A nurse working for the controversial outsourcing company Atos Healthcare repeatedly lied about a disabled man he was assessing for the government’s new disability benefit it has been claimed.The Atos assessor stated in his report that claimant Colin Stupples-Whyley had attended the personal independence payment (PIP) assessment alone, even though his partner David* had sat with him throughout the interview.The couple, who arrived by car, had been accompanied by a friend, who stayed in the waiting-room, but the nurse claimed that Stupples-Whyley had travelled alone to the assessment in Barking on 5 June by public transport.The allegations raise fresh concerns about the decision of work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith to award two lucrative PIP assessment contracts to Atos, when the company had already been heavily and repeatedly criticised for its performance in delivering “fitness for work” assessments.Atos was allowed to pull out of that contract early after activists pointed to links between the way it carried out the assessments, and relapses, episodes of self-harm, and even premature deaths among those being assessed.But its performance on the two PIP assessment contracts in the two years since the new benefit was launched has plunged Atos back into controversy.Only last month, Disability News Service (DNS) reported how the proportion of disabled people stuck in the queue to be assessed for PIP was more than five times higher in parts of the country managed by Atos, compared with those in areas managed by rival outsourcing giant Capita.Stupples-Whyley, from Grays, Essex, has been able to prove that he was not alone at his PIP assessment by obtaining a copy of part of the Atos signing-in book under data protection legislation. The page shows his signature, as well as those of David and their friend.Stupples-Whyley has agoraphobia, general anxiety disorder, depression, fibromyalgia, and diabetes, but he said the impact of these impairments on his day-to-day life was completely misrepresented by the assessor.The report claims he was able to do sums and spell a word backwards, neither of which he said he was asked to do in the assessment.He provided a long list of his diabetes symptoms, but the nurse simply wrote down “urinates a lot”.He also had a panic attack during the assessment, but that was not mentioned in the nurse’s report.Among other inaccuracies, the assessor stated in the report that a counsellor had diagnosed his mental health conditions, despite being told it was a psychiatrist.Stupples-Whyley claims that the entire section of the form devoted to a physical examination supposedly carried out by the nurse was completely fabricated, as no such test took place.The nurse repeatedly claims on the form that difficulties reported by Stupples-Whyley were “inconsistent” with the findings of his assessment.As a result, he scored zero points on the test and was found ineligible for PIP, while the DWP confirmed that decision after he asked for it to be reconsidered.Stupples-Whyley said the assessment was “very unpleasant” and that the nurse had become “very rude and disrespectful” after he learned that David was his civil partner.He said: “The atmosphere was awful throughout and he was more interested in telling us why I wouldn’t get benefit. He would try and put words into my mouth, and he disputed anything I said.”He added: “I went to the assessment very naive and trusting. I had asked to be seen first or last so that I didn’t have to wait in the waiting room with lots of people.“When I arrived this had not happened, so I was already very anxious before we went in.“I honestly thought I would have the assessment, they would obtain my medical records to verify what I had said, then they would or wouldn’t grant PIP payment.”He now plans to insist that any future benefit assessment is recorded.He said: “I have no trust in Atos or DWP at all now. I feel angry that lies have been told, I feel angry that DWP refused to even investigate Atos when I said the report was fraudulent.“I feel hurt that the people I believed to be there to help people are in fact just a department that does everything in its power not to pay any money to claimants.“I just never in a million years expected to be treated the way I have.”Because of the experience, his psychiatrist has had to increase his mental health medication.Stupples-Whyley said he had become “obsessed” with his PIP experience, which had left him determined to prove that he was not a liar.He said he felt “huge relief” when he received the paperwork that proved all three of them had visited Atos Barking on the day of the assessment.He said: “I have found the whole complaints process overwhelming. DWP take no responsibility and in a few days’ time it will be two months and still no response from anyone at Atos.“The overall affect for me is that my world has just got even smaller, because now I do not trust government nor healthcare providers to have my best interests at heart, nor to act with honesty.”He plans to appeal to a tribunal, and his MP, Jackie Doyle-Price, has written to Atos to request a fresh assessment.Today (Thursday), two days after DNS contacted the company’s press office about his story, Stupples-Whyley was telephoned by Atos to inform him that his complaint was now being treated at the most serious level of internal inquiries.He was told that he would be interviewed soon about his complaint, and was offered a reassessment.An Atos spokeswoman only provided a comment on the condition that DNS did not name the nurse.She said in the statement: “A complaint was received by us from Mr Stupples-Whyley a few weeks after his assessment. It has been thoroughly investigated and we have spoken to him directly.“In the interests of fairness and transparency we have offered Mr Stupples-Whyley a reassessment.“It is distressing for all concerned that Mr Stupples-Whyley is so unhappy about his assessment and we are sorry that this is the case. All complaints to us are taken seriously and thoroughly investigated.”But she has refused to confirm that the investigation is ongoing, if any disciplinary action has been taken against the nurse, whether the nurse is still carrying out assessments for Atos, and whether Atos accepts that Stupples-Whyley did not attend the assessment alone.*Not his real name
