Jump to content
Common VA Disabilities


14 Questions about Veterans Disability Compensation Benefits Claims 

When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about when it comes to filing VA Disability Claims.

Popular Forums Common VA Disabilities

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. r(1) CUE with prejudice

    Great story and well do in helping this vet.
  3. FTCA Attorney

    Here is my case. I claim false imprisonment by a VA physician when they held me for involuntary examination. False imprisonment is barred under FTCA 28 USC 2680(h). I claim the waiver of immunity under 38 USC 7316(f) for the physician. I also claim 38 CFR 14.701 and 14.702 as the regulations that the physician must follow. "Scope of employment” is defined by the law of respondeat superior (master and servant) of the place where the act or omission occurred. I will be suing the VA under the State's false imprisonment law where the injury occurred. I will provide an expert affidavit of merit because l am also claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress. I need a physician who is similarly situated to prove the other physician breech of the standard of care and it caused my injury. It goes to discovery because there is no way they could dismiss it at this stage. I got SSDI and I was never treated or diagnosed with a mental illness. I just went to a CE exam and got approved. I collected SSDI for a few years before applying for VA disability benefits. I only served 4 months in the military and got service-connected with TDIU. I don't have any friends and I am not here to make friends. I just wanted to give some advice from my experience.
  4. FTCA Attorney

    You can amend your SF-95 at any time during the reconsideration before they make the final decision. Talk to an attorney to see if you have a case or if you need to amend your SF-95.
  5. Berta......as requested. Attached is my IME. I am trying for an increase from 0% on three (Left Cuboid Syndrome, Left Hip/Thigh Impairment and Left Hip Limit of Flexion). Thank you again. IME.pdf
  6. Probably a dumb question.

    Oh my god I filed for aid and attandance and increase from 70 to 100 for mental health.. My claim has been jumping around for last month maybe month in a half.. like every week or 2.. Today just jumped all the way back to gathering dust..lol Just hang in there.. if you use the web chat sometimes you can get them to read the notes.. part of my hold up was fidicuary that was closed after i uploaded a copy of my bank account.. at least that is what the lady in the chat room told me.. it was opened then closed last week.. I have to wait until monday to try get some info for why its now all the way back in gathering dust
  7. FTCA Attorney

    Solo, there is a process called "discovery". We haven't gotten there yet with the FTCA. I have to state the case well enough for it to go into discovery. The attorney at the GC for the tort is Ann Gavin-Lawrence. The one for the NOA at the CAVC is Lavinia A Derr according to the process notifications that I have been served with. I send copies of the file of both to the other. If Derr sends me something, I copy it to Gavin-Lawrence. And I send copies of both to the fax number to the GC of things I file identifying each by their name and office code to the particular file. I'm thoroughly conversant with the difference between USC and CFR. And I spent 13.5 years in the Navy, the last 5 of it dealing with regulations also known as directives signed by Commanders and Secretaries. And yes these are "Directives" not Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 32) which I studied for advancement to Chief Petty Officer. So excuse me if I sometimes go back to in service lingo. When FTCA and a compensation claim are both on the line or if you only have the FTCA on the line you can offer to settle for disability compensation or a combination of Disability compensation and additional cash depending upon your case. You cannot claim tort damages through the 1151 CFR route. Usually the first to offer to settle loses some. But not always. It is the same as a tort against a Hospital or a City. You may not be able to lump the damage that occurred to any specific individual. If you take a fall because of a loose brick you don't know which employee is at fault. You just know the company is responsible. Don't get hung up on this stuff or is it your job to talk Vets out of SF-95 claims going forward? In any case your posts are drawing me out and making me evaluate and shore up my position. I've done a lot of studying on this in the last year and since being on the proper medication my brain is functioning much better most of the time. But that doesn't give me back 40 years of lost productivity.
  8. Thanks for the input and advice. I'm still within the appeals period as these ratings were given to me in September 2017. I think after hearing your concerns I will remove the history of STR's and post a one page cover letter with recent medical documentation along with the IME. I will scan in the IME and try and attach it. Thank you again
  9. Form 526Ez To File For Smc-S?

