Proposal to reduce CAP death benefits

[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.