February 10, 1995: Manulife has a Plan -
On this date in 1995 Manulife wrote once again to Labatt with an important advisement to my former employer that concerned a request by Manulife's Medical Consultant for "additional information to assist in Manulife's "continued review of [my] claim."
In a letter to Labatt's Human Resources Administrator Linda Lair, Manulife's Shelley Viscount-Piercey (yes, that's her REAL name) wrote to request that Labatt "advise [me] that we will be writing directly to Dr. Hirsch for additional medical information," adding that "no further benefits will be issued pending receipt and review of the requested information".
Thus, at this point having been denied my WI benefits for some 3 and one half weeks, Manulife was now advising that my claim would continue to be denied at least another 2 and one half weeks (pending Dr. Hirsch's scheduled examination of me February 27th and of course, a further delay in Manulife's writing to him in request of his opinion of matters and Manulife's subsequent review of same) .
This for me was then beginning to add up to at least a full 6 weeks without income with a promise made by Manulife that they would write to Dr. Hirsch"for additional medical information".
A Disclaimer -
At this point it should be stated that in the past I have steadfastly maintained that Labatt's Linda Lair had failed to advise me of this important development with respect to my claim for disability benefits.
However in 2003, in preparation for my current DFR and upon review of a telephone answering machine tape from this period in February 1995, I uncovered evidence that Linda Lair had indeed telephoned me to advise that "Manulife would be writing directly to Dr. Hirsch", but in fact failed to advise me that "no further benefits [would] be issued pending receipt and review of the requested information" from Dr. Hirsch.
I can only conclude that my nonrecollection of Ms. Lair's recorded message was due to the fact that the information she was relaying to me had little if any actual relevance to anything that directly concerned me. Perhaps if her message had included (as requested of her by the insurer) Manulife's decision to continue to hold up its payment to me of my benefits pending Manulife's "receipt and review of Dr. Hirsch's input, my memory of receiving this message might have been more concrete.
But as it was, I had naturally assumed that Manulife would at some point be making contact with this specialist. More importantly was the fact that I had authorized Manulife to do so with my application for WI back in September 1994 at my claim's inception.
So irrespective of my lack of recollection of this innocuous phone message, the thing that stands out in my mind is that to the best of my knowledge, Manulife never did write to Dr. Hirsch as promised, and never would!!
And moreover, without the knowledge that my claim was being held up pending Dr. Hirsch's input, Linda Lair and Labatt allowed me to continue in blissful ignorance and ever increasing poverty.
Labatt's failure to fully advise me of that matter as requested by its insurer Manulife, thus became the first instance of Labatt's breach of its fiduciary duty to me.
And things were just getting started, folks. 
Next installment: February 16, 1995: Manulife's First Contact
Ten Years After: A Decade of Fighting for My Rights
[edited July 17, 2005 - I have abandoned this retrospective blog (at least for the time being). My reason for so doing is that writing about my experiences at Labatt during the period in question has proved to be a painful aggravation to my chronic pain condition. I think, for now, I'd best continue to write about my ongoing saga as it occurs in the present. Perhaps one day I'll return to this blog and reveal all I encountered at Labatt during the months of 1995 when my life first began to unravel. My apologies - Labatt Buster]
January 17, 2005...
Today marks the 10th anniversary of Labatt cutting off my disability benefits prior to terminating my employment. As regular readers of this correspondent may be aware, I've yet to say much about the circumstances leading up to my dismissal while disabled, nor Labatt's role in that sordid scenario. Nor have I said much regards the nature of my disability.
Beginning today however, I will attempt to chronicle the events and circumstances that began ten years ago on this date and which culminated with my wrongful dismissal by Labatt on July 21st, 1995.
Think of this thread as a retrospective blog. As relevant dates in my story come up I will make an entry, revealing the entire extent of Labatt's sabotage of my claim for disability benefits.
And by the time I'm done, all will know the truth with respect to Labatt's, Manulife's and my union's role in the denial of sick benefits to a person with a disability.
