Health care has been a growing concern in this country since I've been around and long before. It has grown as a concern as our baby boomers retire and a large demographic of our population gets older. For our upcoming Saskatchewan provincial election I'd like to raise this as an issue: People requiring health care must have their Human Rights and Charter Rights present. To be discriminated against and to not be entitled to your Fundamental Freedoms when seeking medical attention can sometimes have detrimental effects. The Saskatchewan NDP leader recently stated he wanted to invest a large amount of money towards health care to "make it better". People need their Civil Liberties the most when they are in a position of needing medical assistance and asking for help. We'll always have issues with health care and the importance of protecting a person's rights should logically lead to improved health care and safer services rendered. I had a great deal of money spent on me for "health care" and I'll be providing detailed examples of why HUMAN RIGHTS trump MONEY in health care....The NDP care only about the success and profit of SGI rather than the Human Rights of the people that SGI serves, and twice refused to act regarding this problem.
Everyone drives or works. Everyone has kids or parents or siblings that drive, and work. While my experience represents a smaller percentage of individuals that are injured at work or while driving, it provides a great example of why to improve the insurance process for drivers and workers! We often note and pay attention when people are killed in MVA's or work related accidents. We then tend to "come together" and rally for some type of change. Unfortunately we forget about the people seriously injured that have survived accidents and didn't fully recover. People sometimes will live the rest of their lives with physical impairments and need help, but the process that is in place to "physically rehabilitate"a person is actually designed to serve insurance companies.
Whether you are a believer of Tort or PIPP driving insurance I am an experienced veteran of both. It is of the utmost importance for your Civil Liberties to be maintained while going through an insurance claim. I unfortunately found myself re-living my experience (2008) through the worker's compensation system. I found it identical to PIPP insurance, albeit somewhat less distasteful. One of the very few positive outcomes from any of my experiences will be to ensure that others do not experience what I have. I met many that have been through what I went through, but for most it is too emotionally painful to share such a bad time of one's life. I was raised with exceptional traits of resilience. Thanks Dad. Thanks Mom. :)
Everything I reference regarding Saskatchewan Government Insurance, related third party organizations, and public agencies is being expressed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'm coming forward to express the events of my life and my opinions of what took place after my December 6th/1999 motor vehicle accident.
I wasn't feeling too good after the accident. I tried to survey the scene while in complete shock and there was a mass of debris everywhere. I was slurring my speech badly and shaking. My mid-eighties GMC 4X4 had completely demolished two minivans after one of them made a very poor driving choice. My ribs felt itchy....it was realized I had incurred a serious left rib injury. Either my ribs, cartilage, or sternum were trying to stick out the front of my chest. It clearly appeared that whatever the sharp bumps were, they were at risk of protruding out of the chest tissue.
I'll never understand why I was released from the hospital the night of the accident. I was scared as I entered the emergency room and very concerned about internal injuries. The emergency room simply did an x-ray and found no broken ribs. I was sent home with a Tylenol 3 and some advice: Come back in if you think you are peeing or pooing blood...that's apparently a bad sign. I required help walking when leaving. Life experiences have since taught me we don't have great assessment services at our emergency rooms and that people can die waiting for emergency treatment.
My then recently obtained general practitioner noted it was a moderate to serious injury. My regular treatment practitioners all strongly suggested I return to the hospital. Many were shocked that I was walking around with such a large displacement of cartilage/ribs and was discharged without acute medical intervention. The general practitioner felt acute care was not necessary but that short term recovery was unrealistic. I was instructed to simply go home and sit for a relatively unknown period of time.
It was three weeks later when I met an "injury claim adjuster" at SGI. Walking was still a very limited and risky venture. I had no idea what I was entering into, and went into the meeting with honest intentions. Despite any petty misunderstandings regarding my previous Tort insurance claim I was in no position to debate as my immediate health was a very serious concern. I literally had no fight in me whatsoever, and had never been so concerned about my physical well being. I have gotten up and dusted myself off from many things in life that people have not had the strength to endure. After three weeks I was still struggling with very basic everyday tasks. I was a veteran of chronic and acute pain prior to this injury. Whatever the injury was, it was devastating by comparison.
When I walked in and met the man, I was not immediately intimidated. He was a rather tall and respectful looking fellow with a solemn demeanor much like myself. It was what was explained that I had no response for. In a deep and respect demanding tone it was explained to me that he was in fact a former Saskatoon City Police Officer. He felt it pertinent to also mention he was a detective of the Fraud or "Moral" division when he was still an officer, and he was hired by the insurer for his particular skills and training from the police force. He went on to say he specialized in difficult claims, and I had been deemed difficult. He explained it was of no concern to him why I had been deemed difficult; whether it was a prior open litigation, noted long recovery time for an injury, or a poor attitude. As I casually looked around in vast disbelief of the tone and wording of this insurer representative, he issued a polite warning. He welcomed me to "get out of hand or raise my voice if I like", as it would make it very easy for him to deal with me. I assured him I wasn't looking for trouble and was legitimately injured in a car accident. It was a rude yet very clear understanding of who I was dealing with and exactly how I was viewed. While I was confused and a little intimidated by the conversation I felt I had nothing to actually fear....I was seriously injured.
