Procter and Gamble denies disabled veteran in heartless act

An Ill Veteran, A Denied Claim, A Heartless Employer
Susan Campbell
April 13, 2008

Carl MacLeod enlisted in the Army, and for 20 years he traveled the world. He also accumulated a few injuries.

When he was honorably discharged as a first sergeant in early 2001, he got a job as a maintenance manager at Clairol in Stamford. He told the company he was a disabled vet, and enrolled in their employee benefits plan. That same year, he and wife Kristy moved with his three and her two children from previous marriages to a house in West Haven.

Later that year, Procter & Gamble bought Clairol, and MacLeod met with two company representatives to discuss benefits. He talked about his injuries, and he was reassured that nothing would change. He enrolled in the new benefits plan, and started paying premiums.

And then he got sick. Years as an Army machinist exposed him to a sea of chemicals, and in February 2004, MacLeod was diagnosed with chronic solvent encephalopathy, or CSE, a degenerative neurological disease, something like a cross between MS and Lou Gehring's disease for which there is no cure. In October 2004, the VA upped his disability from 70 to 100 percent.


MacLeod filed for disability benefits at work, but within four days — over a weekend, yet — P&G said no. They said his diagnosis was a result of military service, and they were not responsible. This despite their earlier reassurances, and the language of their own package plan.

In November '06, a judge said the company should review its denial. P&G asked for more documentation, and then denied him again last August. MacLeod filed suit last month.

John March, state service officer with the American Legion, says MacLeod's case is the worst he's seen. "If P&G is allowed to get away with this," said March, "I think it will become a norm, and then this could happen again and again with these men and women coming back." Like those returning men and women, MacLeod gets benefits from the VA, but they're far less than he should be making if P&G did the right thing.

His attorney, Mark C. Durkin, of Stamford, says "I'm not going to let this happen to a good family," though he knows the law is heavily weighted in favor of the employer.
click post title for more