    Here's how this works in the real VA world. VA tries to use the date you first ask for TDIU. Having a single 40% and a handful of other disabilities that carry you to 70% or greater often elicits an inferred entitlement to IU. Rice v Shinseki drove this home that VA had to, by law, infer it if you qualified in every other respect. VA still hides behind the fig leaf now that an exam (mental in the instant case) will be taken to be the first confirmed knowledge that Retroman was actually truly, too physically or mentally impaired to work anymore. Prior to that Nov. 2, 2017 date, VA didn't have (or so they will argue) constructive possession of that knowledge-hence the date of the exam. It's easy to refute this at the appellate level with evidence of SSDI/SSI (which VA does have constructive access to). If a claim for TDIU existed prior to November 2, 2017, by law from that date forward whenever it can be shown the condition (TDIU) first existed must be the effective date. Rice stands for TDIU being a claim just like an increase or an original claim. VA has to determine if you are entitled to it even if you do not ask for it. Note they cite to Buie v Shinseki - not Bradley v Peake. Buie stands for Retroman's situation. Once RM is TDIU for the earlier batch of ratings and gets a 70% which is a stand alone disease independent of any of the other ailments that constituted his original TDIU, he can supplant the 70% as his primary TDIU and the earlier (former) batch of rated diseases become the basis of his SMC S. Thus their wrong choice of the November 2, 2017 date. By law, they have to award the greater of two ratings in this case (an earlier effective date of TDIU the moment it can be ascertained you qualified for the SMC. Remember, SMC is due and owing the moment it is proved your entitlement exists. You do not have to file for it per se -but sometimes you do. Buie says you can transpose a TDIU or 100% rating and make it the primary then add up the old ones to make the SMC. That gives you a much earlier effective date if your records prove your contentions. VA has to add your ratings up in the most favorable way they can for you. As for that " he wasn't truly housebound"- ignore it. It's a red herring they always throw in. It's the wrong legal standard of review without a balancing discussion of how RM can best benefit from Buie. You didn't think they'd just throw in the towel without a little fishing expedition to see if they can roll you for a few years of benefits did you?
  10. Yesterday
  11. I really need for the biopsy to be done, then send the results... it's taking forever to get things done...I think the doctors had to wait for the cat-scam which was done a week ago.... the same cat scans which were suppose to be done 2x year and some idiot changed it to 1x year. o, the symptoms of liver disease I have had for a very long time were ignored until the blood tests results showed levels 10x higher than normal. Plus the VA specialists and surgeons recommendation that normal progression will be multi-organ failure and cancer for my diseases. I knew what was coming next, but they could not tell me how long. it is not happening as what the surgeons told me. It was not a one time meeting. I was in there for 6 months as they diagnosed my diseases and they told me personally 'Prognosis: Poor' almost always multi-organ failure, cancer, and no chance ever of a successful surgery. I need a report showing the biopsy, and don't have a date, so I am stuck until then.
  12. Holy crap, yeah that would be time and money, if the VA doc wouldn't write a counter opinion. I really do need to really measure if all this is worth the time and aggravation. Frankly Im tired and get carried away when angry and emotional. This whole ordeals just burns me up every time there are road blocks and traps along the road to victory.
  13. Good point seminoles. Insight is greatly appreciated. I don't worry too much than I should on VA's medical opinion's as I can easily counter with contemporary records, however, I do see your point. It is a very good one. If the bozos don't ignore my private medical records like they have done countless times, I might be forced to get an IMO to counter if my medical records alone do not succeed.
  14. FTCA Attorney

