Story about WCB hostage-taking taken hostage by CBC jounalists

Ya their base rate of 452.00 per month, is not much to live on, eh.

Not sure, though, that this story is all about an act of desperation, or that this person should be supported:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/10/22/edmonton-charges-host...

Quote:

Accused abusive and drug user, ex-wife alleges

According to court documents obtained by CBC News, Clayton's ex-common-law wife said she was afraid he would physically harm her.

A restraining order was granted in May 2009 that required Clayton to keep from coming within 200 metres of her and not to communicate with her.

In an affidavit sworn in support of that court order, the woman alleged she feared his unpredictable behaviour and drug abuse, which she said included the use of crack cocaine.

The couple separated in late 2005. In the affidavit, she alleged Clayton continued to harass her afterwards, including sending up to 30 phone messages and 20 text messages in one day, which she characterized as threatening and insulting.

http://rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/injured-worker-takes-wcb-office-hostage

Maybe we can combine this with the thread I started a couple days ago.

double post oops

I never thought from the outset that Clayton was going to be a perfect poster boy for any cause.   After all, he didn't even seem to discriminate in his hostage taking between other injured workers like himself, and staff at the WCB-- who, by the way, don't seem to be suffering from any out pooring of sympathy, either.

But the bee up my place where a proctologist has yet to venture is that I've known... know.... co-workers who's substance abuse problems were touched off by work place injuries and long waiting lists for injuries, and the slide greasers at Perdue Pharmacuetical.

So, maybe Clayton was one of those idiots that would have gone off about something sooner or later-- I suspect from his actions, putting aside the dirt that's been dug up on him-- that that's a most likely explanation. 

It would be interesting to know the chronology, and the handling of his claim by WCB in all this. You know, his side.

I'd also be interested to know if the Alberta WCB has any contracts with Navigator.  We all know what a willing conduit CBC news is for those slugs.

I think the CBC coverage has been excellent. 

I've been quite surprised at how good all the media coverage has been (at least here in Edmonton).  I don't think we can expect anyone to make a poster boy out of a man who gets a gun and takes hostages.  But I've been quite surprised by the CBC and other media's willingness to look at the issues around how the WCB operates, and the fact that huge numbers of clamants have complaints.  The Edmonton Sun even had an editorial entitled "Hostage-taking was inevitable"  From the SUN!

I expected the media to treat this as a 'lone crazy' story.  Instead, they have been giving good coverage to the problems of WCB, and even exhibiting some sympathy for the hostage taker.  I find the balance to be commendable.  This is one time the media seems to be getting it right.

I agree Polly, and indeed with Lou, even CTV Edmonton has covered it well.

They are taking lived experiences seriously and giving them exposure.

Ya, what does anyone's personal life history have to do with WCB deciding to throw them into a life of poverty?

True story - years ago my brother worked as a tow truck driver for the AMA.  One day, while he had a car in tow and was stopped at a red light, another car rear-ended the car he was towing at an estimated speed of 50 km/h.  Both cars, the one driven and the one being towed, were totaled.

My brother hurt his back. It was probably about two years before it recovered to the point where his life was almost normal. The first 6 months after the accident the pain was real severe. For at least six months after that riding in a truck with heavy duty suspension all day was out of the question.

Because he was working at the time of the accident, he had to file a WCB claim.  He became very upset with the way his case was being handled by the WCB and his employer.

The WCB paid benefits initially.  My brother was required to report to this particular clinic for therapy.  It had some hokey name like The Canadian Back Institute (TCBI).  They had a contract with the WCB at the time to provide therapy to claimaints with reported back pain.

TCBI did not seem to have any interest in therapy.  Their goal seemed to be to prove that their patients were capable of returning to work as soon as possible.  The first thing TCBI asked him to do was sign a release form stating that charges would be pressed against him and a civil damages suit might result for any attack or unwarranted abuse against an employee of TCBI.  Would you choose someone who did this as your therapist?