But I should first like to clarify the introductory statement above: the benefits were ACTUALLY discontinued by Labatt's insurance carrier, Manulife Financial.
However, a December 1999 arbitration award found that Labatt had wrongly delegated the task of determining my eligibility for the benefits to the insurer.
Arbitrator Colin Taylor Q.C. found that:
"..the insurer, in this case, made a decision which the Employer (Labatt) should have made and it made that decision by a different disability test than is provided in the collective agreement."
But All That Comes Later..
I first went on disability September 6, 1994 after having spent the entire Labour Day week-end on my back with an ice pack. This was as a result of suffering an excruciating muscle spasm in the muscles of my back and chest (right side) following my last day of work, September 2, 1994.
This was the second such episode that I had experienced. Five months previous I had gone off work for six weeks, and was in receipt of UIC sick benefits as a result of Labatt's denial to me of disability benefits provided by the collective agreement.
I returned to work prematurely (i.e. still injured) due wholly to financial considerations.
My physician and I had provided Manulife with numerous reports on my condition and by December 1994 I had been referred by him to a top rehab specialist, Dr. Gabriel Hirsch. This was to be my second evaluation by Dr. Hirsch, whom I had consulted the year before. I was awaiting a February 27, 1995 appointment with him when Manulife lowered the boom on me.
On January 17, 1995 Manulife sent more forms for me and my doctor to fill out and sent me a cheque for $202.50, stating:
"NO FURTHER BENEFIT WILL BE ISSUED PENDING RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF THE FULLY COMPLETED FORMS AND WILL BE CONTINGENT UPON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A CONTINUED STATE OF TOTAL DISABILITY"
I got the forms filled in and promptly sent off to Manulife (via Labatt) and began to wait for my claim's restoration. I had no idea what lay in store for me.
But my real-life nightmare had begun.
Next installment: February 10, 1995: Manulife has a Plan
quote:
"Manulife would be writing directly to Dr. Hirsch", but in fact failed to advise me that "no further benefits [would] be issued pending receipt and review of the requested information" from Dr. Hirsch.
Miss Linda actually said that LB - on tape? So can we assume - because you did not receive benefits - that manulife did not request, receive or review any further medical information? that's huge hole in a process and one which would not be in the applicant's control.
posted by siggy:
quote:
So can we assume - because you did not receive benefits - that manulife did not request, receive or review any further medical information?
Not from Dr. Hirsch -and yet his opinion would remain (for Manulife) the sole determining factor with respect to my claim's discontinuance.
Oh, I endeavoured to provide Manulife with substantial amounts of medical evidence -radiologists reports, various therapist's reports etc. -none of which would have any bearing on matters. Manulife would later review and apparently disregard all of this material.
After more than a year of trying to appease Manulife I received a letter from them dated February 13, 1996 that concluded:
"Until we receive objective medical evidence from Dr. Hirsch to support that you have been totally disabled, retroactive to January 17, 1995, to the extent that you have been prevented from performing any and every duty of your normal occupation, your Weekly Indemnity claim will remain closed."
In 2002 I underwent a discovery examination by Manulife's lawyer Delwyn Standers. At one point Mr. Standers asked me to elaborate on the "bad faith" alleged by me with respect to Manulife's conduct.
My answer to him was simple: Manulife had determined that Dr. Hirsch's opinion was the only medical evidence worth considering in its evaluation of my claim; Manulife had stated in writing it's intention to pursue that evidence from Dr. Hirsch; yet Manulife never did so, despite my written authorization enabling then to do so.
The cruel irony in all of this was two-fold.
First of all, the standard or test for disability being applied to me by Manulife (i.e. being prevented from performing any and every duty of your normal occupation) was far more stringent than what the collective agreement actually called for, and
Secondly, the matter of who makes a determination as to eligibility for the benefits claimed was found to be Labatt and not the insurer. As noted in the first installment to this retroactive blog, above, Arbitrator Taylor would later succinctly conclude that:
"..the insurer, in this case, made a decision which the Employer (Labatt) should have made and it made that decision by a different disability test than is provided in the collective greement"
It was never Manulife's call to begin with.