    The federal statute, regulation, or policy must specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow. Your federal statute, regulation, or policy is too general and doesn't identify any specific employee, like a physician, etc. The VA policies are called VA directives. Attorneys use the VA directives as the policy in which the employee must follow. The policies are VA directives and not the handbooks in this link. Don't look at the handbook because those are not policies. https://www.va.gov/OAL/library/dms.asp Statutes are United States Codes(USC) and regulations are Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)
  15. @Gastone I concur - however, you and I both know that some of these grunts are hardheaded. Just like myself! I really got pissed when I couldn't get an apt at the VA back in 2015. I tried calling Nashville, and Murffresboro, TN. I got the same answer from both: "We are sorry, Sir, we just have no availability, currently." And they wonder why 22 Vets commit suicide, daily!! I really said, "Screw it!" If they won't help me, then I'll just manage myself. But you are right, they could come back and hit me good. I did see a civilian MH doctor briefly during this time and SW, but it was pretty short. Yeah, they gave me meds, but no real lasting help. That's when I went cold turkey on all help. That was probably about 1.5 - 2 years ago. But since then, my issues have tripled. That's why I recently got asked by my 3rd wife of two months, to please go to the VA and speak with someone. I did just that, on prazosin, about to start therapy, and the Dr. says I am full blown Chronic PTSD. But that doesn't matter - I realize the VA can do whatever they want. Thanks Gastone!! GB
  16. If you've held your PTSD Rating for 5+ yrs, this DBQ, in and of itself can't be used as the only MH Medical Opinion to reduce your current PTSD SC. However, if you've been completely off the VMC Treatment Grid for a couple of years, that could be problematic. Without a VA or Private MH Treatment Paper Trail (including Rx), a Rater could be inclined to believe that your MH Disability picture has improved.
  17. Back Pay? Bertha

    The only way I know of to get a retro amount you seem to feel is due to you is with a CUE claim ( the older 2009 claim info would be in your C file) or a 38 CFR 3.156 claim...that regulation is searchable here. Or you can definitely NOD it if the fecal incontenence was ratable at a higher level in the past..... That would mean going over your medical records carefully. The downloads really don't tell much of the claims background. NODs are for claims that were decided within the one year period after their decision. CUEs rest a lot on what I call the Watergate question: what did they know and when did they know it. It could help you if you do a search at the BVA web site to see how others were rated for fecal incontinence . You did claim it in 2009 but we would have to see that decision and the evidence list to really figure it out if they felt it was not at a ratable level at that point.
  18. FTCA Attorney

    The Section 1151 process is the same as applying for service-connected disability. You can file the Section 1151 through Ebenefits. The General Counsel doesn't handle Section 1151. The General Counsel only handles FTCA. You can't claim disability benefits through FTCA.

    There are 2 ways to get TDIU: 1. Schedular 38 cfr 4.16a 2. Extra schedular 38 cfr 4.16b. Number 2, is much more difficult to obtain than number 1. You can read about the schedular requirements, here: This is what Gastone was referring to, that is, an extra schedular (4.16 b) TDIU 4.16 Total disability ratings for compensation based on unemployability of the individual. (a) Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities: Provided That, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) Disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable, (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident, (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g. orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric, (4) multiple injuries incurred in action, or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. It is provided further that the existence or degree of nonservice-connected disabilities or previous unemployability status will be disregarded where the percentages referred to in this paragraph for the service-connected disability or disabilities are met and in the judgment of the rating agency such service-connected disabilities render the veteran unemployable. Marginal employment shall not be considered substantially gainful employment. For purposes of this section, marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a veteran's earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. Marginal employment may also be held to exist, on a facts found basis (includes but is not limited to employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop), when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. Consideration shall be given in all claims to the nature of the employment and the reason for termination. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) (b) It is the established policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. Therefore, rating boards should submit to the Director, Compensation Service, for extra-schedular consideration all cases of veterans who are unemployable by reason of service-connected disabilities, but who fail to meet the percentage standards set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. The rating board will include a full statement as to the veteran's service-connected disabilities, employment history, educational and vocational attainment and all other factors having a bearing on the issue. [ 40 FR 42535, Sept. 15, 1975, as amended at 54 FR 4281, Jan. 30, 1989; 55 FR 31580, Aug. 3, 1990; 58 FR 39664, July 26, 1993; 61 FR 52700, Oct. 8, 1996; 79 FR 2100, Jan. 13, 2014]
  20. You need to appeal the decision by filing a NOD disputing the effective date, citing the evidence you mentioned. Effective dates are the later of the "date you applied" or "facts found". Apparently the VA "thinks" the first time you were diagnosed is 2017. Check your records to see if this was diagnosed in 2009, that is, if the VA is correct. (I dont know what your records say). However, "even if" you were not diagnosed until 2017, you can still appeal arguing you had the same symptoms since 2009, if that is indeed the case. The 2017 doc "SHOULD" have given a date as to when you were diagnosed, sometimes "by history". Often they dont do that so they use the date of the c and p exam. Think about it, tho. This suggests you applied in 2009 "in anticipation" that, in 2017, you would become incontinent. I doubt that happened. Instead, YOU had the symptoms earlier, just no diagnosis. You have to have a "current" diagnosis, but I dont think you need a 2009 diagnosis, just symptoms. Diagnosis change, sometimes. Again, check your records, and base your appeal on: 1. The evidence. 2. The symptoms. 3. Point out you meet the Caluza elements: a) CURRENT diagnosis b) in service event or aggravation (unless its secondary to another SC condiition) and c) nexus or medical link between a and b. I would allege that you HAVe a current diagnosis, and that your symptoms began in 2009, if indeed, you can cite evidence to same. Its not all that unusual that it sometimes takes docs a while to diagnose a condition...all while you are having symptoms...this is why it says "CURRENT" diagnosis. My guess is you will prevail on your appeal, provided that you do a good job citing the applicable evidence and resubmitting evidence if necessary. If you resubmit evidence under 38 cfr 3.156 it should give you an eed. You can/should consider an attorney, especially since this is a lot at stake.
  21. john999 - sage advice! I will certainly follow this advice!
  22. Back Pay? Bertha

