Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

harleyman

Chief Petty Officers
  • Posts

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About harleyman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

harleyman's Achievements

  1. VA by law needs to make sure they are paying benefits for the correct dependents. You really would be surprised how many Veteran's forget to get divorced before they get remarried. Or they forget to take off one spouse before they request to put on another one. If a Veteran gives the first and last name of the prior spouse(s), and the date of the divorce or death of the spouse(s), (month and year), and also the County where the event took place. There is no need to have to send in the photocopies of certficates.VA also needs the Name first and last of the new spouse their SS# and Birth dateall their prior marriage information. Usually there is a requestfrom VA to provide photo copies of marriage or death or divorce, because the VA Form 21-686c is missing something, or there is something is the file that is not matching up with the information that was supplied previously on the 626c form.It is usually a fomality but the M21-1mr states we need to verify certain infomation.- H
  2. Ditto here, thank you for your service. And that is not just lip service, I really mean thank you for your service, your hard work , and your sacrafices made to keep our country what it is, Let freedom reign. I guess we sound like a whiners, but damn, VA can be so frustrating on the inside too! Ugh! lol
  3. Dependency is a claim for compensation, not a claim for ancillary beneftis. It is considered a NON-rating claim, meaning a rater does not have to rate it, but it needs to be processed as a claim for compensation benefits otherwise. A dependent is a child until thier 18th birthday. Once they turn 18 they will be removed form the award. If you child is still in high school when they turn 18 years old make sure you send in the 21-686c telling VA the child is still in high school and when they are due to graduate. Send in the form about 60 days before their birthday. If your child plans to attend college you will also need to fill out the 21-674, indicating thier school and course of study nd thier estimated completion date for the college they plan to attend and you will need to send in confirmation from the college showing they are enrolled full time. Once they are 18 years old they are no longer a minor child they then become a school age child. This means you get more money for them a dependents if they attend school. Yes, there are times when the VA will ask for photocopies of marriage licenses especially if there is more than one marriage involved. This usually happens if the VA form 21-686c in not filled out completely or properly. Usually adding a dependent is a fairly quick process, however, there are times when back pay is involved or retro-pay back to an old grant with an Earlier Effective date, can take time. Retirment offset or separation pay offst all take time to figure out. Not all dependancy claims are easy to work. Things at the VA are improving now that VA is not trying to rate RVN veterans claims in the NEHMER project. We are back to the regular claims processing and no more NEHMER, well, once in a while we still get a claim that qualifies for benefits under NEHMER. SO things are moving again and I do think there have been some positive changes in how the workload is being processed. -IMO
  4. Still working an 8 hour shift even though the front door is closed to Veterans. The ebenefits was down on Monday but all systems were down for a few hours. VBMS is usually updated on Sundays, so that is why ebenefits is down too. We signed papers acknowledging working as essential employees with no guarantee about when we will be paid but the promise we would be paid at some time in the future. We signed for 22 working days. Starting Tuesday the 8th, that takes us until November 7th Morale sucks at the RO, when workers work not knowing when they will get paid, but the asst coaches GS12's and the GS 13 to 15's are furloughed, and the way it is looking they will get paid to sit on their butts with thier paid vacation. I heard more than one comment about VA employee feeling like slaves. Yes we want to help vet's but we want to take care of our families and we want our work environment to be fair. Like I said, people are working but MORALE is really an issue.- IMO- H
  5. Evaluation builder is showing 50%. It could go anywhere from 30% to 70& depending on the evidence in the file and the intrepretation of the RVSR. However, I beleive it will be C&C (confirmed and continued) at 50% disabling. Let me know what happens on this. Don't get discouraged, you can always wait a few months and file for an increase again if you beleive your condition is worsening. I would recommend that anyone wanting an increase in any condition, seek medical attention, prior to and during the time period it takes to rate a case while the case is pending without medical documentation and ongoing treatment records showing a worsening condition, it is very difficult to get an increase. -IMO
