# 2018-086 Pay and Benefits, Compensation for Disability - Reserve Force

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-02-24

The grievor contended that he should have received additional Reserve Force Compensation (RFC) payments as well as other medical and dental benefits during the period following his service related injury. He also complained that he was ordered to participate in a Return to Work program without the proper authorization being put in place. As redress, the grievor sought additional RFC payments as well as reimbursement for physiotherapy and dental treatments.

The Initial Authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, denied redress, finding that there was a lack of proper paperwork to support the additional RFC payments and the reimbursement of the physiotherapy treatments.

The Committee found that the grievor, who was injured during Class (Cl) B service, should have been entitled to submit an RFC claim through his chain of command immediately following completion of his period of Cl B service, and that this submission could still be done after the fact. The Committee concluded that the grievor was eligible to receive additional RFC payments. Finally, the Committee found that the grievor was entitled to be reimbursed the expenses he paid out of his pocket for the physiotherapy treatments related to his injury, but he was not entitled to dental benefits while receiving RFC payments.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) grant redress.

The Committee also recommended that the FA direct a complete audit of the grievor's reserve service pay records for the period during which he received RFC payments to ensure that he was properly compensated for the days that he worked under the Return to Work program.

FA decision summary

Except for the reimbursement of the physiotherapy, the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (A/CDS) agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that redress be granted to the grievor. The A/CDS was of the view that the SSO SGen report that was generated could not be considered as the equivalent of treating or having any form of responsibility for the care of the grievor's injury. Therefore, the A/CDS found that he did not have the authority to reimburse the physiotherapy costs as there is no report from an attending physician authorizing treatment at a private clinic. The A/CDS agreed with the Committee's recommendations and directed that CMP ensure the grievor is placed on RFC for the periods in question, less any days of Cl “A” service he served, as the three conditions of Compensation and Benefits Instruction(s) 210.72 set out to cease RFC were not satisfied. The A/CDS also directed CMP to ensure an audit of the grievor's pay, leave and other possible benefits is conducted to ensure that he has received the proper remuneration under the RFC and Return to Work programs balanced against any documented periods of Cl “A” and “B” service served.