allan

The fact is this "is" a political attack on us and the Justice dept. Roberts, Ramos and Compean are still in prison and will likely remain there until after the elections in 08. When and if anyone chooses to free those who have sworn to protect us, will not likely happen while we're focused on what a past President has said. I have to tell you Tyler, if you think your helping your party by making such stupid remarks, your not. I happen to know there are many dedicated "honest" republicans running for office that wish you to get off the Clinton "lies" BS. If you choose to do nothing to clean up these lawless acts against US Veterans, some 25,000,000 us us and growing, your going to reap what you sow somewhere down the road. Let me ask this, can we as a people create and pass laws to protect Veterans in the future from such CRIMINAL acts? Can we pass laws to hunt those down that have commited ilegal acts against us in the past and imprison "THEM" for their crimes?

This is a good example of "they cannot". It's obvious to me, the king has planted many of his mary men across the country. Whats next for this Veteran? Torture, the death penalty? Every military personnel who ever served and their families are targets for this kings folly. Like the mafia or the KGB, they will come after your family to make the point loud and clear. Everyone, veteran and non veteran in this country better take a long hard look at what is happening to this Veteran, and others like Ramos and Compean. Without a functional justice dept, we have no justice or due process. It allows rogue outfits like the Dept of Veterans Affairs to take injustice to the extreme without fear of "any" repercussions. Somewhere in time, we as a people must say enough is enough.

9/03/2007 National VA Director Pushed US Atty Biskupic to Indict Wisconsin Veteran [Please credit Michael Leon at MAL Contends. Contact Michael Leon at maleon64@yahoo.com or maleon@charter.com for more information.] Top VA Officials Plotted to Indict Vet in Violation of Federal VA Rules http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2007/09/na...ed-us-atty.html

Once the rating specialist receives what they need to grant the claim and finalize it, they will likely do anything to stall it. A "Writ of Mandamus" is the only way to get a claim moving from one state of injustice to the next. Bush will make sure claims are stalled as long as he's in office. A Writ takes it straight to the COURT of veterans appeals and will force RO review to take some kind of action. If they deny, you will than be able to hire an attorney. This is where im at. I need a Writ.

§ 19.37 Consideration of additional evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction after an appeal has been initiated. top (a) Evidence received prior to transfer of records to Board of Veterans' Appeals. Evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction prior to transfer of the records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals after an appeal has been initiated (including evidence received after certification has been completed) will be referred to the appropriate rating or authorization activity for review and disposition. If the Statement of the Case and any prior Supplemental Statements of the Case were prepared before the receipt of the additional evidence, a Supplemental Statement of the Case will be furnished to the appellant and his or her representative as provided in §19.31 of this part, unless the additional evidence received duplicates evidence previously of record which was discussed in the Statement of the Case or a prior Supplemental Statement of the Case or the additional evidence is not relevant to the issue, or issues, on appeal. (b) Evidence received after transfer of records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Additional evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction after the records have been transferred to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for appellate consideration will be forwarded to the Board if it has a bearing on the appellate issue or issues. The Board will then determine what action is required with respect to the additional evidence. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(1)) § 19.38 Action by agency of original jurisdiction when remand received. top When a case is remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, the agency of original jurisdiction will complete the additional development of the evidence or procedural development required. Following completion of the development, the case will be reviewed to determine whether the additional development, together with the evidence which was previously of record, supports the allowance of all benefits sought on appeal. If so, the appellant and his or her representative, if any, will be promptly informed. If any benefits sought on appeal remain denied following this review, the agency of original jurisdiction will issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case concerning the additional development pertaining to those issues in accordance with the provisions of §19.31 of this part. Following the 60-day period allowed for a response to the Supplemental Statement of the Case pursuant to Rule of Practice 302, paragraph © (§20.302© of this chapter), the case will be returned to the Board for further appellate processing unless the appeal is withdrawn or review of the response to the Supplemental Statement of the Case results in the allowance of all benefits sought on appeal. Remanded cases will not be closed for failure to respond to the Supplemental Statement of the Case. (Authority 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(1)) [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 69 FR 53808, Sept. 3, 2004] §§ 19.39-19.49 [Reserved] top Subpart C—Administrative Appeals top § 19.50 Nature and form of administrative appeal. top (a) General. An administrative appeal from an agency of original jurisdiction determination is an appeal taken by an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs authorized to do so to resolve a conflict of opinion or a question pertaining to a claim involving benefits under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such appeals may be taken not only from determinations involving dissenting opinions, but also from unanimous determinations denying or allowing the benefit claimed in whole or in part. (b) Form of Appeal. An administrative appeal is entered by a memorandum entitled “Administrative Appeal” in which the issues and the basis for the appeal are set forth. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7106) § 19.51 Officials authorized to file administrative appeals and time limits for filing. top The Secretary of Veterans Affairs authorizes certain officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs to file administrative appeals within specified time limits, as follows: (a) Central Office —(1) Officials. The Under Secretary for Benefits or a service director of the Veterans Benefits Administration, the Under Secretary for Health or a service director of the Veterans Health Administration, and the General Counsel. (2) Time limit. Such officials must file an administrative appeal within 1 year from the date of mailing notice of such determination to the claimant. (b) Agencies of original jurisdiction —(1) Officials. Directors, adjudication officers, and officials at comparable levels in field offices deciding any claims for benefits, from any determination originating within their established jurisdiction. (2) Time limit. The Director or comparable official must file an administrative appeal within 6 months from the date of mailing notice of the determination to the claimant. Officials below the level of Director must do so within 60 days from such date. © The date of mailing. With respect to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the date of mailing notice of the determination to the claimant will be presumed to be the same as the date of the letter of notification to the claimant. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7106) [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 20449, May 7, 1996] § 19.52 Notification to claimant of filing of administrative appeal. top When an administrative appeal is entered, the claimant and his or her representative, if any, will be promptly furnished a copy of the memorandum entitled “Administrative Appeal,” or an adequate summary thereof, outlining the question at issue. They will be allowed a period of 60 days to join in the appeal if they so desire. The claimant will also be advised of the effect of such action and of the preservation of normal appeal rights if he or she does not elect to join in the administrative appeal. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7106) § 19.53 Restriction as to change in payments pending determination of administrative appeals. top If an administrative appeal is taken from a review or determination by the agency of original jurisdiction pursuant to §§19.50 and 19.51 of this part, that review or determination may not be used to effect any change in payments until after a decision is made by the Board of Veterans' Appeals. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7106) SOURCE: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...0.1.1.4.2.35.13