  6. Berta, The underlined part of the post was actually the statement made by the ultrasound technition in the report when they were trying to diagnosed the DVT. The tech was stating the findings were suspecious for occulsion but needed clinical correlation, such as an MRI or other testing. They decided to treat the vet for DVT without confiming the diagnosis. That is malpractice especially when the conditions of diabetic cellulitis or foot sore infection and DVT have similar symptoms. By not confirming the diagnosis the let an infection rage and diffinately caused permanent residuals as well as putting the Vet in danger of loosing his limb and possibly his life. Your statement: I certainly do agree with the medical statement below that the C & P doctor made. I don't have time to translate those clinical findings. I believe this veteran needs some serious medical care and doubt if VA is making any attempt at all to provide “clinical correlation.” Are they? That is how the VA killed my husband....with a utter lack of clinical correlation the very first time he presented at ER with a heart attack,with an EKG to prove it, and yet they instead told him he had a sinus condition that caused his collapse on the VA job and gave him sudafed for it. The VA is still paying for that. Ultrasond report from VA tech: Findings suspicious for partial occlusion of the distal superficial femoral vein and popliteal veins. This is nonspecific, but could represent acute or chronic deep venous thrombosis. Clinical correlation is suggested. I appeciate your insight as usual. We will be filing an 1151 claim, reopening the claim for the residuals, as well as trying to find an attorney willing to take on a malpractice case against the 1st hospital, who had him in thier hospital for 5 days and in the emergency room on two occasions and still didn't get it correct. The VA examiner just rubber stamped the treatment received bythe VA. He did give the diasnosis, which the VA says the veteran didn't have a diagnosis so I think this newest denial could be a CUE, as the examiner states the Veteran has a diangosis, but proclaimed it is not due to the veteran's S/C conditions. Then the RVSr did not list the exam as evidence when clearly the exam shows the veteran with a diadnosis. This whole case is messed up. It will take Dr. Bash to get in thier face to straighten it out. In he meantime we are proceding on with getting everything in order as an FDC claim.
  7. The Veteran can afford the IMO's or at least he now as coverage other than VA. So that is not an issue at this time. However, the infection did spread to the lymph sytstem as that is why he is still under the care of an infectious disease doctor and he still takes an oral anti-biotic. He is due to see the Vascular surgeon in December. It will be a year come Thanksgiving when all this started. The surgeries were for draining infectous fluids and debridement of the area. It seems he developed infection in the leg that would not drain but stayed as "pockets" within the venus and muscular system. His leg is still discolored, which the examiner denied, and he has a tender scar about an inch deep and about 5 to 6 inches long and 3/4 to 1.5 inches wide.He had home care for 3 months from medicare. It is sort of shaped like a "v" in the back of his leg. He said the examiner did touch his leg but "not really" as they don't want to get an infection from examining a patient. I can understand that, but they should be on the side of the Veteran. Then again, they have to be mindful of where there paycheck is coming from. I do plan on giving the information and studies to the Veteran to take over the the VAMC and leaving studies and information about this condition for the examiner. He can delever this through the patient advocate and they can deliver it to the doctor, who is a real dumb a** in my opinion. We never know what motivates others, until we have walked in their shoes, however, I will help to re-file this claim and give it one more chance rather than do an appeal. We could file an FDC claim and see what happens.-H
  8. va examination VAMC temple tx dated feb 2005 It might be this one. But if you have been talking about a recent rating decision the examination would be within the last few months, and more recent. When was the date of the actual rating deciion of the denial of your eye condition?
  9. I am beginning to think the veteran claimed the wrong condition. The veteran claimed peripheral vascular disease when maybe he should have claimed "residuals of diabetic infection resulting in vascular blockage and muscle weakness due to surgical debridement X 3 and and 1151 claim for misdagnosis by VA for same. Maybe the best way to proceed on this is to just file a new claim and include a DBQ completed by the PRIVATE doc's for vascular residuals of Diabetes infection also know as cellulitius with amubulatory residuals AND loss of ambulation of left lower extremity requiring power chair and cane. . File for SAH/.SHA for wheel chair access. I think I am starting to get a grip on this on. Thanks for your help sometmes it takes a village.-H
  10. This is really good information, as the non-diagnosis of the infection and treatment with blood thinners as opposed to anti-biotic treatment caused a life threathenting situation, and the infection of the entire leg up into the thigh. Most of the medical studies states even with anti-biotic treatment it is not enough and usually requires very strong IV antibiotics to save the Veteran from amputation. I am amazed at the examiner. He did give a diagnosis, but the VA denied based on no diagnosis. I don't get it. The VA completly disregarded the C&P exam. Maybe they knew the examiner was full of SH**. I am having a hard time figuring this out.- H
  11. I don't think the rater invented the dust particle, I think the examiner did.. don't get raters and examiners confused. Raters cannot diagnose nor can they write the medical report. Can you post the C&P exam here for us to look at? I understand your frustration, I too have issues with rating decisions. Hang in there!
