free_spirit_etc

Carlie, I actually did get the claim to go forward. But it wasn't easy. They played lots of games. I talked to someone who worked for ALLSUP one time, and they said that often the reconsideration is done by the person who sits at the desk next to the person who denied you the first time. They just kind of go through the motions and write the same thing the first person wrote. (Kind of like some of the VA's denovo reviews.) But then, again, if they sign in ink that they are some upper level person, you get a whole different idea of who is working against you. And in our claims, they actually did work against us for some reason. It certainly seems like a big waste of time to even bother with reconsiderations and denovo reviews - if they aren't really reconsidering or reviewing anything. If the true intent of the agency is to grant benefits to those who are entitled - that step is the process is very costly and ineffective. But yes, I know it saves them money in the long run because it is a step where many people stop pursuing their claim, or mess up in some way where they have to start over. I have read that Social Security is trying out letting people go directly from the initial denial to a Hearing in some areas - skipping the Reconsideration step entirely. Free

I remember reading a book "Unicorns are Real" - about working with special ed kids - and they used colored for the kids to do their work on. It was like a placemat that the kids put their paper on to write. The kids did MUCH better when they did their work on the colored mats. But in this case, the kids picked their own mat. There wasn't any specific color that worked. But if they let the kids pick their own color, they did better. They used color a lot in teaching kids to spell too. They taught them to notice the shapes of words, and see certain patterns in certain colors. So they were learning to make pictures of the shapes and colors of the words they were learning to spell. It was very interesting. Free

OMG! Way back - once upon a time - when I worked midnights as a CNA - I HATED working on the BLUE hall! Just standing at the end looking down the hall wore me out. It helped to look down the YELLOW hall and revive a bit first! Color really does have an effect on us! Free

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I most generally error on the side of giving way too much information. I am working on a discrimination appeal right now with SSA. I filed a discrimination complaint with SSA last year and received their report last month. Briefly, they did not find any discrimination occured, but did find mutiple processing errors in multiple areas of how our claims were handled. They also said that as a direct result of my complaint, the local office had an office-wide training. So at least some good may have come from it.. But my question on the signature had been that a person who really seemed to be actually working against our claims was the person who made the reconsiderations. This person even attempted to block our adminstrative review of our claims by dismissing our appeals. And when I really started figuring out that someone really seemed to be working AGAINST our claims, those letters were actually signed IN INK by a manager in the processing center. I am used to everything from Social Security to either be signed by a computer or signed (in ink) by the person who actually wrote it. (and I have been dealing with SSA since 1993). In fact, I am used to that in most written communication - that if it is signed in ink, that it is either signed by the actual person who wrote it (or authorized it), or someone signing on their behalf (most generally a person directly under them). I am not used to things that are sent out semi-widespread under someone's name being signed in ink. So this led me to believe that someone high up in Social Security was actually supporting the games (and / or playing them.) And that really effected what I felt I could do to try to protect us. Several people suggested I talk to the field office manager. I considered it from time to time, but I figured that once I did, things would either get better OR a whole lot worse - and I wasn't sure which direction it would go. And considering the fact that I believed that a manager at a HIGHER level was already involved (AND working against the claim) - I wasn't willing to take the risk...ESPECIALLY since I had already filed a complaint with the OIG, but did not receive any acknowledgment of the complaint - and when I called the number they said to call if you don't hear from them, they never returned my calls. There were times I was pretty scared that the system would stop merely biting us, and just swallow us whole. I just kept appealing decisions, sending evidence, and hoping to get a hearing. I am not sure what to do with the information right now, but I do think that sending letters signed in ink can be very misleading. There is a difference between sending something out OVER someone's signature and sending something out WITH someone's signature. Free

Any word on your money yet? Free

Yep. They rarely surprise me anymore, except that time they took accountability for their actions. Free

I may be taking your question the wrong way, but it seemed kind of harsh in tone to me. Might just be me though. But for some reason I am having trouble answerng it right now. Free