Urgent action is needed to address the plight of tens of thousands of mental health service-users who are subjected to detention and compulsory treatment under “intrinsically discriminatory” legislation, according to a leading disabled expert.Dr Rachel Perkins pointed to figures which show that the number of detentions under the Mental Health Act (MHA) rose by its highest proportion in 2014-15, to more than 58,000.This compared with 44,000 people in 2007-08, and less than 22,000 in 1987-88.Perkins (pictured) told Disability Rights UK’s annual conference in north London that MHA “deprives people of their human rights” and is “a law that only applies to you if you are deemed to have a mental health disorder”, but few if any organisations have been campaigning to address that discrimination.Perkins, vice-chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s disability committee, a senior consultant with Implementing Recovery through Organisational Change (ImROC), and herself a mental health service-user, said the issue would be raised with the UN’s committee on the rights of persons with disabilities.Evidence of the discriminatory nature of mental health legislation will be included in the shadow report being compiled by Disability Rights UK and other disabled people’s organisations on the UK’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.Perkins said the dominant narrative in mental health was the need for better access to treatment, and for service-users to be more open about their impairments.But she said the discriminatory Mental Health Act meant that people with mental distress were at risk of being locked up, forcibly treated and injected with drugs, even though most of them have the capacity to refuse or consent to treatment.There were more than 4,500 community treatment orders (CTOs) in 2014-15, compared with about 4,100 in 2009-10, the first full year after CTOs were introduced by the Labour government in 2008.The original estimates suggested there would only be 400 to 600 CTOs a year, she said.Perkins told the conference that Labour had argued that CTOs would lead to fewer people with mental health conditions being locked up, but detention had instead continued to rise.She said: “This should have reduced the number of people in hospital. It hasn’t.“The number of times we have used this law to detain people in hospital has gone up and up and up.”In 2014-15, she said, there were 58,000 occasions on which “we locked people up in hospital and injected them against their will, the largest increase ever seen in a year.“It’s getting serious and it’s getting much, much worse.”She pointed to research in The Lancet from 2013 which showed that the use of CTOs “does not confer patient benefits, despite substantial curtailment of individual freedoms”.She told the conference: “CTOs do not benefit people in any way.“We cannot talk about independent living while there is a whole class of disabled people for whom a completely separate law applies.”Perkins told the conference that once people are seen as having a health condition rather than being a disabled person they can become “trapped” and subject to “medical interventions, charity and good works”.And she said that people with mental health conditons have not seen the advances in rights enjoyed by other disabled people, and are still often forced into institutions, with only 60 per cent of people using mental health services having a “secure and stable place to live”.She told Disability News Service later that the issue was causing “huge amounts of distress” among service-users.She said: “People are extremely angry about it. People see themselves as doing something wrong, as being prisoners; they see mental health services as policing their treatment, rather than providing support.“Where do people turn to for help if those people supposed to be helping them just end up forcing them to [take medication]?”She added: “It feels to me that what has happened is we have moved towards the right to treatment and that has substituted for the right to life, the right to participate.“They are talking about parity of esteem for mental health services and not parity of esteem for people who experience mental health challenges.”And many CTOs lead eventually to service-users being recalled into detention, she said.She added: “I think there’s a reluctance for anyone to take [this issue] on because there is still some emotion that people with mental health problems are going to be dangerous and therefore we need to protect everybody or protect people from themselves – very much ‘looking after’ rather than a rights-based narrative.”She said the “disability world was still not seeing mental health as a core part of its business”, so the issue was not taken up.She added: “I don’t think there is a large, social-model, rights-based mental health movement.“My sadness is there has never been a joint working between the mental health world and the disability rights world, as there has been in other parts of the world. In Britain it still seems really separate.”