  12. 63 sierra said: Where is this barcode located, what is on? if its on the cover of the claims folder, then what file is the va retrieving, I thought the claims folder was the file? thanks for what you do. The bar code is on the outside cover of your paper claims file. The code on the paper claim, corresponds / correlates with the your claims file number in the computer. So although you have a paper claims file, you also have an electronic claims file. Up until recently the electronic claim did not have everything the paper claims folder did. A claims folder can have multiple volumes. Now that the VA is starting into the paperless system your electronic claims folder should have everything the paper claim has, once the paper claim is scanned into the NEW VBMS system. Your VSO if located inthe same building as the RO, which most are, can walk to the claims section of the RO and get your file whenever he wants it. He may not be able to take it to his desk right then but if he is willing to bring the file back that day or the next he can get the file and look at it and return it to the VSR or RVSR who is handling your claim. He may have a request for the file but the file is not sent to the VSO, until the VSR or RVSR is ready to send it to him. But nothing is really keeping him form getting the file except he needs to walk over and request it. If he is in a different location than at the RO then he will only get a copy of the file as VA will not just send the file outside the VA unless the VA maintains control of the file, like for a C&P exam. But VA controls the file.
  13. THIS IS WHAT THEY WROTE """Service medical records from March 1990 thru aug 1995 reveal a one time irritation of your left eye. when you had a dust particle enter your eye while working under a vehicle"""" What they are saying is: there is no residual to the injury of the eye while in service and the "dry eye" condition you are claiming is not related to the eye condition for which you were treated, In other words the examiners opinion is saying your current dry eye condition is not related to your in service eye abrasion. Therefore, dry eye neither incurred in nor was CAUSED BY the documented one time eye irritation while in service. So you need an IMO that will say the "dry eye" condition is a residual of the inservice abrasion. Thus, countering the VA examiners opinion. - I hope this is a little better explanation.- H
  14. Well finally got the VA examination and the Medical Opinion for this case. It is eye opening as the examiner clearly missed the whole issue of the VA never confirming htier diagnosis. so here is the actual exam findings and the the examiner's opinion, I am still wondering why the VA did not list this as medical evidence but only stated there was no diagnosis of vascular disease Artery and Vein Conditions (Vascular Diseases including Varicose Veins) Disability Benefits Questionnaire Name of patient/Veteran: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Indicate method used to obtain medical information to complete this document: [ ] Review of available records (without in-person or video telehealth examination) using the Acceptable Clinical Evidence (ACE) process because the existing medical evidence provided sufficient information on which to prepare the DBQ and such an examination will likely provide no additional relevant evidence. [ ] Review of available records in conjunction with a telephone interview with the Veteran (without in-person or telehealth examination) using the ACE process because the existing medical evidence supplemented with a telephone interview provided sufficient information on which to prepare the DBQ and such an examination would likely provide no additional relevant evidence. [ ] Examination via approved video telehealth [X] In-person examination Evidence review --------------- Was the Veteran's VA claims file reviewed? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, list any records that were reviewed but were not included in the Veteran's VA claims file: VA records If no, check all records reviewed: [ ] Military service treatment records [ ] Military service personnel records [ ] Military enlistment examination [ ] Military separation examination [ ] Military post-deployment questionnaire [ ] Department of Defense Form 214 Separation Documents [ ] Veterans Health Administration medical records (VA treatment records) [ ] Civilian medical records [ ] Interviews with collateral witnesses (family and others who have known the Veteran before and after military service) [ ] No records were reviewed [ ] Other: 1. Diagnosis ------------ Does the Veteran now have or has he/she ever had a vascular disease (arterial or venous)? [X] Yes [ ] No Diagnosis #1: Deep Vein Thrombosis, Left Leg ICD code(s): 453.40 Date of diagnosis: 2012 2. Medical history ------------------ a. Describe the cause/onset of the Veteran's current vascular condition(s) (brief summary) The veteran's records indicate that he was diagnosed with a DVT inthe left leg. However, the veteran denies that he had a DVT and states he was misdiagnosed. He states he was eventually treated for cellulitis in the left leg after it "burst open." He was admitted to the hospital and underwent several surgeries for debridment of the left calf and left knee as