An Open Letter to Great West Life Assurance Company July 19 2012 Mr. Paul Stride 42 Blackler Ave St.

John's NL A1E 3E7 Great West Life Assurance Company 100 Osborne Street North Winnipeg, MB R3C 3A5 Without Prejudice Dear Great West Life: Like many people, I have paid premiums for disability insurance for several years. In the effort to convince me to buy, you had quoted statistics like '1 in 3 people will experience some level of sickness or disability in their working lives'. I signed that contract strictly for the safety net - believing I would be an exception - hoping there never would be a time when collecting benefits be necessary. After all, who really wants to be sick and disabled, leaving their entire life's work and self esteem in the past? Little did I know at the time, I was to become the statistic you so emphatically cautioned. The "it can't happen to me" idea came crashing down in a moment of surreal fear. My employer - who is a major customer of yours - immediately accepted my Doctor's diagnoses and placed me on its 3 month disability program, which temporarily provided me with 100% of my salary. Perhaps this safety net idea was real after all. Don't get me wrong, those 3 months of pay were not provided without condition. I was required and willingly attended weeks of mandatory sessions with a psychologist - hired and directed by my employer. Looking back on it, it is difficult to imagine how anyone could seriously postulate that a patient with Major Depressive Disorder, compounded by Post Traumatic Stress could be adequately rehabilitated for duty in 3 months. It turns out, the psychologist agreed - spiting the fact that a return to work date was demanded of him. If I had cancer, would you have put a firm return to work date on my healing? Applying for long term disability benefits Imagine my surprise when you told me I would have to re-apply for benefits beyond the 3 month period. What had really changed? If my health was truly the criteria, then the answer should have been obvious. Unfortunately, that had little influence on what was to come. I received a carefully worded application which I filled out in the best possible way - by telling the truth. No buzz words, no industry triggers, no realization that one incorrect word or phrase could set my claim back indefinitely. You received that application on August 1 and I waited until September 20 for your call to conduct the patient telephone interview. Why so long? Didn't you realize I was no longer receiving any salary? Did you care? Please tell me why the telephone interview comprised of 7 exhaustive pages of questions while you transcribed your interpretation of my thoughts. I was mentally ill for God's sake. Why didn't

you allow me to respond to the questions in writing? That would seem like a fair and prudent thing to do would it not? After all, this questionnaire was completely different from the one you had me fill out weeks before. You requested more information from my family doctor, including a transcription of his charts. This was both expensive for me, and a delay in adjudication. What were you truly expecting to learn that he hadn't already told you? Why didn't you tell me that his being a GP and not a psychiatrist was further hindrance to my claim? He worked at a mental hospital after all. Why didn't you instruct or send me to a psychiatrist if that was the true opinion you desired? Psychiatrists are backlogged in the public health system, and very expensive in private practice. Declined On September 21, you called to say my application for benefits was declined. I was in shock and seen at a mental hospital for suicide that night. To be sure, I was very sick yet that safety net didn't catch my fall. Is this what happens to the 1 in 3? So many questions; why was a front line case manager who prolonged this process for weeks able to medically deny my claim within 24hrs of conducting the telephone interview? What were her medical qualifications? Why did she agree to wait until early evening to call me, so the legal department could be notified in the event that I called to question the outcome? Was it the classic strategy of delivering bad news late on a Friday? I am certain that you expect most people to give up at this point. People who are at their most vulnerable, betrayed by naivety, and a belief in a basic principle that paying for a service should entitle you to receive it. Many people do not know how, or even that they can appeal these decisions - why wasn't it made clear to me? How do you expect someone who is sick to commence an appeal process with any shred of hope? How is it, that I didn't know the Privacy Laws of Canada enabled me to request copies of my file - which outlines everything you were saying, doing, and collecting about me? My first appeal was delivered to you on September 28. There was more evidence provided into the nature and severity of my illness. You were even made aware of my brush with suicide. You indicated the appeal process could take 'up to 14 days' , and this time, the process must go through a "medical board" for review. What was a medical board? Sounds important but was it really? Despite your assurances and my insistence, it was October 24 before you called to say the review was complete, and the decision was coming down to 'the interpretation of the policy wording itself'. You advised me of further delay as it was being referred to head office for final decision. Really? So did that mean you finally accepted the validity of my condition - but were splitting hairs over wording? Sounds like bad faith doesn't it? It was November 8 and I had been without income for over 3 months. Wouldn't you assume that I was further weakened and bankrupt at this point? Your call informed me that my appeal was denied. Your letter was full of razor thin legal interpretations, while further elevating the burden of proof not merely on disability (this was acknowledged at this point) - but on your legal interpretation of disability under the policy. My second appeal was received by you on November 11. I provided evidence to satisfy your elevated requirements for benefits. You then required that I source and provide medical charts from a period