    Bertha If Active duty military medical report records reporting rectal tear and hemorrhoids from 1991 was not available in c file or medical records for 2009 c@ p exam , only later found in veterans records would the effective date for leakage and hemorrhoids from 2017 award date go back to 2009 c@p exam date on a NOD
  23. If I were you I would stay in treatment at the VA for your SC conditions. You need to stay in treatment even if it is private care and keep records of your treatments. This is what the VA will use to deny or accept a claim. If you are not getting treatment or taking meds for mental health issues they seem to believe you are better and need to be reduced. I get tons of meds and have been seeing VA shrinks for 20 years. They don't do me much good but I will keep going until I get 20 years on my claim and it becomes really permanent. I advise you to do the same.
  24. I ask for TDIU before my MVA of 1990 which took out my back. Probably TDIU will be dated from the 1990 MVA because that is when SSDI is dated from. But to get TDIU from that date I have to either get it linked to just the TBI which made me a safety hazard for most physical jobs because of the absence seizures that were misdiagnosed as "pseudo-seizures" at the time. So I have to get a positive ruling on either. SC of the MVA because of the safety hazard or the elimination of physical jobs such as a Class A driver, welder or such other work I had minimal experience in. I didn't pursue those jobs even before the MVA because I knew that at times I wasn't a safe driver from about 1983. I didn't know why until the MVA in 1990. I just knew I had too many close calls when I felt "foggy brained" which was too much of the time. I was usually all right driving to work but had to wait until the fog cleared before going home. Slept in the office a lot.
  25. FTCA Attorney

    Both the 1151 Claim and the Tort 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) and 2671-2680 claim can be filed concurrently. Thus letters to the VA General Counsel can address both. Thus I made an offer to settle the 3.75 million dollar tort claim via the 1151 claim route which the Director of compensation services could authorize quicker. Yes, I'm hoping the District Court will recognize my claim and there will be a quick settlement. As soon as I file it next week I'm going to take the filing to the Press. I'm not filing against the "employee" but against the "policy" of the government. Doing research without getting permission. Denying claims and mistreating patients to save on the compensation side. Note, I bring in the "lobbyists" and if I can identify the corporations that instigated the bogus research studies, I will enter a suite against them on behalf of the government. The quote above doesn't apply. I'm not suing the Doctor, I'm suing the Hospital under its corporate entity.
  26. FTCA Attorney

