrol. (for example it is unlikely that I would respond (external to my residence) to any CAP ES response between the hours of 0001 thru 0600 hrs local). Personally CAP is too cheap and doesn't appear to really respect the volunteer member enough (when compared with other organizations that depend upon unpaid volunteers), especially if they are personally injured/diabled/die while on ANY CAP activity.  Got to wonder why no attempt has been made to offer a specific insurance program for the membership, versus the so called "self funded" assistance.  Even IF offered as an option to membership, perhaps it is worth looking into
RM       

[ProdigalJim]

So I've read (and re-read) the reg, as well as the insurance plans summaries from my employer. To Ned's point earlier, I'm pretty well insured. We AviationWeek employees even get a special rider to the corporate death and dismemberment coverage exempting us from the airplane exclusion (since we fly a lot of airplanes, including experimental ones, in the course of our work).

What's not clear to me is whether my own insurance would kick in if  I was in a CAP plane wreck, or slipped down an embankment on a line search with a ground team, or some other such incident. I mean, yes I'm well insured with health, life, death & dismemberment and short- and long-term disability coverage. But...mightn't they say, "Whoa, now, fella, we didn't expect you to be out chasing broken airplanes or fighting fires,"? (My other volunteer activity.)

[RiverAux]

What's not clear to me is whether my own insurance would kick in if  I was in a CAP plane wreck, or slipped down an embankment on a line search with a ground team, or some other such incident. I mean, yes I'm well insured with health, life, death & dismemberment and short- and long-term disability coverage. But...mightn't they say, "Whoa, now, fella, we didn't expect you to be out chasing broken airplanes or fighting fires,"? (My other volunteer activity.)

I wonder how they would know it was CAP related for something like that?  If I slipped and hurt my leg while on a CAP ground search when the doctor asked how I did it, I would say, "I was walking in the woods and slid down an embankment".  Is there some duty on my part to report to the doctor (who would be reporting to the insurance company) WHY I was walking through the woods?

[Thom]

What's not clear to me is whether my own insurance would kick in if  I was in a CAP plane wreck, or slipped down an embankment on a line search with a ground team, or some other such incident. I mean, yes I'm well insured with health, life, death & dismemberment and short- and long-term disability coverage. But...mightn't they say, "Whoa, now, fella, we didn't expect you to be out chasing broken airplanes or fighting fires,"? (My other volunteer activity.)

I wonder how they would know it was CAP related for something like that?  If I slipped and hurt my leg while on a CAP ground search when the doctor asked how I did it, I would say, "I was walking in the woods and slid down an embankment".  Is there some duty on my part to report to the doctor (who would be reporting to the insurance company) WHY I was walking through the woods?

The key is SUBROGATION.

This is the process whereby, after paying for treatment for your injuries, the insurance company tries to find someone 'responsible' to pay them back. Sometimes this is the driver of the car that hit you, sometimes the owner of the convenience store where you slipped and fell, and sometimes it is the owner of the ravine you slid down due to his improper marking of a dangerous area or failure to clear away ground debris.

IF the insurance company investigates an accident, and there's no way to predict whether they will or not (sometimes they just take your word for it), then you don't want to be lying to them. It can subject you to all sorts of unpleasantness, including them going back to you for the subrogation since you lied to them about the cause of the injuries.

Having said all that, you should be able to tell if you'll have a problem with them over CAP activities by reading your policy. The exclusions should be relatively clear. (OK, maybe not clear, but it usually is understandable English, not full-on lawyer speak.)


Thom

[RiverAux]

then you don't want to be lying to them.

Who said anything about lying to anyone?  I'd tell the doctor what happened to cause the injury and if the insurance company ever asked, I would tell them.  But, in my experience I've never had an insurance company ask me anything about any of my medical claims.  I was injured enough not that long ago to require ambulance service and no one ever asked why I was doing what I was doing when I got injured. 

[SARDOC]

I wonder how they would know it was CAP related for something like that?  If I slipped and hurt my leg while on a CAP ground search when the doctor asked how I did it, I would say, "I was walking in the woods and slid down an embankment".  Is there some duty on my part to report to the doctor (who would be reporting to the insurance company) WHY I was walking through the woods?

In my wing the policy is to have a wing activity number for any activity outside of our regular meetings.  If you are not signed in at your meeting, Activity or Mission...it's not CAP related.

If it's a serious Bodily injury you should seek immediate emergency medical Care.  The activity OIC should notify the Chain of Command to make appropriate notification to the NOC.