well as the left thigh. He states he was treated with IV antibiotics and is currently taking PO antibiotics. He vehemently denies he had a DVT even when shown ultrasound reports indicting a DVT in the popliteal vein of the left leg. He was initially treated with heparin and then coumadin. He states he feels his symptoms were related to the cellulitis and not a DVT. He states he still has swelling of the left leg and firmess of the left leg worse in the calf. He is currently using a motorized scooter and a cane to get around. He denies a diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease, stating that he has diabetic peripheral neuropathy with symptoms in both feet. b. Type of vascular disease condition: (Check all that apply) No response provided. Section I: Varicose veins and/or post-phlebitic syndrome -------------------------------------------------------- Not Applicable Section II: Peripheral vascular disease, aneurysm of any large artery (other than aorta), arteriosclerosis obliterans or thrombo-angiitis obliterans (Buerger's Disease) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not Applicable Section III: Aortic aneurysm ---------------------------- Not Applicable Section IV: Aneurysm of a small artery -------------------------------------- Not Applicable Section V: Raynaud's syndrome ----------------------------- Not Applicable Section VI: Arteriovenous (AV) fistula, angioneurotic edema, or erythromelalgia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not Applicable Section VII: Miscellaneous Issues --------------------------------- 1. Amputations -------------- Has the Veteran had an amputation of an extremity due to a vascular condition? [ ] Yes [X] No 2. Assistive devices -------------------- a. Does the Veteran use any assistive device(s) as a normal mode of locomotion, although occasional locomotion by other methods may be possible? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, identify assistive device(s) used (check all that apply and indicate frequency): Assistive device: Frequency of use: ----------------- ----------------- [X] Cane(s) [ ] Occasional [X] Regular [ ] Constant [X] Other: Moterized scooter [ ] Occasional [X] Regular [ ] Constant b. If the Veteran uses any assistive devices, specify the condition and identify the assistive device used for each condition: Cane and scooter used for weakness and left leg pain. 3. Remaining effective function of the extremities -------------------------------------------------- Due to a vascular condition, is there functional impairment of an extremity such that no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation with prosthesis? (Functions of the upper extremity include grasping, manipulation, etc., while functions for the lower extremity include balance and propulsion, etc.) [ ] Yes, functioning is so diminished that amputation with prosthesis would equally serve the Veteran. [X] No 4. Other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms ----------------------------------------------------------------------- a. Does the Veteran have any scars (surgical or otherwise) related to any conditions or to the treatment of any conditions listed in the Diagnosis section above? [ ] Yes [X] No b. Does the Veteran have any other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs or symptoms related to the conditions listed in the Diagnosis section above? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, describe (brief summary): The veteran's right leg has 1+ pitting edema. The veteran's left leg has less than 1+ pitting edema with swelling and firmness noted to the left calf. No erythema or skin discoloration is noted. Dressing covers a surgical scar in the left calf and there is a well healed non-tender surgical scar over the anterior left knee. 5. Diagnostic testing --------------------- a. Has ankle/brachial index testing been performed? [ ] Yes [X] No [ ] Unable to perform, provide reason: b. Are there any other significant diagnostic test findings and/or results? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, provide type of test or procedure, date and results (brief summary): Ultrasound of left lower extremity(12/19/12) Parially occlusive thrombus, left popliteal vein. Exam Date/Time: 12/06/2012 11:34 Procedure Name: ULTRASOUND VEINS, LT LOWER EXT (DUPLEX) Reason for Study: check for DVT Clinical History: check for DVT Impression: Findings suspicious for partial occlusion of the distal superficial femoral vein and popliteal veins. This is nonspecific, but could represent acute or chronic deep venous thrombosis. Clinical correlation is suggested. Report: EXAM: Left lower extremity venous Doppler, 12/6/2012 HISTORY: rule out DVT COMPARISON: None TECHNIQUE: Real-time grayscale as well as limited color and Doppler ultrasound evaluation of the corresponding veins was obtained. FINDINGS: The left common femoral, superficial femoral, and popliteal veins were interrogated. In the distal superficial femoral vein and popliteal veins, there is mild eccentric echogenicity along the vessel walls and incomplete compressibility. Although vessels remain grossly patent, there is suggestion of minimal eccentric filling defect on color flow imaging. Dr. XXXXXXXX was notified at 12: 19 hours on 12/6/2012. Facility: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 