Chuck75

The way I went about it was to first obtain a list of VA "qualified" attorneys, then reduce the number of potentials to those practicing in the metro area of my VAMC, which is about a hundred miles away from my residence. Other searches involved the national veterans lawyers associations, etc., the state bar association, and so forth. Finally, a very short list was the result. Then I contacted those on the short list. There was some variation in the responses. One specialized in Army Veterans only. One made it clear that "expenses" would be charged above the VA 20% rule. Some had moved from one firm to another, and really were not in the veteran's law area anymore. To cut to the chase, the one I settled on limits fees to the VA 20%, including reasonable and usual expenses in the 20% of retro payment from the VA. Even that MAY be recoverable, due to the equal justice act. (Assuming the republicans don't scuttle it somehow.) I ended up getting a lawyer because it became obvious that the VARO was bound and determined to deny, even in the face of service medical records showing "duty related", IMOs that are accepted at the BVA and veterans court, and SSA determinations. Not to mention Denials imposing additional criteria that had no basis in law and regulation.

As others said, there are alternatives to MS office applications. I prefer to use open office on laptops and netbooks, due to a smaller "footprint". - - Various readers are available from Microsoft, and the page referenced below has several listed. Forgive me if I step on any toes, but the excel reader and others can be downloaded from here: https://office.micro...A001044981.aspx Or if you prefer, a Google search using the term "Microsoft Office Readers" will list, among others, Microsoft's sites with reader information and links.

Nothing has changed in my opinion. Before the VA admitted to a claims backlog, VSO's were saying that the only way to get a claim through the VA system in a reasonable time frame (less than a year) was to make a simple initial claim that was undeniable. Other claims (multi-issue, etc.) were taking years to resolve. In quite a few cases, exams were often scheduled more than a year after the claim was made, and were not even required due to the evidence of record. To me, the VA's excuses don't deserve any belief or consideration. The only solutions that I can see is to penalize the government/VA for delays. Another problem begging for a solution is simply that it's easier and faster for an RO to deny a claim than it is to grant a claim. I believe the denial process should be at least as complex as the approval process. Further, less or no "credit" should be given for a denial, and negative credit should be applied to a denial or "low ball" rating that is reversed as a result of the appeals process. "Pilot programs" may provide increased output of claims, but the primary purpose is to investigate revised claims processing. Unfortunately, such programs often actually deal with claims that had the potential to be quickly resolved without the "pilot" program, and ignore those that have spent years in the system without resolution.

Congratulations! The issue of stateside A.O. exposure has been minimized and largely ignored by DOD and the VA. (Even when a base is an EPA superfund site, and has dioxin listed as one of the many contaminants.) Treasure Island Navy Base (T.I.) (Closed) is such a site. During the Vietnam era, many thousands of sailors destined for service in the far east were sent to the fire fighting school at T.I. Training involved exposure to smoke and fire fueled by waste and contaminated oil products. The school training areas were later found to have residual dioxin levels well above EPA limits, and believed to have originated from the burned oil based products. I believe that the sheer numbers of those exposed caused the government to completely ignore and bury the issue as much as possible.

"A finding of incompetency is proposed." My reading on this is that you need a lawyer ASAP! Since you are not incompetent until the VA claims you are, and goes through the process, They do not have any legal authority to withhold an award that I'm aware of. That said, they may have a regulation that goes beyond the law, and allows them to withhold benefits. This is why you need a lawyer now!

This is a good one! The exact wording of the letter to the secretary is likely to be a key. If it shows that you believed you had a claim, it's likely to be considered an "informal claim". A problem is that the VA has over the years, attempted to skew the laws (by regulation, and administrative practice) in the VA's favor rather than the veterans, as was originally intended by the letter of the law. When this sort of thing has an effect on a claim, it's likely to end up in the BVA or higher before it gets resolved.

Herein lies the problem with C&P results. The C&P examiner states that a problem or condition is not related to an SC'd one, but does not state what the problem is caused by or related to. If the condition might be related to the SC'd condition, and there is no evidence to the contrary, it's as likely as not that the condition is related. Unfortunately, the C&P examiner is biased by training and direction to be quite negative.

I guess this one depends on the local property tax law. Here, If you own such things as a boat, car, etc. on Jan 1, you pay the property/excise taxes, even if you sell it the next day. Veterans disabled or not, do pay such taxes here. There is a reduction possible for veterans that are "P&T" only. It's surprising how may people get angry at veterans over such stupid issues.

I believe that the VA will likely consider TBI as independent of PTSD, and vice versa. If the medical evidence of TBI is in your records, the VA according to the Law, should consider it as well. Since this does not always occur, it's generally a good idea to "amend" your claim to include TBI. Unfortunately, this may slow down your claim in it's meandering path through the VA system. Does the VA have your medical records showing TBI? If not, you have different ways to accomplish this. You could send a copy to the VA. If you are treated at a VA facility (Clinic, VAMC, etc.), you can take copies of the records and have them added to your file. Remember to place your name, "C" file number on each page, and if mailing, at least send certified, receipt requested, etc.