He hated the people at the TCBI and he hated going there because their therapy was like torture and it did not help at all.  TCBI declared him fit to work in short order.  He was moved from his temporary desk job (which he did not like) back to the truck full time.  It was an all or nothing proposition. No part time was considered.  I think it was in the AMA's interest to close the file as soon as possible. He quit his job not long after because the pain became unbearable.

In the meantime, the WCB board had ruled that my brother had a pre-existing condition, Fibromyalgia, that was primarily responsible for his back pain. This was total opportunistic bullshit and completely self serving. My brother had hired a lawyer to represent him for both the WCB and for the accident claim. The lawyer was a good guy, intelligent and honest.  He did as much as he could do with the WCB, but he was powerless really.  You can't sue the WCB. He had to go back to work or lose his job.

My brother (and his lawyer) had letters from 3 different doctors, all of whom held the opinion that the back pain my brother was experiencing at the time was attributable, in all probability, to the accident.  This did not matter one whit to the WCB.  They had a different opinion. It was virtually impossible to legally challenge that.

After I read the doctors letters and had several conversations with my brother's lawyer I was friggin' enraged.  I decide to get involved and  phoned the local WCB office in Calgary, which was not far from where I used to live.  At the time, driving by, it was not uncommon to see a tent trailer parked out front, or a even a tent on the little patch of lawn they had, adorned with protest signs. 

It was about 1:30 in the afternoon when I phoned the WCB from my brothers place. No answer.  I try again in case I have made a mistake, look up the phone number again, looking for a different phone number, etc.  Never an answer.  I call one last time and decide I am just going to let it ring. I am pissed.  After about 27 or so rings someone picks up the phone and yells "WHAT!?"

Before I have a chance to say 2 words, he says "CALL BACK LATER!" and he hangs up. 

Now I'm really pissed!  I get in my car and drive to the WCB office.  But there is a traffic jam as I approach the office. Since it is late in the afternoon, I am hopping mad, and this effort might take a long time, I decide to head home and take up the issue the next day.

I learned shortly after that the reason for the traffc jam was there was a hostage taking in progress at the Calgary WCB offices.

Just before the 2nd anniversary of the accident, my brother settled  with the insurance company of the driver that hit him.  It was not an eyepopper settlement, but he was able to pay back all the money he had borrowed from family and put a nice advance against the mortgage.

The kicker is that the WCB was able to make a claim against the settlement, which is reasonable.  The WCB had that right all along. In the end the WCB claim did not amount to much at all because of their incredible stinginess.  The lawyer probably ended up with more.

So why this mind-set?  It was simple cost-containment, ladies and gentlemen. Balance the budget and damn the consequences, as long at it does not cost you an election.  It was Klein era cost cutting at its finest.

The following year, Mary Cameron, the head honcho of the WCB, awarded herself a salary and bonus that exceeded $400K - no doubt for her excellent work in reducing the WCB deficit. Even Ralph Klein was pissed at this news.

Apparently my brother's Fibromyalgia got better.  It does not seem to be a problem now and he is  a heavy duty mechanic.  Of course, he will never submit to the WCB for back pain again for whatever the reason. What would be the point?

This was a dark period in WCB history across Canada, and especially in Alberta.  There were some MLA's who were attempting to correct some of the wrongs that were inflicted on many victims, but I don't know what became of it. At least Alberta has a class action lawsuit mechanism now (and the gov't of Alberta was the first successfuly sued with th new law).

What is worse is that I have no idea what the situation is like today because I have no faith in the mainstream media's ability or will to collect and report on stories like these.  You are more likely to hear about them on forums like these.

triciamarie wrote:

I wonder if this Alberta worker has considered requesting psychological entitlement under his accident claim (assuming initial entitlement had been allowed). He would usually need to establish the nature and extent of any pre-injury psychological diagnosis, including drug addiction, and show that this condition deteriorated significantly, or new conditions developed, after the accident. The fact is that whatever his problems were before, it sounds like before he got hurt he was working and managing to hang onto a job. After his work accident is when everything went in the toilet. Men who are depressed do act out violently and take risks. This is not in any way, shape or form to condone the abuse of his intimate partner, but rather to responsibly consider the effect of the work accident (and issues related to the accident, like poverty, pain, identity crisis) in that unfortunate scenario.