6. Functional impact -------------------- Does the Veteran's vascular condition(s) impact his or her ability to work? [ ] Yes [X] No 7. Remarks, if any: ------------------- The veteran states he did not have a DVT but had cellulitis of the left leg. He had surgery for the debridement of the left leg secondary to the cellulitis. He denies any symptoms related to the DVTs found on VA and private ultrasounds and for which he was treated with heparin and coumadin. The veteran claims the cellulitis was due to his diabetes. Medical Opinion 1 Disability Benefits Questionnaire Name of patient/Veteran: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Indicate method used to obtain medical information to complete this document: [ ] Review of available records (without in-person or video telehealth examination) using the Acceptable Clinical Evidence (ACE) process because the existing medical evidence provided sufficient information on which to prepare the DBQ and such an examination will likely provide no additional relevant evidence. [ ] Review of available records in conjunction with a telephone interview with the Veteran (without in-person or telehealth examination) using the ACE process because the existing medical evidence supplemented with a telephone interview provided sufficient information on which to prepare the DBQ and such an examination would likely provide no additional relevant evidence. [ ] Examination via approved video telehealth [X] In-person examination Evidence review --------------- Was the Veteran's VA claims file reviewed? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, list any records that were reviewed but were not included in the Veteran's VA claims file: VA records If no, check all records reviewed: [ ] Military service treatment records [ ] Military service personnel records [ ] Military enlistment examination [ ] Military separation examination [ ] Military post-deployment questionnaire [ ] Department of Defense Form 214 Separation Documents [ ] Veterans Health Administration medical records (VA treatment records) [ ] Civilian medical records [ ] Interviews with collateral witnesses (family and others who have known the Veteran before and after military service) [ ] No records were reviewed [ ] Other: Your patient is applying to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disability benefits. VA will consider the information you provide on this questionnaire as part of their evaluation in processing the Veteran's claim. 1. Definitions -------------- Aggravation of preexisting nonservice-connected disabilities. ------------------------------------------------------------- A preexisting injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active military, naval, or air service, where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of the disease. Aggravation of nonservice-connected disabilities. ------------------------------------------------- Any increase in severity of a nonservice-connected disease or injury that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury, and not due to the natural progress of the nonservice-connected disease, will be service connected. 2. Restatement of requested opinion ----------------------------------- a. Insert requested opinion from general remarks: Is the veteran's peripheral vascular disease proximately due to service connected diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery disease? b. Indicate type of exam for which opinion has been requested (e.g. Skin Diseases): Artery and Vein 3. Medical opinion for direct service connection ------------------------------------------------ Choose the statement that most closely approximates the etiology of the claimed condition. a. [ ] The claimed condition was at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. Provide rationale in section c. b. [ ] The claimed condition was less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. Provide rationale in section c. c. Rationale: 4. Medical opinion for secondary service connection --------------------------------------------------- a. [ ] The claimed condition is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service connected condition. Provide rationale in section c. b. [X] The claimed condition is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service connected condition. Provide rationale in section c. c. Rationale: The veteran's medical records indicate he had a DVT in the left leg. The veteran vehemently denies he had a DVT and states he was misdiagnosed. He states the left leg problem wasdue to cellulitis which was treated with hospitalization, surgery and IV antibiotics. He claims the cellulitis was due to his diabetes. There is no indication in the medical literature that diabetes is a risk factor for cellulitis. It is also not a risk factor for a DVT which is due to disruption of normal blood flow in a vein or to other factors such as clotting factors. Therefore, based on a review of the veteran's medical history, a review of medical literature and clinical experience and expertise, the veteran's peripheral vascular disease(or cellultis) is less likely than not proximately due to service connected diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery disease. 