The latest attempts by politicians and charities to push for a solution to the social care funding crisis risk ignoring the voices of service-users, according to disabled campaigners.They spoke out as representatives of the social care and health sector and a cross-party group of MPs tried to put further pressure on the government over the need for more funding.An open letter to the prime minister, signed by 75 individuals and organisations across the health and social care sector, was published on the same day that Liberal Democrat shadow health secretary Norman Lamb issued a joint statement from cross-party MPs that warned of “very serious” consequences if the government did not take immediate action to deal with the “unsustainable strain” on the NHS and the social care system.Lamb then raised the issue at this week’s prime minister’s questions, and Theresa May agreed to meet his group of MPs.Both the open letter – drafted originally by the older people’s charity Independent Age – and the MPs’ statement call on the government to establish a cross-party review of health and social care funding.But Professor Peter Beresford (pictured), co-chair of the national service-user network Shaping Our Lives, and the Independent Living Strategy Group (ILSG) both spoke out this week to warn that disabled people and other service-users needed to be at the centre of any such discussions and reviews.ILSG, chaired by the disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Jane] Campbell and whose members include Shaping Our Lives, says in its open letter to the prime minister that, while it supports the call for a cross-party review, there is a “need to ensure that the people who use such support are central to, and have opportunity to influence any proposed settlement”.It adds: “We are our own experts on the support we need and therefore we must be included in any discussion.”In the wake of continuing emphasis by politicians and the media on the care needs of older people, the ILSG letter also points out that a third of social care spending supports working-age disabled people.Beresford told Disability News Service that he was unhappy with the failure to put service-users and carers “fully and equally” at the heart of the Independent Age letter.He said: “They don’t call for the constituencies that are most affected by this crisis – the people that are dying as a result – for their involvement in it.”And he was critical of the decision of Helena Herklots, chief executive of Carers UK, one of the organisations to sign the Independent Age letter, to accept a CBE in last week’s new year honours.He said: “How can you be part of a carers’ organisation in 2017 when you know what is being done to disabled people and carers and accept a CBE?”Beresford also said there was no point discussing social care “in isolation”, without also examining welfare reform and housing.He said there had been “minimal” involvement of service-users in social care policy development over the last six years.He agreed that there had to be “a root and branch review” but that it must be “inclusive”of user-led organisations, disabled people’s organisations, carers’ groups, trade unions and organisations of social care professionals, and must include them “on equal terms”.He said he was concerned that any inquiry might instead be tilted too much in favour of other “very powerful interests”.He said: “Without the stakeholders… you can’t provide the right answer and it’s as simple as that, and it’s got to be a long-term answer.”Beresford said there had been a history over the last 20 years of politicians “avoiding biting the bullet” on social care funding.He said that funding social care adequately would be cost-effective because it would cut costs in so many other areas, while the only acceptable solution was to do so alongside the introduction of a progressive system of general taxation.But he said that increasing funding for social care was not the only answer to the “desperate crisis”, because any solution also needed to address the culture of social care.There needs to be both an appropriate person-centred culture as well as adequate funding, he said, and added: “Anything else is just tinkering at the edges.”