prior to my initial 90 day disability. Of course, any costs occurred in obtaining charts and letters were solely my responsibility. Tough when your broke. I requested the required information and waited. Upon my initiative, I finally saw a psychiatrist through the public system. It took some time. On December 11, he wrote to inform you of the diagnoses you previously received months ago. Major Depressive Disorder - PTSD. Medications were being added and enhanced. I received several Cognitive therapy sessions from the same clinic. I was doubtless sick. Still this was not enough for you to approve my benefits. So much for the 'GP vs. Psychiatrist' theory. On January 19 of the following year (2008), I finally received and forwarded the old clinical evidence you requested - marking my third appeal. Surely hoping I would never be able to provide it, your options for legally denying my benefits were dwindling, even by your own ridiculous standards. On January 29 you called and my mother informed you I was attending 2 medical appointments. After you advised her that the claim review should take another 2 weeks, she took the opportunity to tell you that 'Paul is in a real mess'... 'his whole life is on hold and he feels like a hostage'. She had just suffered congestive heart failure, no doubt aided by the stress watching what I was going through. Claim Acceptance On February 12, you called to tell me my third appeal was accepted. After 7 months - hours of telephone interview, 11 letters, 5 medical professionals, 3 appeals, legal consultation, significant out of pocket costs, and untold hours of therapy and appointments - I finally met the criteria for receiving disability benefits. A criteria, by the way, that existed when my short term benefits were granted nearly a year prior. By the way, your internal notes state that you were going to inform me of this on February 7. You left me with this anguish for another few days because my employer wanted to inform its legal department first? Why was that more important than my health? Did you not realize what each passing day was doing to me? Isn't it interesting that your notes say there was a discussion about further restrictions to the policy that day? While feeling some vindication upon the receipt of benefits, the stress and troubles with you had just begun. There were the monthly phone calls to 'check up' on me - multiple requests for medical updates - and a continuous supply of correspondence, as if to serve as a reminder that you now control every aspect of my life. I'm grateful to have found a psychiatrist in the public health system to see on a regular basis. Do you know how difficult that is to find these days? Each time you requested medical information, you offered him a paltry sum for the time required to provide it - far below his typical remuneration. Surely you must know what a psychiatrists time is worth these days? I'm sure you pay yours generously in the service of the bottom line. You were explicit that any fee over your flat rate was to be paid by me. I am thankful he was gracious enough not to charge me. If not, it would have cost me thousands of dollars to provide you with the same information over and over again - just to maintain benefits. Is this perhaps what you were hoping? How does one on a disability benefit afford this?