    This is a cell phone scanned copy from the attorney who helped me file it. She has since withdrawn because she doesn't practice in Wyoming. I don't have all of the detail to correct the heading. ( .!-.. lh-p;ll"IIIH'III of\ l'll0 1·a11, \ffai,·, < Hlil'l' of (;Clll'1·al ( ·01111..,d s􀃊ptcmber 8. 2016 Via C􀃊rtili􀃊d-Mail. Return-Receipt Requested 7016 0910 0000 8402 5027 Vanessa G. Ellermann. Esq. 66 Gosset's Turn Drive Middletown. RI 02842 Re: Administrative Tort Claim: BRAY, Lemuel Dear Ms Ellermann: Olf1n· ol ( liil"I ( "1111wl ( 01111111:111;tl l>i,111ll \\l,I I<;<; \ :ltl (.111 d1111 ',11 u·I I al,l'\\ ood. < () >11122>1 I l'h ph,1111: Ill I '11-' <;,<111 I.,,· .IIIJ '111 'i'll'I 111 l(q,h l(drr I 11: (,CI 􀁘c;xn􀁙 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and United States Navy (USN) have thoroughly investigated the facts and circumstances surrounding your client's administrative tort claims received on April 26. 20 l 6. Our adjudication of your client's claims included a review of his medical records. a review by a medical provider in another part of the country. as well as interviews of VA personnel. Based on our investigation it appears your client alleges that the harm attributed to the USN occurred on September 20, 1969. A tort claim is barred unless it is presented within two years after the claim accrues, as provided in section 2401(b), title 28, United States Code (U.S.C.). Accordingly, the portion of your claim related to the USN is denied based on the statute of limitations. Additionally, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ I 346(b) and 2671-2680. under which you filed your client filed his claim, provides for monetary compensation when a Government employee, acting within the scope of employment, injures another by a negligent or wrongful act or omission. Medical negligence means there was a breach in the standard of care and that breach proximately caused an injury. The standard of care is the level at which similarly qualified medical professionals would have managed the care under the same or similar circumstances. Our review of the care provided by the VA concluded that there was no negligent or wrongful act on the part of an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) acting within the scope of employment that caused your client compensable harm. Accordingly, we deny your client· s claim against the VA for this reason. If your client is dissatisfied with this decision, he may file a request for reconsideration of his claim with the VA General Counsel by any of the following means: (I) by mail to the Department of Vdcrans J\lfoirs. (icncrnl Counsel (()21H), 810 Vermont /\venue. N.W .. Washington, DC 20420: or (2) by data facsimile (lax) to (202) 273-6385. To be timely. VA must receive this request within six months or the muiling of this linal denial. The VA has six months to act on the reconsideration request. /\f'tcr that time, your cleint has the option of filing suit in an appropriate U.S. District Court under 28 IJ.S.( ·. 􀄙 2675(a). 28 C.F.R. § 14.9. ln the alternative, if your client is dissatisfied with the denial of his claim. he may file suit directly under the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671-2680. The FTC/\ provides that when an agency denies an administrative tort claim. the claimant may seek judicial relief in a Federal district court. The claimant must initiate the suit within six months of the mailing of this notice as shown by the date of this denial (28 U.S.C. 􀄚 2401(b)). In any lawsuit. the proper party defendant is the United States. not the Department of Veterans Affairs or United States Navy. Sincerely. Kevin Curtis Deputy Chief Counsel My letter for reconsideration is below: I took out my address and phone number. And I've since revised the offer to settle upward after discovering more deceptions in the file and the treatment with a contra-indicated drug. LEMUEL Re: GCL 258324 February 23, 2017 Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel (021B) FAX: 202 273 6385 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20420 This is a request for reconsideration of Lemuel’s SF 95 Claim forms dated 4/20/2016 to the U S Navy and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs in response to the denial letter of Kevin Curtis, Deputy Chief Counsel, for, Jeffrey D. Stacey, Chief Counsel, 02, JS: pjc; dated September 8, 2016. Note: Mr.'s attorney, Vanessa Ellermann, has emailed Mr. that she will be unable to represent him because of not being admitted to the Wyoming Bar. Mr. will be searching for a Wyoming attorney. Mr. claims a “legal disability” under Mr. Curtis’s cited Title 28, Section 2401 (a) of 3 