As the injured party, I not sure what your responsibility you would have.  If anybody out there has had dealings with insurance  coverage for a Major injury if you could share that experience or make recommendations.  I know in my state you would just tell them it's work related and they just bill the State Worker's Comp Fund, who subrogates it back to your employer.  Not sure how that would work with CAP or the Federal Government

[lordmonar]

In my wing the policy is to have a wing activity number for any activity outside of our regular meetings.  If you are not signed in at your meeting, Activity or Mission...it's not CAP related.

Nice policy....too bad it means bukus.  When little johnny is at your CAP facility he's on CAP time, signed in or not.

[Johnny Yuma]

And yet four year later you are still with CAP?

Yes, I am.

Kind of a long time to let things brew.

Those people were friends of mine. the guy who broke his leg was at the time a new father and had just bought a home. They nearly lost it because he was out of work so long because the benefits the 900-5 said we had at the time didn't exist. Their credit took a big hit when the bills took forever for the .gov to pay.

Ed Hill just got a brand new job and was a newly wed. His widow got shafted after CAP and the USAF pretty much told her there would be no problems getting FECA.

Yeah, when friends of mine get screwed I brew about it.

Get your own insurance......It's what I do.

If I didn't have it, you think I'd still be in CAP?

[SARDOC]

In my wing the policy is to have a wing activity number for any activity outside of our regular meetings.  If you are not signed in at your meeting, Activity or Mission...it's not CAP related.

Nice policy....too bad it means bukus.  When little johnny is at your CAP facility he's on CAP time, signed in or not.

Well that's what I thought too.  But that's a matter for the higher ups and may shift attention to whether this is legitimate or not, or if the person was being properly supervised, etc.  It may also help shift the burden to the member to prove that their injury was CAP related.

[billford1]

Johnny Yuma's concerns are well founded.

I voiced concerns about indemnity issues with respect to GT members who may get hurt and how liable the GTL could be. I wonder if there is a record of cases for where FECA claims were actually awarded to CAP Members. I guess the message we need to get is: Have plenty of auto insurance PIP coverage and higher liability coverage. It's hard to believe that benefits could be denied at the arbitrary whim of perhaps one individual at the DOL. If I am wrong please tell me.

[lordmonar]

I don't think it is an arbitrary whim of anyone.

I don't know anyone who has asked for FECA coverage.....but you know it is the government and they don't do anything easy or fast.

So it is not a perfect system.  We do have coverage on AFAMs and we have CAP coverage on other missions....it is not a lot...but what do you expect for free?  Even the military has to pay for life insurance...otherwise you only get a few thousdand dollars and any back pay.

[Ned]

Johnny Yuma's concerns are well founded.

I voiced concerns about indemnity issues with respect to GT members who may get hurt and how liable the GTL could be. I wonder if there is a record of cases for where FECA claims were actually awarded to CAP Members. I guess the message we need to get is: Have plenty of auto insurance PIP coverage and higher liability coverage. It's hard to believe that benefits could be denied at the arbitrary whim of perhaps one individual at the DOL. If I am wrong please tell me.

You are indeed wrong.  Adverse decisions on a FECA claim have multiple avenues of appeal, starting with a hearing at the local level and extending all the way up to the independent Employees Compensation Appeals Board that is part of the Department of Labor but separate from the OWCP.

Really guys, the FECA has been around for a long time and has handled hundreds of thousands of claims over the years.  It is the exact same system that covers FBI agents, clerks in the Agriculture Department, and air traffic controllers.  Did you really think that Uncle Sam would have some ssort of system that would allow some low level bureaucrat to decide important disabiility quuestions for Federal employees on a whim with no review or appeal?

[RogueLeader]

As a matter of fact, yes. 

[billford1]

Johnny Yuma's concerns are well founded.

I voiced concerns about indemnity issues with respect to GT members who may get hurt and how liable the GTL could be. I wonder if there is a record of cases for where FECA claims were actually awarded to CAP Members. I guess the message we need to get is: Have plenty of auto insurance PIP coverage and higher liability coverage. It's hard to believe that benefits could be denied at the arbitrary whim of perhaps one individual at the DOL. If I am wrong please tell me.

You are indeed wrong.  Adverse decisions on a FECA claim have multiple avenues of appeal, starting with a hearing at the local level and extending all the way up to the independent Employees Compensation Appeals Board that is part of the Department of Labor but separate from the OWCP.

Really guys, the FECA has been around for a long time and has handled hundreds of thousands of claims over the years.  It is the exact same system that covers FBI agents, clerks in the Agriculture Department, and air traffic controllers.  Did you really think that Uncle Sam would have some ssort of system that would allow some low level bureaucrat to decide important disabiility quuestions for Federal employees on a whim with no review or appeal?