FWIW, my brother was one of the few licensed mechanics in the group at the time, and he quite liked his job and his mates.  There are definite intrinsics awards that come with rescuing stranded drivers - maybe it is not reflected in the pay but there are many handshakes and smiles. This may be beyond your understanding.  He was happy with his job, he wasn't "hanging on".

This was not a case of someone falling to one knee after trying to lift a box. There were three heavily damaged vehicles to offer as evidence that something BIG happened.  The diagnosis of Fibromyalgia was pure self serving rubbish. I provided the wikipedia link to just in case anyone might want to further explore this hard to diagnose, hard to disprove disease.  In the hands of the right doctors and lawyers, it makes for great rubbish science.

Your suggestion of "requestiong psychological entitlement", with the onus on him to establish any pre-injury events to validate the bogus diagnosis of Fibromyalgia is laughable.  Do you realize what you just said?  He never had Fibromyalgia, and he doesn't have it NOW. Case closed.

He just needed time to heal. He did get it. Not by a long shot.

Your vivid description of security measures at WCB offices, along with the creature comforts offered to staff, in stark contrast to the paucity of amenities offered for WCB clients is surreal; it reads like something out of a George Orwell novel. It is worth repeating:

Quote:

I have been in the security command centre in the marble palace that is the Ontario WSIB. There are something like 12 full time security officers, with a big central control room with camera feeds going all the way around. WSIB staff can only access certain parts of the building. I recall hearing that if front desk staff are threatened, they have the ability to push their chairs backwards and a steel door closes in front of them. Remember Get Smart? It's like that. I kept waiting for the dome of silence to appear.

And actually, silence is enforced by those same security staff -- there is not one place within the WSIB for an injured worker to sit down and look over their file with their representative. There is a library, but you're not allowed to speak, and they keep a close eye on you to make sure you're only doing research. Meanwhile, WSIB staff have access to a full-floor lounge overlooking Lake Ontario with couches, kitchens, vending machines, everything to make their lives comfortable.

The WCB is a friggin' glorified insurance agency. It is not Fort Knox or the NATO's defense command center.  That these centers are constructed like this is testament to the failed social experiment that is the WCB.

And that change is not going to come at the ballot box.

Sorry, Tommy_Paine, I edited just as you were posting.

I am pessimistic, on one hand, about the chances that the change coming at the ballot box but what the hell else will bring about needed changes to WCBs, among other things? When will the non-elites start to recognize that it is their own choices on the various election days that determine the direction of government programs? Isn't it the job of those who do recognize this to tell the others, despite the MSM message. That should be becoming easier as our governments move further and further away from the interests of the population they "serve".

Diogenes, my comments re: seeking psychological entitlement were in respect of the Alberta man who is the subject of the news coverage. This was in response to earlier comments in this thread suggesting that since the man evidently had some other problems in his life before getting injured, this should influence whether or not he receives workers' compensation benefits. Those earlier problems should only interfere with the benefits that he would otherwise be entitled to as an injured worker if those same problems are the predominant reason why he can't work now.

Re fibromyalgia, this is just one of many nebulous if not spurious factors that carry a great deal of weight in a WC claim. This particula diagnosis, if extended by a rheumatologist, tends to be very persuasive in the eyes of decision-makers -- with differing effects for the claim, depending on for example, whether the diagnosis preceeds or follows the work injury. This is a window into the reading of tea leaves that takes place in WC adjudication -- but not only in WC adjudication; court litigation suffers from the same problem.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

That's the media coverage I am objecting to.  Yes, Lou Arab and Polly are correct; the CBC, and others have been good at bringing attention to the WSIB issues-- through the voices of worker advocates, case workers at WSIB and the guy who runs the mess.