Change of policy definition On December 8 of the year you approved my benefits, you wrote to inform me a new case manager was taking over my file. I came to learn that this is standard modus operandi for disability insurers especially when changes to a claim are imminent. Sure enough, I was informed about a "change of definition" in the policy at its upcoming 24 month anniversary. The criteria on which benefits were adjudicated was about to become more stringent. Previously the policy stated that I must be unable to perform my own occupational duties at least 60% of the time. It was about to become any occupation 50% of the time. You referred me to a "Rehab Consultant" (RC) in your employ, who would work with me on a "return to work" plan. You told me participation was "mandatory" or I would not be entitled to benefits under the policy. On January 5 of the new year (2009), he came by my house to conduct another exhaustive interview. How many times do I have to explain this devastating illness and what it does to my 'average day'? Why weren't my psychiatrists reports enough? The RC's report to you was 6 pages in length. It included a significant amount of personal information about my home, my family, and even my appearance. The interview was not recorded and his transcription of my answers were flawed and biased at best. How could I have known that this would be another trap? I had discovered another snippet of information - that patient and legal advocates recommend this interview not take place in a private home - and every question be submitted in writing to prevent misrepresentation. You called on February 25 to tell me that you were waiting on my psychiatrist for an update on medical information. You know how busy these professionals get don't you? So you went a different route that day - you threatened to withhold my next benefit payment until it was received. How fortunate for me that I was able to get a message to him explaining the situation. He supplied the information to you, and didn't charge me the extra $150 it would normally have cost. At the exact same time, he was responding to a request from your RC about the exact same thing? A little overkill don't you think? Your RC's plan recommended that I attend up to 10 therapy sessions with a psychologist - selected, mandated, and paid by you. The mandate was simple - get the claimant back to work before the 2 year change of definition date - not 'let's help his depression', or lets 'provide a quality of life'. The very basis of your motivation permeated through every interaction, and served to exacerbate an existing issue of mistrust. I appreciated the opportunity to partake in therapy, yet I was intimidated by your self-serving reasons for providing it. On my own volition, I finally secured several sessions with a public health psychologist. At least the therapy was on my terms for my own health benefit. It lasted for the maximum number of weeks possible through our Provincial health care system. Talk about stressful though; I was responding to monthly phone interviews from your case manager, weekly phone interviews from your RC, and weekly therapy appointments with your appointed psychologist, and mine. All the while, I was having monthly appointments with my treating psychiatrist. More, if necessary. It's unfortunate, but most of this resulted in more pressure and stress than rehabilitation.

On March 31, you wrote and said...'based on the information we've received, we anticipate that you will no longer satisfy the definition of disability under the plan, effective August 11, 2009'. How could you be so sure? Did your procedures dictate that assigning a RC would guarantee a positive outcome in my illness by a particular date? Would you demand a broken bone mend at a time of your choosing? It's strange, because every shred of information you were receiving indicated that I was still sick, and would most definitely satisfy the upcoming change in the policy. Third case manager I was somewhat surprised to see my file assigned to a third case manager at this time. Impeccable timing if nothing else. Things were heating up as the magical date of recovery approached. It's understandable from a corporate point of view - statistics demonstrate that persons remaining disabled for longer than 24 months are significantly less likely to ever return to work. That's bad for the bottom line, and anything in that category is bad for the claimant. Beyond 24 months Medical information was gathered from 2 psychologists, your RC, my psychiatrist, and me concerning the new definition of disability. It all indicated the same thing. On July 10, you wrote and stated 'the current medical information we have received to date, does support that you are not currently at a stage in your recovery for return to work planning to begin. Therefore, your claim for disability benefits has been accepted beyond the 24 month decision point'. What was obvious to me, was yet again proven to you. Now some might think that things cool down for the claimant after this point. As you well know, that wasn't true in this case. You assigned me another RC - this time one of your more experienced guides located many miles away. This person had been 'rehabilitating' people for many years and would succeed where the other had failed. More exhaustive interviews ensued, as if to gleam any shred of new information not previously uncovered in two years of investigation. The RC drew up a new and more comprehensive plan for my rehabilitation. In January of 2010, I was enrolled in a 10 week program at a local hospital - an in-depth day treatment structured much like a work day - running Monday to Friday. By design, they were all group sessions and sharing common mental health issues were therapeutic. 8 weeks in, a lady in our group had not shown up on a Monday morning. We were all told she had passed away over the weekend. I sat next to her every day and knew many of the personal struggles she was enduring. She was there on Friday - on Monday she was gone. What they couldn't say was why she was gone - but we all knew the truth, and it was very tragic. I fell apart to such a degree, the hospital felt I could not continue the last 2 weeks of the program. My psychiatrist had also witnessed another step backward. The RC continued to call and seek update as she was anxious to move me into a "work activation" program with an occupational therapist. A few weeks passed, and my psychiatrist was reluctant about my readiness to participate in another insurance designed program. I did agree to go - after all they were holding the threat of suspending my benefits over my head and maybe, just maybe, this program would be beneficial.