Sir, Thanks for responding. In the end after the appeal process, is the final arbitration not handled by a DOL Hearing Officer? Do you know of any information resource with a history of FECA claims granted and/or denied? The denial of LtCol Ed Hill's death benefit was hard to for us to accept. He was a former Army Officer who continued to serve his Country.

[lordmonar]

Just out of curiosity.....what was the nature of Lt. Col Hill's death?

[Eclipse]

I got the news this morning, we were watching Gena's boys when we got the news.

Just got this from her this evening:

Good evening.

It is with great sorrow that I reach out to you at this time.  We pause in our activities this evening to pay a richly deserved tribute to a devoted and highly esteemed member of our wing who was removed from our midst this morning.

Lt Col Edmund Hill passed away today in a motor vehicle accident en route to Scanner/Observer training in Emporia.  Despite an active life and devotion to his family, Lt Col Hill also found much time to give to the Civil Air Patrol and Kansas Wing in his role as Director of Operations and as a pilot.  I know many of you share the grief I am feeling as he touched the lives of most members of the wing who participated in emergency services or flight activities.  He was a man of very high standards, integrity, and seemingly boundless energy.  There is no doubt that his passing leaves a void in our hearts and in the organization.
     
At this time, we have little information.  We ask for your patience.  As more information becomes available, and we are made aware of the details regarding his funeral services, we will pass that information on to you.

We ask that you keep his family in your thoughts and prayers as they deal with the unexpected loss.

Yours in sorrow,


Regena M. Aye, Colonel, CAP
Commander, Kansas Wing

[lordmonar]

AFAM?

[RRLE]

The USCG Aux has the same type of coveage and claims are often denied. The problem for the USCG Aux and probably CAP versus full-time employees of the federal government is assignment to duty. It isn't hard to discover when a full-time employee is on duty. It can be for a volunteer. And every case of denial of benefits to Auxies, that I am aware of, they lost the benefits due to a finding of being not assigned to duty.

I also know of no denial that was not upheld on appeal, including a case where the Auxie had the backing of senior USCG officers. {left out a key word}

The key components of assignment to duty is that a responsible Auxie officer knows you are going on the mission before you go and that the mission is real.

One tragic denial that I am aware of highlights the latter issue. An Auxie crew completed a boat patrol. The crew and coxswain/owner were cleaning/watering off the boat after the patrol. The coxswain/owner slipped on the dock and fell down the length of pole that supports the pier and into the water. He was pretty badly managled by the barnacles on the pole. He was rushed to the emergency room and the proper notifications given to the authorities of the accident. All his medical claims were denied. Why? The last radio call he made to the USCG station upon docking was the standard 'terminating patrol' message. The DOL claimed and was upheld on appeal that the radio message signified the end of the mission and therefore government responsibility for the members. DOL claimed the radio message should have been 'securing patrol' and the mission not terminated until the members had safely returned home.

For good measure, the DOL stated but did not claim in its finding that the activity - cleaning the boat - was probably above and beyoned the duties of the boat crew as outlined in the various Auxiliary publications. It is well known that the crew often helps the owner clean the boat after the patrol but that specific activity is not mentioned in the various manuals. DOL at least implied that it could also have denied the claim because the specific activity that lead to the accident was not an authorized activity.

So what may look like a straight forward claim to a CAP member or Auxie may have issues that DOL will sieze upon to deny the claim. 

Several USCG officer over the years have told Auxies that the job of DOL is not to protect the member, their job is to protect the government's interest.

[Eclipse]

The above and similar examples in CAP are why it is constantly stressed to follow procedures to the letter and not get "creative" with anything.

Despite that we have people that make things up all over the place, and then are surprised when occasionally it comes back to biting someone
on the butt (or worse).

Being the first person denied benefits because they are out of uniform, or some other "trivial" detail is not a distinction anyone should be working towards.

[Ned]

In the end after the appeal process, is the final arbitration not handled by a DOL Hearing Officer? Do you know of any information resource with a history of FECA claims granted and/or denied?

Here is a good resource to start researching FECA:  Questions and Answers About the FECA published by the Department of Labor.  It covers the basics, including the appeals process.  Notice that it specifically includes CAP members in the answers.  There are a number of questions and answers about  "scope of duty", including a discussion about whether folks are covered while driving to/from duty assignments.

There are also links to other publications that cover FECA.

[Eclipse]

C-8.        Is an employee considered to be in performance of duty while going to and from work?
No.  Employees are not generally covered by the FECA for injuries which occur before they
reach the employer's premises or after they have left it.  However, coverage may be extended
when the employer provides transportation to and from work, when the employee is required to
travel during a curfew or an emergency, or when the employee is required to use his or her
automobile during the work day.

