# 2024-251 Releases, Medical Employment Limitation, Release - Medical

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-06-09

The grievor challenged the handling of her medical file, maintaining that it had been forwarded to the Director Medical Policy (D Med Pol) for a review of her permanent Medical Employment Limitations (MEL) before relevant specialist reports had been received, including a civilian neurological assessment. She also expressed concerns regarding the quality of care provided by certain physicians involved in her treatment and asserted that some medical notes indicated that she was recovering, that her condition was stable, and that no psychiatric follow-up was required. In her representation to the Final Authority (FA), the grievor maintained that she had been released without a clear mental health diagnosis and that she questioned several conclusions contained in her medical file, including a diagnosis of epilepsy, which she considered inconsistent with the results of the medical examinations that had been conducted. She further stated that she had been denied full access to her medical file for nearly 2 years, including the version forwarded to the D Med Pol, which, she argued, prevented her from understanding the reasons for her medical release. The grievor submitted that these irregularities demonstrated a failure to comply with applicable policies and that an investigation should have been conducted. As redress, she requested financial compensation for the stress she had endured, the dismissal of the two physicians involved, and a comprehensive review of all medical personnel who had participated in the management of her case.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance. The IA concluded that the conduct of the Surgeon was reasonable and that the grievor had been treated fairly in accordance with the applicable rules and policies. The IA found that, in the exercise of his professional judgment, the Surgeon had sufficient information to forward the grievor's file to the D Med Pol, and that the clinical staff had acted in accordance with established procedures. The IA noted that they did not possess the expertise required to assess the quality of clinical decisions and the IA observed that the grievor's concerns in this regard had been referred to the national coordinator for investigations into patient complaints and did not recommend any redress.

The Committee examined the grievor's allegations concerning the assignment of permanent MEL, the reasons for her release, and the quality of the care she received. The Committee concluded that the Deputy Surgeon had sufficient medical information to recommend to D Med Pol that permanent MEL be imposed, given the grievor's complex medical history, the numerous specialist assessments conducted since 2019, the persistence of her functional limitations, and the unfavourable prognosis regarding her return to a fully employable and deployable status. The Committee found that it was not necessary to await additional medical reports, as the process allowed for new information to be added to the file up until the time of release. It further concluded that the evidence submitted by the grievor was insufficient to call into question the findings of the military physicians. The Committee also determined that the permanent MEL imposed on the grievor prevented her from meeting the requirements of the principle of Universality of Service, particularly because of restrictions affecting deployments, postings to isolated locations, and situations presenting risks to her own safety or that of others. Accordingly, the Committee found that her release for medical reasons was reasonable, justified, and consistent with the applicable policies. Finally, while noting the grievor's concerns regarding the quality of the care she received and the delayed disclosure of certain medical documents, the Committee explained that it did not have the jurisdiction to assess the quality of medical treatment or to award financial compensation. It also noted that separate mechanisms already exist to address such complaints. The Committee recommended that the FA deny the grievor redress.