I attended many sessions with the Occupational Therapist (OT) over the spring - summer - fall. Once again, the OT was hired, paid, and mandated by you to cure me - to ultimately cease the liability of my benefits on your bottom line. I enjoyed the sessions and found the OT to be objective and professional. She did note throughout that I was tired, disillusioned, emotional, and had difficulty with memory and concentration. When my sessions were finished, I imagine you were hoping that my healing was complete - at least on paper - so my benefits could be suspended. That was not the case. Once again, the OT and my psychiatrist echoed sentiments that I was not well. Even under a loose criteria of performing 50% of any job - not one that I went to university for - but any job was not medically possible in my condition. Your veiled mistrust of mental illness always made me feel stigmatized. I always felt the need to remind you I did not ask for, or want this illness. Who would trade health and clear mind for this? At this point, I had been dealing with your second RC for nearly a year. It seemed pressure was mounting to produce results. It was as if she were getting a commission on the money saved by shutting down my policy. As usual, there continued to be a massive amount of telephone and mail correspondence. By this time, I was regularly requesting copies of my file to look for inconsistencies and red flags. The trust between us had long been destroyed, with stress and anxiety becoming an unfortunate by-product. It was alarming to find the RC's version of our conversations compared to mine. I realize interpretations can vary, but it was my health - my feelings - and not hers. Everything from here on in had to be in writing. Everything was also copied to your ombudsman. I never heard from the RC again. Your phone calls ceased for the most part but the correspondence continued. Much of 2011 passed with my psychiatrist providing medical updates when requested, and I answering your questions in writing. One memorable questionnaire asked if I were able to do household chores such as laundry, vacuuming, cooking, parental duties, etc. You wanted to know percentages of functionality as well as time spent each day on these and other activities such as reading or walking. It was incredibly detailed and designed with leading questions. CPP and the offset provision In 2011 you also wrote and insist that I apply for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits. Under the terms of the policy, it was mandatory. You stressed over and over how this would be for my benefit. But let's be honest, do you have any motivations that are truly for the claimants benefit and not yours? Well it turned out this was another profitable one for you; it's called the "offset provision" and basically means any benefits or income I receive from anywhere else will be clawed back by you. Here again was another voluminous process of filling out forms (at least though, CPP paid my psychiatrist more than you to provide his medical diagnosis). Don't get me wrong, it isn't the CPP program being criticized - rather as S. Torjman says; "the onus placed on disabled beneficiaries to participate in integration of benefits by being obliged to apply for and/or appeal CPP disability and to understand how this complex interaction of benefits and their tax treatment will affect the beneficiary's overall level of replacement income." These punitive measures usually result in a lowering of benefits under private disability policies - CPP benefits are taxable while many private policies aren't.

See all of this was, in an emotional sense, so reminiscent of my first months spent fighting you benefits. What if CPP had declined my application? Would you have used that against me? Was that another trap? How many times would you have had me appeal their decision? Would you have reduced my benefits anyway? You required me to sign a waiver stating any retroactive CPP benefits would automatically be sent to you. With a measure of relief, my CPP benefits were approved in January of 2012. Because they were approved retroactively to the original date of application, you received a check from the government of Canada worth several thousand dollars. How can something like this be legally or morally permissible in our society? As if that weren't bad enough, you contacted me afterwards to say there was a 'miscalculation' in the retroactive amount due. Now I owe you another $253 because of this mistake. Outrageous! I find it sickening that our tax dollars are being used to subsidize your industry. My family could use that extra income that CPP provides every month - but instead you just deduct it from what you pay me. Your defense is one of fear; you say that if the offset wasn't provided, premiums would dramatically increase. Really? In the 1st quarter of 2012, Great-West Lifeco Inc. profits increased 8.4 per cent to $451-million, or 47.5 cents per share. That compared to $415-million or 43.8 cents per share in the prior year. It just sounds like spin to me - our tax dollars - and persons of disability are contributing to your massive profits. Surveillance on my family On the heels of this whole CPP thing, you hired a private investigator to conduct covert surveillance on me and my family. It was February 14 and while running a few errands, I noticed a suspicious vehicle following me. After employing a counter surveillance test, your investigator was discovered. Here is a picture of him watching our house across the street.

Recognize your rental Mr. Foss?