Suitably vague.

We've been wrestling with the question of whether or not issuing transport sorties does anyone any good.

One reg is pretty clear about transport to/from, yet that travel is still reimbursed for mission expenses, so the
reasoning was that signing in a member from home with a transport sortie grants them full protections.

I'm on the side that says "I don't think so..."

[RiverAux]

Being the first person denied benefits because they are out of uniform, or some other "trivial" detail is not a distinction anyone should be working towards.

Too late, already happened according to the CAP CD training program. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Lt Col XXXXX passed away today in a motor vehicle accident en route to Scanner/Observer training in Emporia. 
     
At this time, we have little information.  We ask for your patience.  As more information becomes available, and we are made aware of the details regarding his funeral services, we will pass that information on to you.

Commander, Kansas Wing

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in my wing all the practice SAREX's I've participated in (staffing the mission base) you sign in at mission base when you get there.  The aircraft get released with the crews via a formal telephone release (and could be at any location in the wing) BUT the vehicles (CAP owned and private) never get that release while enroute to the SAREX mission base.  This procedure doesn't sound right to me 

So perhaps the denial was because CAP doesn't have a good system during a SAREX to account for personnel that are enroute travelling to the training site/mission base site to initially sign in. (Shouldn't the procedure be the same for funded training as with actual missions with someone at a mission base/IC signing the individual in and authorizing the travel BEFORE they start their travel to the mission base (just as is done with aircraft)     I know when we leave mission base we have a telephone number to call when we arrive at our home destination safely.

I would think that IF one is driving their own private vehicle to training and had an accident, without having specific authority to go to it (e.g. you call first and get signed in when you are about to leave your residence to travel), than likely there won't be evidence to indicate coverage.  I would go as far to say that the authorization should not only be the mission number but also another control number (on the sign in sheet that is pre numbered) which is given to you at the time you call in.

Also my advice to any CAP member (and also tell your family members before hand in case you are incapacitated or die) that IF anything happens to you, accident of any sort while volunteering your time for CAP, you make sure you/your family gets a lawyer to protect YOUR (your family's) interests.   As you've seen in the 2 cases presented above, there's a lot of nasty legal things that can happen and there are lawyers that specialize in just about every area including government compensation claims and also remember CAP Inc may also hold some responsibility.
RM

[Eclipse]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in my wing all the practice SAREX's I've participated in (staffing the mission base) you sign in at mission base when you get there.  The aircraft get released with the crews via a formal telephone release (and could be at any location in the wing) BUT the vehicles (CAP owned and private) never get that release while enroute to the SAREX mission base.  This procedure doesn't sound right to me 

Your experience does not echo the ops of other wings, especially those that share a lot of resources across borders on a regular basis.  And though you
indicate only practice, I can tell you that a transport sortie is very common for real-world missions where you have to travel cross-country to get there.

We also seem to be doing a lot more remote operations and VFR-direct to the AO for missions.  In most cases there is no need to have a GT
"high-five" the mission base just to turn around and drive to the AO.

Part of this stems from the finance system which needs a sortie per 108.

That's why I am raising the question, because it would seem that the assignment of the sortie for 108 purposes may, or may not, be giving the
member the impression of coverage they don't have.

I have yet to get a definitive answer on this.

[Spaceman3750]

Anyone volunteer to be the guy taking my 0300 call to get a release? (Not making that up, that happened a lot last year when I was driving four hours upstate the day of.

[Johnny Yuma]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

[PHall]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

But was the mission "open" yet and was he offically signed in?

If he was on the way to the Mission Base from his home then he was probably not signed in yet and thus not on "CAP Time".

Same deal if you had an accident on the way to your weekly squadron meeting.

[lordmonar]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

So the to and from rules apply.

[Ned]

Colleagues,

I am not going to discuss the details of so tragic a loss, and I urge you not to engage in speculation about what may or may not have happened and why a particular claim may have been denied. 

It is both unprofessional and unseemly to discuss the particulars in a place that may be viewed by his friends and loved ones.

Feel free to discuss if you might be covered on your way to/from and AFAM, and certainly continue to point out the wisdom of all of us having adequte insurance to provide for our families in the event of illness, death, or disability regardless of our CAP status.

[billford1]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

So the to and from rules apply.

Civil Air Patrol training duty means going to different locations, unlike the job I drive to each morning.

If I am awakened out of bed and alerted to proceed from my home at 2:00 AM to a CAP designated Mission staging area am I only covered when I get to the staging area?  It's not like I'm driving to a job at the Post Office.