I'd have to ask how the VA IG obtained your friend's business address, home address, etc. That aside - - Is the business located in the same general local area as a VARO or VAMC? If you are taking more than a certain quantity of pain killers, this may trigger VA internal review. I suppose the review might in turn, trigger some sort of investigation. Why? Who knows. I suspect, just from seeing VA documents in examining rooms and in a clinic office, that the VA may be having some sort of internal action going on that concerns pain killing drugs.

I believe that several people need to be given the door. Besides the doctor, supervision was grossly negligent. I'm also curious to know what the ER Dr's specialty was. My experience at a military hospital overseas in the 70's was that wee hour ER doctors were often not really qualified in much more than trying to keep a patient alive until qualified doctors were available. At the time, a co-worker died, due to heart related problems, and lack of adequate and prompt treatment. His death caused serious changes in the hospital's ER. (The on duty doctor was not surgically qualified, and normally dealt with mental problems.)

Fair, no. It does show some consideration/preference towards very low income veterans. I might also say that there are similar situations that exist between Medicaid and Medicare.

Take a copy of the Neurologist's exam with you, and ask the examiner to read it. If the examiner is not as qualified as the Neurologist, he knows it, and is unlikely to disagree. Conversely, if the examiner is bound and determined to write results that will cause denial, it may be better to save the Neurologist's opinion for an appeal. Remember that the VA likes to have "both ways" in their favor, not the veterans. My experience was with a VA examiner. The examiner (an RN), wanted to write a denial, yet was faced with both an SSA SSDI determination and a board certified specialist's opinion. Both stated that the conditions existed, and to what level. (SSA, total disability, no further exams) (specialist, described condition,level, and with medical test results & evidence.) Even with this, the VA examiner tried to avoid the issues, but acknowledged that since the conditions were presumptive, and there was no evidence to the contrary, any opinion rendered was mute. Perhaps the most favorable of the VA C&P statements was that no further exams were needed. Further the VA examiner acknowledged that the VA C&P's given were inadequate. Actually there was one other favorable statement - - having to do with how the VA rates a specific condition. The examiner placed the condition in the level most favorable to the veteran, based upon medical records. The whole C&P was interesting, because it occurred only after I filed an NOD, the VA did a "rubber stamp" DRO denial review, and I complained that the denial was baseless, in that there was no C&P prior to the denial.

A VA Fiduciary appointment covers more than Retro pay. Once the paper makes it to the bank, expect to find that the you no longer have access to anything in the direct deposit account. The entire amount may get transferred without prior notice to the fiduciary's account, and who knows where it might be. Waco is notorious for it's fiduciary account practices. Did you contact a lawyer qualified to deal with the VA? Did they give you advice on how to deal with the situation now? Have you filed a NOD? Time is flying!

If you didn't fill out an 11-22 representative appointment form, TVC is not really your representative. However, I can understand how it might happen. TVC and the VSO get credit for veteran's representation. TVC is actually your representative, not a specific VSO, unless the 11-22 named a specific individual. Having them listed this way may help you, or not. It can speed up your claim, or, conversely, help get it screwed up. This depends upon the TVC VSO's actions, or lack of them. Your situation does highlight a problem, in that information entered into a vet's VA file becomes gospel to the VA, even when it's far from being accurate. In this case getting it corrected/changed, if you deem it necessary, is not easy, in that you need to do something (Fill out another 11-22), yet not too difficult if you feel it's necessary. I changed my representative about a year or so ago from the state veterans department to a lawyer qualified/admitted to practice before the VA and in the federal district court. This single action seems to have made the VA a bit more responsive, and above board in it's actions. One result was movement of part of my claim that had languished, awaiting VA action. Seems that the VA decided to award administratively (Which they should have done to begin with), rather than send the case to the BVA, and get it remanded right back. At least I ended up with the VA paying retro, and a major increase in compensation payments. The lawyer got 20% of the retro. Since this resulted in an increase of several hundred dollars a month in compensation, the lawyer was well worth it.

The only way to determine what the surgeon plans on doing is to ask detailed questions, and get answers you understand. Even then, surgeons make decisions "on the fly" once into an operation. Part of the decision making process has to do with how well a patient is doing during the operation. Another consideration is ease of access to the second area of concern. Finally, if it's in a VA hospital, and some others, scheduled operating room times can be quite rigid. A doctor that takes longer than expected on a repeated basis can have problems. As to my opinion on spine/back injury. I have several damaged "disks" etc. in my lower back, due originally to a compression injury many decades ago. I say it's related to handling and loading ammunition on antiaircraft gun mounts and rocket launchers in and around Vietnam. The VA has another opinion, naturally. Some have surgery, and get relief. Others do not. I was always advised to not consider surgery unless and until the pain becomes constant and debilitating. Further, when I was injured, X-rays did not show much of anything. Turned out that soft tissue injury (disks, etc) are not always obvious on an X-ray. At the time, the only test that was considered definitive involved injecting dye into the spinal cord. Milo-gram? Anyway, the doctors also recommended against that. Seems that there was a real possibility of causing further damage. What really frosted me was that the service exit "medical exam" doctor refused to put anything down on paper. (Unless I consented to and underwent the previously mentioned Milo-gram, against previous medical advice.) Much later a CAT scan and MRI showed the damage, and the cause of intermittent pain. At that time of the CAT scan and MRI, I was told that it was very fortunate that the size of the openings in my spine for the nerve canal were reasonably large, or I would likely have been partially paralyzed. Even today, over forty years after the original injury, doctors are still saying the same thing to me. "Don't elect surgery unless the pain becomes constant", etc. Having said all of that, My mother in law had a neck and back injury, underwent surgery, and it was fully successful. No pain, etc after things healed. I would suggest that you look into some of the newer microscopic back surgery methods that are minimally invasive, and reduce the chances of nerve damage due to internal scarring.