The next day - as private investigators often do - he changed cars. I watched him watch us all week. Do you have any idea what that does to someone suffering from mental illness? Don't you think the paranoia and anxiety from the disease is enough - without contributing further to it? Do you know that I still have dreams about people chasing me? The feelings of being violated are deeply disturbing. More importantly, what of my wife and two children? Buried in the fine print of your policies are a clause that permits you to conduct surveillance on any claimant - but my wife and children were not your claimants. Why did you film them leaving for school and coming home in the evening? Why did you film them being picked up at school? Most shockingly, your investigator gave chase to my wife one day while she was driving to the mall - do you realize the tears she's cried over this? How about her nightmares? Who the hell really wants a stranger pursuing and watching them? I have written many letters about this incident to you - explaining the damage done to our family. It's one thing to put me through mental suffering - but you have included them now as well. Your only acknowledgement of this intrusive act was to say..."In this instance, clearer direction may have been necessary to the company involved..." It's amazing to me what you would hope to gain from such a thing - and to think you paid $6000 for it. What am I saying...of course you hoped the money would be well spent in discrediting my illness in court. I have to quote Jan Wong... "Although depression is an emotional illness, people crave physical evidence. Certainly, they expect you to look depressed." Did I look depressed in this photo loading groceries into my car? What medical information did you really gain from it? Have you seen my tears my anguish - or heard my suicidal thoughts?

My psychiatrist prepared a report for you just a few weeks ago which stated my depression levels have worsened and functioning scale lowered. Are you surprised that he also diagnosed PTSD? A knowledgeable person in this field once said..."Individuals who suffer from depression and other mood disorders are often met with skepticism by employers and insurance companies, causing shame, guilt and consequently, further depression and anxiety".

It appears you have much disdain for claimants. I've seen the internal emails dripping with sarcasm. Your case manager handling my claim has recently resorted to using a smiley face emoticon at the end of a message - seeming to taking great satisfaction in my paranoia. It may not seem like much to you, but it is really disrespectful to persons of disability. (I can post proof online if you wish) Considering all that has happened, I was shocked when your most recent letter of July 5, 2012 arrived. You said that my file had been referred to one of your "medical coordinators" for review. You explained this person will review the file and possibly be in contact to "impact current treatment". If the past is any indicator - it really means more interrogations, phone calls, appointments, and attempts to discredit illness. You also reminded; "Under the terms of your plan, if a person does not participate or cooperate in a medical coordination program that has been recommended or approved by Great West Life, he will no longer be entitled to benefits". I called you that day to ask a few questions. First of all - who are these "medical coordinators" and what are their qualifications? You told me they are usually registered nurses working on contract. No disrespect to RN's and the vital work they do, but they are not psychiatrists. Once more, you demand that I participate in any program or therapy deemed appropriate by this person - who doesn't know or treat me - who is hired by you for one reason - who is asking a set of standardized questions via telephone - and you expect a different outcome than the last several times? Come to think of it, that may be exactly what you expect. The problem, critics say, is that insurers sometimes send you to Doctor after Doctor - or program after program - until one agrees that you're no longer disabled. The irony is not lost here - evidence suggests that my depression has worsened under each dictated activity. The goal is obviously the opposite. I feel imprisoned in an endless cycle of pressure and abuse. Every time a piece of correspondence arrives, I feel a sense of dread in the pit of my stomach. I am tired, broken, and have darker days than I did 5 years ago. It is said that recovery from depression is possible, and some go on to productive lives. It is also true that some never recover, and like my friend mentioned earlier, end up losing their lives. I don't know why I have not recovered or if I ever will. I am sick, and there is no one who can place a deadline on disability or guarantee good health. If there were, don't you think I'd be back to a productive career making double the money? Legally, it's the proverbial 'little guy' against a behemoth with deep pockets. Finding some form of justice for my family and I is challenging - yet we hold on to hope. I'm told there are claimants that you treat much worse than us. My heart goes out to them. To all others reading this - chances are someone you know have been through hell with one of these insurance companies. It's time we stand up and expose these issues for what they are. Policy holders deserve better. Disabled people deserve better. Great West Life, If all you care about is your bottom line, then perhaps we must collectively find away to affect that. Maybe then, we will have your undivided attention. Sincerely,

C Paul Stride