Don't forget to ask for the Veteran's discount. Free

I have a question about signatures on letters. I assume that if a letter from an agency has a printed signature, or possibly a stamped signature - it could have come from anyone. And I know that letters from most agencies do not really carry the name of the person who actually wrote it. BUT if the letter has an INK signature (or what Social Security refers to as a "wet signature") of the person, I am led to believe the letter was actually SIGNED by THAT person. I have no idea if this is just MY misperception, or if it is a common belief. But my idea has always been that an ink signature meant the person actually signed the letter - and an ink signature with initials meant someone else signed the letter on the person's behalf (with the authority to do so) - and that letters that just go out from an agency UNDER the person's name carry no actual signature. Am I off-base in this? Free

There she is! It's about time you got here!! :) Free

Yep. I have heard all kinds of complaints about TriCare - but overall, I have been pretty happy with it. Free

That would surprise me if the school didn't have some type of coverage for accidents - even to supplement what isn't covered under indivdual plans. Of course, that also might let them call the shots as far as care is concerned. Glad to hear your daughter is doing better. Free

Oh wow! You are a licensed Optician? How neat!!!! As mentioned, my sister is a low vision specialist. She started many years ago in blind mobility and orientation. I think her first job had her covering 11 counties in Texas (which was a LOT of driving). Then she started getting training in low vision and really loves it! She recently decided to retire from her State employment, and seek something in the low vision field - even if part time. She actually had an interview with the VA a few weeks ago, but hasn't heard back from them. Free

Eric, I think they will (or should) help connect you with as many resources as they can to help you manage as well as you can with your remaining site. They should assess your needs, and help find you resources (training, technology, equipment) to maximize your use of your remaining site. My sister is a low vision specialist. :) I could probably find out much more from her. Free

I know on some college trips that are not directly sponsored by the school, the student has to show PROOF of insurance to be able to go. But for directly sponsored trips, I think the school would have insurance to cover accidents. In fact, the cost of the insurance is probably factored in to the cost of the trip. It would seem highly unlikely that the school would just take a bunch of kids somewhere and HOPE they had insurance. http://www.va.gov/hac/forbeneficiaries/cha...r2/1c2s30-1.htm VI. EXCLUSIONS I. Services of chiropractors and naturopaths whether or not such services would be eligible for benefits if rendered by an authorized provider [38 CFR 17.272(a)(32)] Note: Physical therapy performed by a chiropractor may be covered if the chiropractor is a licensed, registered physical therapist or, the chiropractor is a MD (Doctor of Medicine) or DO (Doctor of Osteopathy) who holds a valid medical license. Is it possible to find a chiropractor who is a DO or a registered physical therapist? When I was in massage school, the chiropractor who taught us anatomy actually got into the field because he had been injured as an Air Force pilot, and was totally helped by a DO who did the chiropratic type treatment. Free

Ouch! I am not sure on the Champva. But you might also want to check out the school's accident insurance. They might have coverage for students injured during a school sponsored activity. Free

Yes. http://www.cem.va.gov/bbene/eligible.asp g. Spouses and Dependents (1) The spouse or surviving spouse of an eligible veteran is eligible for interment in a national cemetery even if that veteran is not buried or memorialized in a national cemetery. In addition, the spouse or surviving spouse of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States whose remains are unavailable for burial is also eligible for burial. (2) The surviving spouse of an eligible veteran who had a subsequent remarriage to a non-veteran and whose death occurred on or after January 1, 2000, is eligible for burial in a national cemetery, based on his or her marriage to the eligible veteran.