The belief I was seriously injured began to be seriously questioned! The injury claim adjuster felt I could return to work just a few weeks later and that the injury was superficial rather than serious. You can imagine how surprised I was when the injury adjuster boasted that he was indeed "buddies" with my General Practitioner, and that they knew one another personally. The injury adjuster personally disagreed with my opinion and the opinion of my General Practitioner. The two practitioners that treated me the most and knew me before/after the accident attempted to contact the injury adjuster, but received no response. Derogatory comments were made to me by the injury adjuster regarding my practitioners and my own opinion of my injury. I was then considerably scolded by my General Practitioner for wasting his time and continually returning to his office with questions and concerns about my health. I consulted an attorney. I returned the following day and had a stern chat with my doctor: I offered to undergo testing to verify the seriousness of the injury. ANYTHING. I was told to go home and sit, that surgery would "make it worse", and that switching doctors would raise serious suspicion. Due to my lengthy recovery time of almost three months and my refusal to return to work, I was scheduled for a "multidisciplinary secondary assessment" at Saskatoon Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Center.
The secondary assessment arranged by SGI and implemented through SMRC produced a document that was disgustingly discriminatory, while providing an excellent example of libel. There were twenty-eight major "errors" in the document. The focus was clearly on my character and psychological status as a person rather than the reported injury....but I had not been seen by any practitioner near qualified to make comments regarding my mental health or behavior. There was next to no mention of any rib abnormality other than a "slight bump" was noted. During examination I was treated as hostile the entire time. I was asked to do only one very light and superficial lift and immediately afterward was told "Congratulations, you're cleared to return to work." I was returned to work almost immediately, and before the "medical" report was distributed by SMRC. I was at work for one hour when I was pulled aside and told to go home. I was taken off the job by OH&S....my injury adjuster had altered the return to work program and returned me to work without medical consent. The General Practitioner was furious and cancelled the entire return to work program.
It wasn't until the report was in I understood the severity of the discrimination. Agitated I called the injury adjuster to ask him about his comments in the report, and I was laughed at before I could inquire. He quaintly boasted I was the talk of the office that morning. I was offended being told that my injury had been commonly discussed in his office among his coworkers. He laughed at what was recommended and planned for me, ignorantly saying the next program was sure to "find out what my problem was." It was explained that the program I was being sent to was considered the "know all and end all" of the insurance system and they had the best medical "specialists" on hand. I immediately called the adjuster's supervisor to try and speak with her. I ended up speaking with a ditch pig of a woman who boldly stated she would gladly stand behind all comments and actions of her injury claim adjuster. My psychological status had been put into question while my injury was being downplayed. Injury adjuster's input to SMRC for the assessment report: "No visible signs of any problems. No treatment plan. Not motivated."
I was in a particularly poor situation: I firmly believed I was seriously injured and that I was facing discrimination in place of treatment. The outcome of any scenario was difficult to comprehend. The best positive outcome was that my beliefs and understandings were completely irrational and that I was wrong about everything; I'd recover fully. I remember thinking I'd never be so happy to be wrong in my entire life.
Prior to this injury I was familiar with basic psychology and had interests in sociology. I was quite capable of identifying between rational and irrational behaviors, and thinking/acting logically rather than based upon emotions. I understood various communication barriers and was familiar with conflict resolution. The experiences of my life led to more psychological interviews and assessments than most people undergo in a lifetime, and this was all before I turned twenty-five years old. These articles are open invitation to either SGI or WCB to step into Civil court or the Human Rights office. I have the documents to show logical thought processes and behaviors, and invite these organizations to provide similar documentation to quantify the legitimacy of their own character and behavior.
Through a few long meetings and phone consultations a legal strategy was constructed. The primary goal of course was seeking medical attention for the injury. Detailed daily documentation was implemented for references in civil court. Continual private psychological sessions were conducted for the remainder of the SGI "treatment program" to document events while undergoing "treatment". The notion was to document everything while allowing whatever questioning was deemed necessary. My own concerns and opinions of my body and injury were clearly redundant. If there were any major offenses to my Human Rights or Charter Rights I'd have all the time in the world to address it after my "recovery". Any attempt to discredit me for coming forward will be met with a full release of all names of individuals involved in my claims, and my full opinion of each. Should the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), any insurer, or any third party organization wish to have a character war simply step outside. :)
Saskatchewan public services did nothing for me but waste years scratching their heads and acting like idiots; so now they can also sit on the sideline and clap. I was told to sue our government or SGI if I have an issue. This will be a very unpleasant educational experience of our Fundamental Freedoms for many agencies within this province. I need not pursue anybody or anything in court nor would I ever be able to afford it. This is how SGI ultimately succeeds in doing what they please...there's no public nor court venue accessible to the public that actually SERVES THE PUBLIC. If SGI or the Province of Saskatchewan is offended by my detailed opinions and comments, they may pursue me in Civil Court and fight the Fundamental Freedoms in the Canadian Charter. I will exercise the very rights that were ignored, and am legally able to do so based upon fact, personal experience, and years of research.