Re: Diability Support, (for Bernie and others RE ODSP :-C )

[Guest guest]

Hi Bernie,

I've looked into this a bit and I have to say getting ODSP looks to

be a total and complete nightmare especially for those

with 'invisible' disorders. I'll post a link for you to check out

for yourself. I don't mean to sound disheartening Bernie! I just

wanted to share with you what I had found out about whether it's even

realistic to expect to get anything at all from ODSP. I think

perhaps the best avenue is to look for types of careers your dtr.

could do at home on her own terms. That's what I've found to be the

most feasible for me right now. Anyway, below is a link to the full

critical analysis of the program and is disheartening to say the

least. I've pasted some quotations that I took from the articles

below the link.

http://dawn.thot.net/denial_by_design.html

MAKING THE DIAGNOSIS:

....... " The DAU has also tended to hold to its own conservative views

about less understood medical conditions such as fibromyalgia,

chronic pain syndrome, and environmental sensitivity, to name a few.

While there is apparently no official policy of refusing to recognize

these disorders, advocates have found that the DAU rarely grants ODSP

benefits in these cases. In fact, as recently as 2001, the DAU has

held the position that fibromyalgia could not be considered a

substantial impairment because " this debatable condition is benign,

non-deforming and [does not progress] into total disability. "

" CHERRY PICKING " EVIDENCE:

Particularly disturbing is the tendency of DAU adjudicators to

selectively highlight evidence, seizing on those parts of the DDP and

medical reports that suggest that the applicant is not substantially

impaired, while ignoring the parts that suggest otherwise. In its

appeal decisions, the SBT has expressed concern over this

apparent " cherry-picking " of evidence. The quotation presented above

as an example of the DAU discounting evidence and opinions provided

by an applicant's doctor can also be seen as an illustration of this

selectivity. In one case, an applicant's doctor had written, " I do

not have any other therapies to offer him, but hopefully in the next

year or so, there will be alternative treatments available. " In

deciding that the applicant was not disabled, the DAU chose to

quote, " …in the next year or so, there will be alternative treatments

available. "

FAILING TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE DDP:

Even if an ODSP applicant can get beyond the DAU's medical " opinions "

and fondness for cherry-picking evidence, the adjudication process

involves numerous additional obstacles. One of the most substantial

is the persistent failure of the DAU to provide feedback on the

completeness of an applicant's DDP or request additional information

if it is necessary. Although the regulations associated with the

ODSPA require the DAU to seek additional disability information where

necessary, the DAU takes the view that it is the applicant's

obligation to provide what is needed. Only in cases where something

is " staring them in the face " will the DAU request the information.

36 Many advocates would argue, and indeed many appeal decisions

would suggest, that even where it is glaringly obvious, the DAU will

not necessarily request the additional information. Rather than

contact the applicant's doctor or a specialist when a critical piece

of information is missing, the DAU will, more often than not, merely

reject the application.

ACCOUNTABILITY:

For the almost 11,000 people held ineligible for ODSP benefits by the

DAU in 2000 / 2001, accountability and transparency are major

concerns. At a recent forum on the Ontario Disability Support Program

held in Ottawa, participants questioned why, for example, was a

person with Multiple Sclerosis and deemed 73% disabled denied

benefits? Why was a person deemed 81% disabled denied? 41 The

Province has designed an adjudication process that is impenetrable,

denying applicants and the public the " checks and balances " that

should be expected of any government program.