5. Medical opinion for aggravation of a condition that existed prior to service ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a. [ ] The claimed condition, which clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, was aggravated beyond its natural progression by an in-service injury, event, or illness. Provide rationale in section c. b. [ ] The claimed condition, which clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, was clearly and unmistakably not aggravated beyond its natural progression by an in-service injury, event, or illness. Provide rationale in section c. c. Rationale: 6. Medical opinion for aggravation of a nonservice connected condition by a service connected condition --------------------------------------------------------------------------- a. Can you determine a baseline level of severity of (claimed condition/diagnosis) based upon medical evidence available prior to aggravation or the earliest medical evidence following aggravation by (service connected condition)? [ ] Yes [ ] No If "Yes" to question 6a, answer the following: i. Describe the baseline level of severity of (claimed condition/diagnosis) based upon medical evidence available prior to aggravation or the earliest medical evidence following aggravation by (service connected condition): ii. Provide the date and nature of the medical evidence used to provide the baseline: iii. Is the current severity of the (claimed condition/diagnosis) greater than the baseline? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, was the Veteran's (claimed condition/diagnosis) at least as likely as not aggravated beyond its natural progression by (insert "service connected condition")? [ ] Yes (provide rationale in section b.) [ ] No (provide rationale in section b.) If "No" to question 6a, answer the following: i. Provide rationale as to why a baseline cannot be established (e.g. medical evidence is not sufficient to support a determination of a baseline level of severity): ii. Regardless of an established baseline, was the Veteran's (claimed condition/diagnosis) at least as likely as not aggravated beyond its natural progression by (insert "service connected condition")? [ ] Yes (provide rationale in section b.) [ ] No (provide rationale in section b.) b. Provide rationale: 7. Opinion regarding conflicting medical evidence ------------------------------------------------- I have reviewed the conflicting medical evidence and am providing the following opinion: NOTE: VA may request additional medical information, including additional examinations if necessary to complete VA's review of the Veteran's application. So I found a really strong artical about PAD and diabetes, IHD/CAD, and hypertension all if which the veteran has service connection for. After the horrific treatment from VA and then reading this artical on PAD, I am firmly convinced the Veteran was mis-diagnosed and left to worsen from the wound on his toe from diabetes and the subsequent infection. I will be encouraging him to file an 1151 claim, as well as a private mal-practice claim against the other hosptital who admitted him and then treated him in emergency following the VA lead on an incorrect diagnosis. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/12/3333.long Berta and free_spirit you guys are really good at the rationale stuff for appeals and IMO's: If you are so inclined, after reading the article at this link it talks about what happens to the diabetic who is not properly diagnosed and it is exactly what I was told occurred, please disect for any fighting points you may see for an IMO or appeal or any of the other aspects in this case you think need to pay specific attention to. I appreciate all you do . Thanks- Harleyman Oh and the Veteran has PN 2nd to DMII in addition to the IHD/CAD/ HTN/
  15. No interest and what is really the kicker is...... it sounds like Congress is in favor of paying full pay to those employees that are furloughed when the budget is finally passed. So this means those employees who ARE CONSIDERED ESENTIAL MUST report to work and are not sure when they may be paid, but they will be at work. and THOSE WHO ARE FURLOUGHED must NOT report to work, but WILL get paid for NOT working. A PAID VACATION Now at the RO where I work most of the people being furloughed are upper management, GS13 to GS 15. If you look at the OPM for pay for these GS workers most of which are non-bargaining employees they are making upwards of $80,000.00 to $150,000.000 per year. Most of the employees being essential are those that work the claim so they are the file clerks, VSR, RVSRs, some Coaches GS 4 to GS 12 mostly. Those not working are assistant veteran service center managers, public contact (IPC) many who are GS13 and up, QR team which are GS 13 and up, ....so you get the idea. I would like for someone to explain why some who don't work get paid the same as those who are actually working. This is just assinine, to say the least. If they are non-essential then they should not be working period and we should just cut them from the Department all together. Why are tax payers paying for non-essential employees in the first place. I lay you ODDS the claims production will go up while these upper management types are on their paid vacation. What a farce. -IMO
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use