Even worse, they (VA) can say that the unaddressed parts of a claim are "Deemed Denied". So, this forces a veteran to file an NOD.

Radiculopathy translates to pain caused by such things as invertebral disc syndrome. I'd appeal, particularly if pain was not mentioned in the C&P. (Inadequate C&P, etc.) I assume your medical records have some pain related entries. SMC K is usually awarded for ED. It may be that the RO used the 0% (which I'd argue about), as an excuse to say that no compensation was appropriate. Would you mind mentioning the VARO's location? The last time I looked, SMC K was commonly awarded for missing or non functional sexual organs, with ED being one of the not otherwise rated conditions. Harrisons' Illustrated Medical Encyclopedia is one of the accepted references. AN EMG or other tests might not show conditions that are sufficient to cause intermittent high levels of pain. The root cause, invertebral disc syndrome, has pain as a common symptom. Nerves are often impacted, and complain - sometimes a lot! I'd talk to a non VA specialist, and see what they think. (It's even possible that the RO decided to deny, in order to reduce paperwork, and get credit for the disposition before the end of the RO's accounting period.) Do you have a copy of the C&P? If not, obtain one. You can usually get your treating VA facility or clinic to print a copy, once it's in your electronic file. Since C&Ps are often less than they should be, review by an outside doctor, (Board Certified Specialist preferred) can result in an IMP that refutes the C&P. Just a letter to your VSO may not be in your best interest. A prompt and detailed NOD is likely your best bet.

Assuming the veteran is male, there is a strong possibility of prostate problems, at least an enlarged prostate. Alzheimer's may be present. The prostate problems MAY or MAY NOT fall under A.O. presumptive conditions, depending on what is actually diagnosed. Forgetfulness can also be a result of Diabetes and or Carotid Artery disease to name just two of the possible causes. In other words, a visit to a doctor and a comprehensive medical exam is required. The good news is that the Veteran can request an A.O. exam from the VA and get it at no charge. The bad news is that the Veteran's attitude, etc. may prevent this from happening. Prostate problems, Carotid problems, IHD, Diabetes, etc. are fairly common at some level in men over fifty five or so, regardless of A.O. exposure. It's also possible that PTSD is present at some level. This is not to be taken as medical advice or diagnosis. It is a layman's personal opinion only.

My advice to anyone would be to file the NOD within the year limit. (SOC or not) The VA can always claim that they sent you an SOC, even if you didn't get one.

At this point, due to the VA's actions, I believe you will need a lawyer to sort things out. Perhaps someone can give you a name, etc. that is in your area. The VA will answer a lawyer that knows what they are doing.

The Veteran must "specify the benefit sought" ??? This is an interesting statement, and subject to a heck of a lot of interpretation. The benefit sought is generally compensation. (and is sort of understood.) Did the veteran identify the problem symptoms for which benefit is sought. I.E. shortness of breath, lack of stamina, etc. OR Did the veteran furnish medical records showing a diagnosis, and or did the veteran submit supplementary documents, such as an SSA determination? In either case, to "fully develop" a claim, the V A will ask for additional evidence, and likely a C&P, even when the records are such that a C&P is not required, and enough to "rate". As long as an RO can request a C&P without repercussion, they will do so. WHY? A C&P request moves the case from the RO's action pile to a pile awaiting results from the C&P. I believe this gets the RO credit for a "disposition" action, and unnecessarily delays the claim. (again) The VA's claim process is reminiscent of a loan application process I endured in the 1980's. We provided everything the bank asked for in front. The bank kept asking for new or supplementary information that they did not ask for to begin with. Finally, I sent them a letter that pointed out the continuing information request problem, and basically told them to stop screwing around. The loan was issued within a week of receipt of the letter.

Since this exam was not acomplished by a VA employee, (The doctor accomplishing the exam is employed by QTC), you likely have some options - - - I'd get your private physician to write up the problem and treatment needed, (The info may already be in your private medical records), then talk to a lawyer, with a copy of the appropriate records in hand. It may turn out that a civil malpractice suit is an additional option. I'm reasonably sure that the VA's liability is limited. (Depends on the language in QTC's contract, for one thing.) In most states you can also file a complaint with the medical licensing board, or whatever it is called in your state.

Supposedly, the VA is funded a year in advance. If this is actually so, the VA is playing games (again!)

The VA doesn't have to pay the military hospital. I agree that you should not either! The military hospital might try getting you to pay a co-payment.