Journalism students from Shantou University (China) collaborated with Mission Local and asked Asian-owned businesses what it’s like to work on Mission Street. Share this: FacebookTwitterRedditemail,0% 0%
And yet, most tales of unanticipated riches, like The Pearl, take a more malevolent turn, with the recipients of windfall funds turning against one another and ending up worse off for their wealth. San Francisco, it seems, will fall somewhere between these extremes. The $185.4 million in “windfall” funds unearthed late last year from the “Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund” (ERAF) by the city controller will, undoubtedly, be put to good use. But just who is helped — and who is not, or who is helped more and sooner — is a matter of some contention. Mayor London Breed, in a savvy political move for someone who loudly opposed November’s Prop. C homeless measure, wants all of these funds to go to the homeless. Among elected officials, however, this is a lonely view. Members of the Board of Supervisors have eyes on a number of additional priorities, including teacher salaries, early childhood education, or buying utilities out from under PG&E. This debate, which may be decided by Wednesday’s vote in the Budget Committee, has turned fraught; these funds have been portrayed as a one-time golden ticket descending from the sky, and everyone and their special-interest group wants their shot at it. But is this really “windfall” money? And are these really “educational” funds? The answer to both is no.Photo by Jennifer CortezFirst, the facts: Barring unforeseen lunacy, San Francisco will be the recipient of a “windfall” of between $200 and $250 million next year. After set-asides, the city is looking at between $160 million and $180 million in discretionary funding from that money. And, barring unforeseen lunacy, this will be the case not only next year but the year after that and the year after that. Because this is, in fact, not a golden ticket from the sky. It’s tax money from San Franciscans placed into a fund administered by San Francisco. As George W. Bush put it, “It’s your money. You paid for it.” In 1992, during lean times, the state of California devised a method to fund its schools even less while, in effect, taking money away from its cities and counties. In a great and terrible bit of Orwellian branding, it called the method of accomplishing both of the above the “Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund.” Since the state is not permitted to simply yank away county property taxes, it created a shell game to accomplish the same end. It established this “Augmentation Fund” in every county, requiring counties to pay into it and disseminate the money to school districts. Subsequently, state funding of schools was reduced by an equivalent amount. See what they did there? That was a pretty neat trick. School funding, naturally, wasn’t augmented at all. In the late 1990s, additional state rules clarified that if a county collected more in its Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund fund than a state-imposed cap, the additional funds would be returned to the counties. This is what’s happening in San Francisco now. The Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund exceeded its cap last year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.Already, the Augmentation Funds have exceeded their caps in counties like Marin, Mono, Napa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara (where, for the most part, property tax revenue is surging and school enrollment is not). San Mateo, in fact, codified level-headed policies for spending ERAF funds all the way back in 2011; this need not be a melodramatic yearly battle royale.Because these excess dollars are, by no means, being yanked away from schools. San Francisco may yet choose to fund teachers with them because that’s a prudent thing to do, but these are, by no means, “educational funds.”The pitting of the homeless vs. educators is an unfortunate byproduct of jostling over the $185 million in “windfall” funding. Photo by Lola M. ChavezAnd this is, again — by no means — a “windfall.” Even fiscally cautious observers admit that San Francisco’s soaring property tax revenue (up 22 percent in the last two years alone) and stagnant public school enrollment mean this will likely happen again and again — “barring state action.” The optics of some of the state’s wealthiest counties receiving hefty amounts of money may not be well-taken at the statewide level. This is, in fact, our own money granted back to us after the city maxed out its state-mandated educational contribution, and our swelling property taxes actually reduced the amount of direct state aid to San Francisco schools — but optics are optics. Yet if the state decides it wants this money, or simply doesn’t want San Francisco to have it, what would “state action” even look like? Well, city sources say, it might require the Democratic supermajority Legislature to make a move. It would require this happening over the objections of Assemblyman David Chiu, Sen. Scott Wiener, Assemblyman Phil Ting — not insignificantly, the budget chair — and, of course, Gov. Gavin Newsom. And this money grab would supposedly be happening while the state is enjoying a multi-billion dollar surplus. That seems unlikely. But, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, it’s actually even more unlikely. Ken