But never an injured worker's voice, and certainly not Clayton's.

It's classist bullshit.

 

Actually from the start I have been saying that I didn't care for the CBC coverage.  I thought it was bullshit that his past was trotted out at all - BEFORE he was even charged with a crime for fekk sakes.  All of a sudden he is not an injured worker, he is a wife beating crackhead who obviously doesn't deserve our sympathy or support.  Regardless of the fact that he was injured at work and has been given the royal WCB runaround.  It doesn't matter anymore, cuz he's a drug addict, not the poster boy we needed. 

On the other hand, they were perfectly careful not to air his phone call live, the one where he explained what drove him to do something so outrageous.  The phone call he said would end the stand off.  The phone call we found out about after the fact.  We heard about that the same time as we heard about his sordid past and his disgusting drug habit.

Fuck.

We don't need to look at the fact that he felt he had no choice, we don't need to look at the fact that he was in pain, we don't need to look at the fact that he didn't get re-training, we don't need to look at the fact that he couldn't find work, we don't need to look at the fact that he was trying to live on $5000 per year.  After all, he's a wife beating crackhead.

triciamarie wrote:

Loretta, you might be interested to know that many of my clients deal both with insurance agencies and the WSIB, and long-term they tend to have much more success with the Board. There is no question that WCB's want to minimize outlay but as quasi-governmental agencies implementing remedial legislation there are limits on their ability to do so. The same cannot be said of private insurance agencies. That is why WCB's often end up so far in the hole, while insurance companies consistently rake in enormous profits.

Hi triciamarie,

I used to work for government MLA in BC. At the time, I was invited to a full briefing on how WCB works, including how the program collects and dispenses money. The premiums for employers were set based on claims the previous year and, while it wasn't a perfect match since obviously one year's injury rate will differ from another's, it seemed to be fairly even over time. At the time, WCB in BC was completely solvent, with a slight surplus, which was held in the event that injury costs exceeded the projected costs. The political aspect now becomes a problem because now we have a government that wants to keep their friends, the employers, on side so they keep premiums down. Therefore, they have to restrict eligibility even further to keep costs down. Injured workers bear the brunt of that and WCB workers have to be the bearers of bad news. It's ugly and we collectively allow it to continue.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

It's time we outed them.

YES!

Thanks for giving us a look into the behind the scenes tricia.

Loretta, yes, it is an employer-funded system. Employers pay WSIB premiums and in exhange, workers are (in most cases) prohibited from suing their employers. This is called the "historic compromise".

As you acknowledge however, the WorkSafe BC is currently in deficit. The Ontario WSIB has a huge unfunded liability. So does the Board in Nova Scotia. So does the board in PEI. And so does the Board in Alberta. That puts more pressure on these boards to try to reduce payments to workers. How they do that is by changing legislation or changing the policies that govern the adjudication of claims. At the same time there is also pressure on governments by communities of injured workers to increase benefits. Injured workers and their unions do help to elect or defeat governments. So there is pressure on both sides.

As an example, last year in Ontario, the McGuinty Liberals added one word to the governing Act: available. That one word means the difference between an injured worker getting their benefits cut off after pretty much whatever vocational training the Board arbitrarily decides to give them, and that same worker now having a pretty good chance of showing that the training provided by the Board did not rationally equip them for any real job that is reasonably available to them in the actual work force.

Now the Liberals are likely chewing their nails to the bone over this because they didn't anticipate the recession and this is costing the Board huge.

Meanwhile, the unregulated private insurance companies, even in the midst of this recession continue to post enormous profits. In their case, it's closer to the truth to say that there are no enforceable policies about which claims get allowed or denied. And in the case of disability benefits, their clients are almost exclusively employers, who put put unrelenting pressure on these suppliers to constantly reduce claim costs and premiums. There is not organized opposition to this practice on the part of private insurers, for one thing, because the same companies are also involved in car insurance, and who wants their own rates to go up even more?