years from August 15, 2015 instead of (b) and further claims a “Misrepresentation of Facts” under the citation of Title 41 in Title 28, Section 2401 (a); Section §7101 (9) definitions of Title 41. In addition to the stated claim on the SF 95, Mr. will be asking for a 1/3 of the award to him to be added for attorney’s fees plus additions for costs because of the alleged misrepresentation of facts. ALTERNATIVE SETTLEMENT In the interest of saving time from processing in the District Court because of his advanced age of 75, Mr. will consider an alternative settlement by “correction of his VA record by the Director of Compensation;” to show: From 7/19/1974 to 10/11/1984: 80% combined compensation for diagnostic codes: 8045-9210 Atypical psychosis (organic anosognosia) with considerable impairment of social and industrial adaptability, 50%; 8045-8911 …Minor Epileptic Seizures …averaging at least 5-8 minor seizures weekly, 40%; 5224 Thumb, ankyloses of: Favorable, minor 10%; 6260 tinnitus 10%. Plus, other 0% service connected conditions since 7/19/1974. From 10/11/1984 to 10/1/1985: 8045-8911 …Minor Epileptic Seizures …averaging …or more than 10 minor seizures weekly, 80%; 8045-9210 Atypical psychosis (organic anosognosia) with considerable impairment of social and industrial adaptability, 50%; 5224 Thumb, ankyloses of: Favorable, minor 10%; 6260 tinnitus 10%. Plus, other 0% service connected conditions since 7/19/1974. From 10/1/1985 to 1/15/1992: 100% combined disability compensation (38 CFR 4.16 “unemployability) 8045-8911 …Minor Epileptic Seizures …averaging …or more than 10 minor seizures weekly, 80%; 8045-9210 Atypical psychosis (organic anosognosia) with considerable impairment of social and industrial adaptability, 50%; 5224 Thumb, ankyloses of: Favorable, minor 10%; 6260 tinnitus 10%. Plus, other 0% service connected conditions since 7/19/1974. From 1/15/1992 to 7/10/2009: 100% combined disability compensation (38 CFR 4.16 “unemployability) 8045-8911 …Minor Epileptic Seizures …averaging …or more than 10 minor seizures weekly, 80%; 8045-9210 Atypical psychosis (organic anosognosia) with considerable impairment of social and industrial adaptability, 50%; 5293 intervertebral disc syndrome intermittent and severe 40% (to 9/1/2003 then moderate to mild by 2005); 6290 bilateral hearing loss, 20%; 5224 Thumb, ankyloses of: Favorable, minor 10%; 6260 tinnitus 10%. Plus, other 0% service connected conditions since 7/19/1974. From 7/10/2009 to and including future: 100% combined disability compensation (38 CFR 4.16 “unemployability) 8045-8911 …Minor Epileptic Seizures …averaging …or more than 10 minor seizures weekly, 80%; 8045-9210 Atypical psychosis (organic anosognosia) with considerable impairment of social and industrial adaptability, 50%; 5293 intervertebral disc syndrome moderate, 20%; 6290 bilateral hearing loss, 20%; 5224 Thumb, ankyloses of: Favorable, minor 10%; 6260 tinnitus 10%; 0% tooth on facial fracture line (38 CFR 4.149. Plus, other 0% service connected conditions since 7/19/1974. Plus, attorney’s fees of 20% of back payments. Plus, all back payments should be made at current rates because when Sec 4(d) of the 14th was enacted we were on the gold standard and inflation was not considered because it was not a problem although there were varied costs of living by location or supply interruption but not because of “money supply.” Back payments should buy the same shopping basket of goods as they would have if they had been paid in a timely manner at the time and date incurred. §4.149 Rating diseases of the teeth and gums. Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, periodontal disease (pyorrhea), and Vincent's stomatitis are not disabling conditions, and may be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of determining entitlement to dental examinations or outpatient dental treatment under the provisions of § 17.120 or § 17.123 of this chapter. DISABILITY The disability is subtle anosognosia (8045-9210 at a level of 50%) as is indicated by defining phrases as opposed to direct diagnosis given the objective test conclusions in the Neuropsychological testing report dated 8/30/1985 lines 2, 3, 4, & 5 of paragraph 4 of page 2 and though now understood by Mr., remains disabling although improved with being medicated with Keppra in August of 2015. While the “altered states of consciousness” has greatly improved susceptibility to stress indicated in first 2 lines of the same paragraph remain a problem. MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT: . With respect to organic brain syndromes by the U S Government’s Military and Department of Veteran’s Affairs Mr. Bray cites the orchestrated