Kapphahn, a fiscal and policy analyst for the LAO, says that if the state wanted to “play around the edges” on reducing the Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds for San Francisco and other counties, it could still, possibly, be done legislatively — though Kapphahn acknowledges all the factors listed above would render this unlikely. And yet, he continues, California Proposition 1A of 2004 severely limited the state’s ability to redirect the allocations of local property taxes. So, “for wholesale change” of the sort that would be needed to really undo San Francisco’s ongoing “windfall,” this “might need to go back to a vote of the people.”That certainly seems far-fetched.For good or ill — mostly good — San Francisco is going to have to learn to deal with the ongoing situation of a hefty new funding source coming its way yearly. Both the mayor’s office and the Board of Supervisors desperately want to get this year’s “windfall” accounted for before negotiating no fewer than 29 open union contracts. But the unions, no dummies, know this money is coming back, no matter how much our elected officials prevaricate. And they want some. “Every time we go into negotiations, the city cries poor,” says John Stead-Mendez, the executive director of SEIU Local 1021, the city’s largest union. Referring to this revenue source as a “windfall” is untrue, he says, and plays into that. But he’s already thinking bigger.“I can remember the last administration [crying poor] in 2014 and, since then, revenue has grown by $2 billion. … This is one revenue source among many.”Update, 4:48 p.m.: Supervisor Gordon Mar today announced a compromise on how to spend the “windfall” funds that may make tomorrow’s vote far less contentious — and diffuse a potential hours-long, acrimonious public comment period pitting unionized teachers against other underfunded groups and their representatives.Mar’s Tuesday afternoon announcement did not go into detail, but Mission Local has learned it involves the creation of a fund that can be accessed by either the Board of Supervisors or San Francisco Unified School District drawn from $52 million in excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund money already placed in “rainy day” reserves.These were the “one-time” contributions placed in the rainy day fund, per city law requiring such a move following a first instance of explosive revenue growth.In the event Prop. G — which would establish a parcel tax funding teacher raises — isn’t clear of legal hurdles by 2020-21, this funding source could be tapped. Future ERAF “windfalls” — which figure to come yearly now, as noted above — could also be directed to teacher salaries. If unused, the fund could be redirected back into the rainy day reserves.Mission Local is told that this solution, which guarantees teacher raises through the duration of their current contract, has met the satisfaction of the teachers’ union and has been approved by competing factions of progressive supervisors, who had been at odds regarding what percentage of ERAF funding should go to teachers. With the approval Wednesday of eight supervisors, the board would establish a veto-proof majority — Mayor London Breed has made it clear she desires all the funds go to the homeless. Email Address Barring a vote of the people of California or a legislative Hail Mary, San Francisco figures to get a $200 to $250 million “windfall” every year now Subscribe to Mission Local’s daily newsletter Update: Compromise reached in “windfall” spending — see endWhen Jed Clampett discovered oil on his property, he moved the family to Beverly Hills and lived happily with his newfound wealth.
SAINTS have announced their squad for Friday’s Super League home opener against Hull FC.Nathan Brown names the same 19 that featured against Warrington last week.They are:1. Jonny Lomax, 2. Tommy Makinson, 3. Jordan Turner, 4. Josh Jones, 5. Adam Swift, 6. Lance Hohaia, 7. Luke Walsh, 9. James Roby, 10. Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook, 11. Sia Soliola, 12. Jon Wilkin, 13. Willie Manu, 14. Anthony Laffranchi, 16. Kyle Amor, 17. Paul Wellens, 18. Alex Walmsley, 22. Mark Percival, 24. Gary Wheeler, 27. Greg Richards.Lee Radford will choose his Hull FC side from:3. Ben Crooks, 4. Kirk Yeaman, 5. Tom Lineham, 6. Richard Horne, 7. Jacob Miller, 8. Mickey Paea, 9. Danny Houghton, 11. Gareth Ellis, 13. Joe Westerman, 14. Richard Whiting, 15. Joe Arundel, 16. Jordan Thompson, 20. Jamie Shaul, 22. Josh Bowden, 26. Iafeta Palea’aesina, 32. Jordan Rankin, 33. Aaron Heremaia, 34. Fetuli Talanoa, 35. Garreth Carvell.The game kicks off at 8pm and the referee will be Richard Silverwood.Tickets remain on sale for the big game from the Ticket Office at Langtree Park, by calling 01744 455 052 or by logging on here.Stat Pack:Richard Whiting has scored a try in each of Hull FC’s last three meetings with St Helens.Super League Summary:St Helens won 24 (includes win in 2006 Grand Final & wins in 2001 and 2006 play-offs)Hull FC won 103 drawsUps and Downs:St Helens highest score: 74-16 (H, 1999) (also widest margin)Hull FC highest score: 44-6 (H, 2005) (also widest margin)Career Milestones:Paul Wellens remains one point short of 1,000 for his career.He has scored 953 points (218 tries, 40 goals, 1 field goal) for St Helens since 1998.He has also scored points for Great Britain (18 – 4 tries, 1 goal), England (16 – 4 tries) and Lancashire (12 – 3 tries).