I'm not by any means defending the Board's decisions in all cases much less the integrity of their adjudication process. There are huge, huge problems there, and I make a living out of pointing those out. On the other hand though, private insurance I don't think should be seen as a better alternative. That idea really scares me.

Your comment about private insurance not being a better alternative is completely valid -- I don't agree that it would be better either. I would like to see these boards strengthened in respect to injured workers and this would cost employers more. Health care costs have increased so obviously treating injured workers will cost more although wage loss costs won't have increased as much since wages haven't risen at the same rate. Employers, despite their cries of woe, need to pay more if the plans are in the hole...it is working conditions at their sites that lead to injuries, after all.

Having said that, I wish there was some way that someone could take their employer to court when a Board has made a wrong decision -- it might provide a wake-up call to politicians when the employers complain about the cost of litigation and injury awards. Has anyone ever attempted to do this, do you know, triciamarie?

What I mean by that is that the injury and consequent effects were legitimately caused in the work environment and, in a just world, the worker would get the full support of the kind that was needed. Law and policies here (I assume that elsewhere this is true but could be wrong on that score) are shaped to reduce costs and therefore, a person with a legitimate, work-place injury or illness may be cut off as part of policy. For example, our WCB laws here make pension awards to those disabled or ill (asbestosis being one example) however, those pensions cease at age 65. So, a WCB worker is making a "right" decision, according to the legislation when they tell an injured worker that their pension has stopped because they've turned 65 but is it "right" that the legislation is written this way?

The decision in any WCB case can be "right" according to the laws and policies but may be "wrong" because of the distortion of WCB by those politicans who shape it to be weighted in favour of employers.

As well, there is a lot of misunderstanding about WCB as well as other government programs such as EI, CPP, etc, and the workers in all of those programs have the heartbreaking job of telling that to people who are in need. That's got to suck.

Loretta wrote:

I wish there was some way that someone could take their employer to court when a Board has made a wrong decision -- it might provide a wake-up call to politicians when the employers complain about the cost of litigation and injury awards. Has anyone ever attempted to do this, do you know, triciamarie?

No, not in most cases. That's the historic compromise.

It would be different if the Board determined that you were not a worker under the Act or if they decided that you were not "in the course of employment" at the time of the injury. It could also be possible if a specific type of injury, such as chronic stress claims in Ontario, is explicitly not covered under the Act. And believe it or not, when one worker is injured by a non-worker or another worker whose employer falls under a different classification scheme (Schedule 1 vs Schedule 2 in Ontario), that injured worker does have the option to either elect to claim WSIB benefits or to sue the other employer and worker. There is also sometimes a possibility of suing eg a manufacturer whose product contributed to the accident or injury.

You would have to talk to a good personal injury lawyer about any of these things. It might also be possible to sue the employer's private disability insurance provider, if they won't provide ongoing benefits. If there are any options like this, they would be contingent for one thing on meeting the various time limits for filing. You can never just sit on your rights then try to pursue them later.

12 years.

Again, these effing rules are made by provincial governments in power -- it's time people placed the responsibility for this where it belongs.

I agree,  but it has to be aqueezed in lin with everything else that needs addressing, but people are being lulled, and over-whelmed,  at the same time.

I'm lulled and overwhelmed?

Well, I guess that could explain my 12 year lung cancer claim... just kidding, it's only been my case for a very short time.

Delay is really not a joking matter though. Many, many claims stretch on in adjudication over the course of years and years. Injured workers say very clearly that justice delayed is justice denied. In Ontario the WSIB has recently taken major steps to address this, with what seems like some good effect so far, in comparison to what was. Mind you most of those files haven't reached me and I haven't heard from the injured worker community yet whether quicker adjudication means dirtier adjudication, or not.

One thing I have learned is that there are often no easy answers to these problems. We keep plugging away though.