Nice website - with some good information http://www.socialsecurityinsider.com/ Free

I do believe they can be that dumb on purpose. § 3.54 Marriage dates. states: A surviving spouse may qualify for pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation if the marriage to the veteran occurred before or during his or her service or, if married to him or her after his or her separation from service, before the applicable date stated in his section. © Dependency and indemnity compensation. Dependency and indemnity compensation payable under 38 U.S.C. 1310(a) may be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran who died on or after January 1, 1957, who was married to the veteran: (1) Before the expiration of 15 years after the termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease causing the death of the veteran was incurred or aggravated, or (2) For 1 year or more, or (3) For any period of time if a child was born of the marriage, or was born to them before the marriage. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1304) My husband retired from the Air Force in October 1998. (Served from 1970 - 1998) We were married April 2, 2006. That is CLEARLY within 15 years of his termination from the period of service in which the injury or disease was incurred. My latest letter from the VA denies benefits because the law states you have to be married to the veteran for a year or more. § 3.54 is very clear. It is not hard to read. There are only 3 categories. Actually, being married within 15 years of the termination of service is the FIRST category. If you do NOT fall into THAT category, THEN you are only eligible if you are married for more than a year or have child with the veteran. However, the VA was able to be "dumb on purpose" enough to IGNORE the FIRST category of entitlement for a widow, and make a determination that focused on the SECOND one. This is not a matter of not looking hard enough to discover if I am eligible. They had to skip over the first category to read the second one. And though I know they are often pressed for time, it seems like it would have taken LESS time to actually read all THREE sentences in § 3.54 (or even the FIRST sentence) than it took them to write a bogus denial letter based on bogus interpretations of the law. Taking it one step further, the letter was actually a denial of the claim for HELPLESS CHILD benefits. Though my son is is developmentally disabled, was disabled prior to the age of 18, and was LEGALLY ADOPTED by my husband - the VA determined he can not be entitled to helpless child benefits because *I* was not married to my husband for over a year before he died. Yes, they can be that dumb on PURPOSE. "....and for his widow, and his orphan" Free

Follow up - I was amazed, but the letter the VA sent my Congressman actually ADMITTED that the VA was in error and had not processed the month of death payment correctly. They didn't explain it away. They actually acted accountable. That amazed me, and impressed me. .... but several weeks later, the VA sent ME a letter (based on all my earlier inquiries that I had not received the Month of Death payment). They totally ignored the fact that the inquiries were about the MONTH of DEATH payment. They totally ignored the fact that the payment had been sent and the situation resolved. Instead, they sent me a copy of the cashed check for the BURIAL CLAIM, to show me that the check had been cashed. That DID NOT amaze me. (Nor did it impress me.) I am glad I went the Congressional Inquiry route on the Month of Death claim - as without that ALL I most likely would have received was the copy of the burial check to show me the month of death claim had supposedly been paid -- leading to more time and energy wasted playing games to try to get it resolved. But as it WAS resolved, the continuance of the game on the VA's part is certainly a waste of time that could be better spent caring for those who have borne the battle... and their widows... and their orphans. Free

"I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference." ~ Robert Frost Free

Berta, Though it looks like you still have a way to go - congratulations on your success! You deserved this. And Rod deseved this. Rod has always been a hero. It is about time the VA recognized that. Free

Yes. A sizable number of claims are granted by the ALJ. I read somewhere two things that somewhat explain that: 1. Lower level employees can ONLY go by the POMS manual and black and white guidelines. If you fit EXACTLY into those parameters - they can grant it. Otherwise, they can't. But an ALJ has much broader power. He can follow the LAW - and INTERPRET reports, etc. etc. i.e. he is allowed to THINK - and not just connect the dots. 2. Lower level employees do NOT get in trouble for denying claims that should have been granted, but they CAN get in trouble for granting claims that should have been denied. Therefore, they are more prone to error on the side of job security. I am not sure how true either of these ideas are - but I did read them somewhere - and they made sense (relatively speaking). Free

That doesn't surprise me. Illinois is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO broke - and the decline in property value in many areas is already going to cause Illinois to take a hit in property tax revenue. But hopefully, with the strong support the bill has - it will be one of the FIRST bills passed when bills start getting passed. Free

I FINALLY got the check this Friday!!! I only had to wait two years... Free