SAINTS head over to the DW Stadium this Friday to take on Wigan in what is sure to be a mouth-watering derby.Backed by a large vocal away support, Nathan Brown’s table-toppers are seeking to stay on top of the Super League and record a vital win as they aim to back up the excellent victory over Castleford.Tickets for the match are now on sale from the Ticket Office priced at £21 for adults and £14 concessions (over 60-years-of-age, full time students, ambulant disabled and juniors) – in the North Stand.Junior Season Ticket Holders must swap their vouchers before they travel as cards will not be accepted on the day.Tickets will return to Wigan on Friday afternoon with online sales ceasing at midnight Thursday.Tickets are available from the Ticket Office at Langtree Park, by calling 01744 455 052 or by logging on here.
KEIRON Cunningham says he cannot wait for Saints to take to the field on Sunday.After a long pre-season his side face Widnes Vikings at Langtree Park at 3pm.“I’m happy with how pre-season has gone but I just want to get going now,” he said. “The boys have bought in to what we wanted to do and have trained hard.“Nothing major has changed from last season; I was in charge of the attack and Sean Long has come in with Jamahl (Lolesi). They will look after the defence with me overseeing everything.“I’m really excited now and want to get started. As I player I know what it feels like at this time of year; the days before Christmas can be a drudge, it’s gloomy but once you’re back, and the ball is in your hands a little more, it is more exciting.”Saints will play a strong side in the match and there’s good news on the three players who were injured long-term in 2014.Jon Wilkin is back training, Jonny Lomax is there and thereabouts whilst Luke Walsh has a good chance of playing against Catalan in Round 1.“Jonny Lomax won’t be ready this week, but hopefully will be back the week after,” Keiron continued. “Walshy is back running and his leg is at 100 per cent. We had a little grumble with his ankle but hopefully, fingers crossed, if there isn’t a setback, he will be kicking a ball for us in round one“We targeted round one for him and thought if things went well he would be back for the friendlies. Obviously, the more we get him playing with the team the better. The thought of having him on the pitch with Travis Burns excites me. When Luke first came to the club and I saw him in training it was like having Sean Long back.”Speaking of Long, Keiron reported that Sean has settled into life at the club and is already making an impact.“When I came into the office to work for Nathan he asked me what my ambition was. I said I wanted to be a head coach. He said he liked assistants that wanted to be head coaches as they meant they challenged him more.“I’ve always felt like a leader from a young age and I like the responsibility of it. Myself and Nathan had a good relationship. I don’t know everything so I want my assistants to debate and challenge me as I did with Browny.“I worked well with Jamahl last year and have brought Longy in. I lot of people said I only brought back Sean as he was my friend. If he wasn’t right for the job he wouldn’t be here. I am here to do a job and win trophies and if Sean wasn’t going to fit in he wouldn’t be here. He is a great coach, smart and will bring something to us.”Tickets for Sunday’s friendly at Langtree Park, which kicks off at 3pm, are on sale now from the Ticket Office, by calling 01744 455 052 or by logging on here.Prices in the Solarking South and Totally Wicked North Stands will be £12 for adults, £10 for concessions and Juniors £5.Hatton’s Solicitors West Terrace tickets are available for £10 (adult) £8 (concession), £5 (Junior).
For all the latest from the game, click on the Match Centre button to follow the feed and enjoy exclusive content throughout the 80 minutes! The game kicks off at 8pm and team news will arrive from about 6:45pm!
“For safety reasons, the portion of the Carolina Beach Recreational Trail from near the boat launch facility up to Bridge Barrier Road will be closed to the public until that portion of the project is completed,” said Wilmington District Navigation Program Project Manager Jim Medlock. “We ask that the public stay away from the construction area so that we can repair the eroded Snow’s Cut banks safely and as quickly as possible.”Medlock anticipates that the contractor will likely close the recreational trail starting on or about December 1. The Corps estimates that repairs will continue through Spring 2018. Snow’s Cut Bridge (Photo: WWAY) WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District is urging boaters to stay clear of construction along portions of Snow’s Cut as repairs for bank erosion begin today.The Wilmington District has awarded a $1.8 million contract to repair erosion damage to three areas of Snow’s Cut worsened last year from Hurricane Matthew.. Two locations are on the north and south side and east of the Snow’s Cut Bridge, and one is near the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission boat launch.- Advertisement –