Yale Medical School study that found on behalf of the DVA’s “cutting edge theory” that EEG sharp waves were more representative of “psychogenic seizures” than partial and complex partial seizures. The DVA is alleged to have demanded a pre-determined outcome of the study in return for the use of DVA telemetry units for the Yale Medical School studies on both civilian and veteran subjects, denying beds to veterans in the telemetry units for the purpose they were installed at DVA Medical and Research facilities in favor of the Yale Medical School non-veteran surgical research subjects of status epileptic seizures including Parkinson’s Disease. The Yale Study conclusions have now been debunked by a study of Oxford Medical School and NIH. The denial of partial and complex partial temporal lobe seizures as indicated by “sharp wave” tracings on EEGs served no purpose other than denial of compensation to veterans while denying all victims of deep based temporal lobe seizures needed medication and other therapy to mediate their condition. Non-veterans have been equally damaged by the deliberately false outcome of the Yale study and will continue to be so damaged so long as there is a Neurology Text Book stating that “sharp waves” on temporal lobe EEG tracings are an indication of “psychogenic seizures.” See: http://epilepsy.yale.edu/about/history/1980.aspx And: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995886/ Additional evidence of “Misrepresentation of Fact” about organic brain syndromes by the U S Military and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is shown by what appears to be an obvious attempt by the authors of the research paper: PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF CEREBRAL MALARIA PATIENTS, “The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,” vol. 147, #6, 1968 by Kastl, A.J.; Daroff, R.B.; and Blocker, W.W.: to attempt to flag their report for failure of a peer review. If fails in 4 specifics the most basic of which is the “control group.” And it appears to have been produced under some sort of duress for a predetermined outcome causing the authors to write in a form designed to get by local review and to fail peer review giving some basic items that are counter the conclusions in the lead up to the conclusions expecting the failures to appear after they had been released from the service. The research paper was used by John Boos, MD, Department of Veterans Affairs National Director of Neurology at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, CT, in his testimony before the Subcommittee on Benefits, House Committee on Veterans Affairs, on July 16, 1998, a person of intellect and credentials that clearly should also have recognized the failings of the “peer reviewed” report. PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF CEREBRAL MALARIA PATIENTS, has clearly and irrefutably, through physiology, been debunked by the National Institute of Health (NIH) study published online December 6, 2016. See also the debunking study: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/raising-curtain-cerebral-malarias-deadly-agents. We note there is a pattern of lobbyist interfering with veterans getting their medical and compensation benefits to benefit their clients: http://www.disabledveterans.org/2016/05/17/phoenix-va-chief-gets-probation-no-penalty-dead-veterans/ This caused the Phoenix and Cheyenne VA crisis. Note it seems unlikely that the Cheyenne VA Director would have cooperated in the Health Net move to get “Choice” authorized without getting some laundered “quid” for her “pro quo”. Perhaps one of the Health Net executives receiving more than $1.5 million in annual compensation after spinning Health Net off of TITLE 28, U.S.C. §2401. Time for commencing action against United States (a) Except as provided by chapter 71 of title 41, every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues. The action of any person under legal disability or beyond the seas at the time the claim accrues may be commenced within three years after the disability ceases. TITLE 41, Section §7101 (9) MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT. The term "misrepresentation of fact" means a false statement of substantive fact, or conduct that leads to a belief of a substantive fact material to proper understanding of the matter in hand, made with intent to deceive or mislead. LEMUEL
  27. FTCA Attorney

    This is good to read when you go up against the US Attorney Office in US District Court. These are some of their affirmative defense against your lawsuit. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2010/12/06/usab5806.pdf
  1. Load more activity