[billford1]

Being the first person denied benefits because they are out of uniform, or some other "trivial" detail is not a distinction anyone should be working towards.

Too late, already happened according to the CAP CD training program.

I missed the CD training program. Is it confirmed for real that you have to be in a 39-1 compliant CAP uniform as a condition for FECA eligibility?

[RADIOMAN015]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

So the to and from rules apply.

Willing to bet you will find that federal employees reporting to a directed training site away from their normal duty station are covered by FECA for their travel right from their residence to the site and return.    Since the CAP volunteer is being reimbursed for travel to and from the training site it would seem that they are in an authorized travel duty status and CAPR 900-5, para 13, section D specifically states that travel to/return is covered on AF Assigned Missions, so this validates the logic of travel to an AF designated training site (e.g. mission base). 

I sincerely hope the family of that member had a lawyer well versed in the federal claim regulations reviewing that denial of the claim .    Also got to wonder if there congressional representatives were brought into this.

Too bad we can't find out the reason why that claim was specifically denied.

RM

[PHall]

Too bad we can't find out the reason why that claim was specifically denied.

RM

Because he was already covered by his personal insurance?

[lordmonar]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

So the to and from rules apply.

Civil Air Patrol training duty means going to different locations, unlike the job I drive to each morning.

If I am awakened out of bed and alerted to proceed from my home at 2:00 AM to a CAP designated Mission staging area am I only covered when I get to the staging area?  It's not like I'm driving to a job at the Post Office.

Nope....If I get called at 2:00 A.M.  I make sure that the individual calling me signs me into IMU and generates a transport sortie from my place of residnce to the mission base....so the to and from rule does not apply.

[RiverAux]

A transport sortie from your house to mission base?  Never heard of that being done. 

[davidsinn]

A transport sortie from your house to mission base?  Never heard of that being done.

It's SOP for SAREXs here. They actually had me do a sortie for a four mile trip last summer. I didn't waste my time on going for reimbursement though.

[RiverAux]

I suppose it makes sense, but the admin associated with adding 20-50 sorties into WMIRs to cover people driving to/from the mission must be a nightmare. 

[Eclipse]

I suppose it makes sense, but the admin associated with adding 20-50 sorties into WMIRs to cover people driving to/from the mission must be a nightmare.

Front end or back end - they all need a sortie for the 108, so it's no more work, it's just when you do it.

[lordmonar]

I suppose it makes sense, but the admin associated with adding 20-50 sorties into WMIRs to cover people driving to/from the mission must be a nightmare.

IMU...takes 30 seconds to generate a transport sortie.

[Eclipse]

I suppose it makes sense, but the admin associated with adding 20-50 sorties into WMIRs to cover people driving to/from the mission must be a nightmare.

IMU...takes 30 seconds to generate a transport sortie.

Or just create them directly in WMIRS.

[Spaceman3750]

Blank sortie x30 and plug in the details later .

[billford1]

Somebody said it earlier. Seriously was there a claim denial for lack of a correct CAP uniform? I really need to know where to find the specifics on that if it's true.

[PHall]

Somebody said it earlier. Seriously was there a claim denial for lack of a correct CAP uniform? I really need to know where to find the specifics on that if it's true.

This question has been asked several times in the past. And yet a solid answer has never been given.

Urban Myth anyone?

[RADIOMAN015]

I'm still confused.   IF you are driving in your private vehicle to participate in an AF authorized/funded SAREX at a mission training base about 100 miles from your home  --- You have an accident BEFORE arrival or  AFTER departure from the mission base.   Are you covered under FECA as a government employee traveling to training     Would the IC or someone else have to give you prior to departure documented permission to travel to the mission base in order for the claim to be approved

Lets add another issue.   The Ground Team (composite primarily of cadets) is sent on an authorized training mission to a specific location.   During the ground search training one cadet, who is 17 years old, breaks his leg in numerous places.  Who pays for that    The AF & CAP are permitting cadets to participate on ground teams, therefore it could be argued that a claim for medical care is reasonable.    Add to this that the cadet had a sports scholarship to an excellent college, and has lost this because of his injury that has left him with a disability.  Who pays for his college now   With cadets on a ground team should we be getting a specific parent/guardian acknowledgement/release regarding IF they are hurt it is likely the parents will have to pay the cost.

BTW there's nothing in the federal regulation that says the CAP individual member (or his/her estate) can't sue a third party (e.g. traffic accident where the other individual was definitely at fault). 

RM

   

[lordmonar]

For those under 18....CAP and CAP's insurance would pay for it.
As for suing someone for future earnings or paying for college.....that would all be on the parents and their lawyers.