>I SPOKE TO MY NIECE LAST NIGHT AND SHE SAID " THEY CANNOT DO THIS". THEY ARE FISHING. Is this the same DRO niece that refuses to reconize IMO's Veterans pay for and submit? Or evidence they supply because it didn't come from the DVA? "THEY CANNOT"? Can she produce the list of rating specialists serving time for obstruction of justice? Having someone with bloody hands serve me a cup of understanding provides little comfort. Our claims should have been awarded years ago. We know it, they know it. When you finally get them in a corner with IMO's, they will just lie their way out of it. This VARO illegal review process usually doesn't get past the BVA. They will remand it right back to the same thieves to fix their constant decietful practices. The RO review through the AMC or any of their contracted raters won't correct their intentional "ERRORS", so the BVA will remand it again and again and again and again.......... Each time the RO is alowed to process it on remand, they will likely go fishing for another unfavorable opinion from one of their staff consultants. At some point in time you will give up, quit or die is how I think they view it. Your claim isn't actually going through a process if it's waiting for you to die in order to be finalized or congress to pass the bills to cheat you out of it. It was difficult for me to believe just how corrupt this process is. Years and years of the same thing for thousands and thousands of us? "THEY CANNOT"? Who's going to stop them, your niece, her union? Congress? The King? No offence Josephine. It's very difficult for me to pull my teeth out with a leatherman one day and read "they cannot" the next after being on appeal for the last decade, experiencing exactly what your going through. I am so sorry you have to go through this. Thousands of us are stuck with a corrupt process, in a society that could care less. Never quit trying and pray for a long life.

e-CFR Data is current as of November 1, 2007 Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief PART 19—BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS: APPEALS REGULATIONS Subpart A—Operation of the Board of Veterans' Appeals § 19.1 Establishment of the Board. The Board of Veterans' Appeals is established by authority of, and functions pursuant to, title 38, United States Code, chapter 71. § 19.2 Composition of the Board; Titles. (a) The Board consists of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, Deputy Vice Chairmen, Members and professional, administrative, clerical and stenographic personnel. Deputy Vice Chairmen are Members of the Board who are appointed to that office by the Secretary upon the recommendation of the Chairman. (b) A member of the Board (other than the Chairman) may also be known as a Veterans Law Judge. An individual designated as an acting member pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 7101©(1) may also be known as an acting Veterans Law Judge. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, 7101(a)) [68 FR 6625, Feb. 10, 2003] § 19.3 Assignment of proceedings. (a) Assignment. The Chairman may assign a proceeding instituted before the Board, including any motion, to an individual Member or to a panel of three or more Members for adjudication or other appropriate action. The Chairman may participate in a proceeding assigned to a panel of Members. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102) (b) Inability to serve. If a Member is unable to participate in the disposition of a proceeding or motion to which the Member has been assigned, the Chairman may assign the proceeding or motion to another Member or substitute another Member (in the case of a proceeding or motion assigned to a panel). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7101(a), 7102) [61 FR 20448, May 7, 1996] § 19.4 Principal functions of the Board. The principal functions of the Board are to make determinations of appellate jurisdiction, consider all applications on appeal properly before it, conduct hearings on appeal, evaluate the evidence of record, and enter decisions in writing on the questions presented on appeal. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7104, 7107) § 19.5 Criteria governing disposition of appeals. In the consideration of appeals, the Board is bound by applicable statutes, regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and precedent opinions of the General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Board is not bound by Department manuals, circulars, or similar administrative issues. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 7104©) § 19.6 [Reserved] § 19.7 The decision. (a) Decisions based on entire record. The appellant will not be presumed to be in agreement with any statement of fact contained in a Statement of the Case to which no exception is taken. Decisions of the Board are based on a review of the entire record. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7104(a), 7105(d)(4)) (b) Content. The decision of the Board will be in writing and will set forth specifically the issue or issues under appellate consideration. Except with respect to issues remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction for further development of the case and appeals which are dismissed because the issue has been resolved by administrative action or because an appellant seeking nonmonetary benefits has died while the appeal was pending, the decision will also include separately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record, the reasons or bases for those findings and conclusions, and an order granting or denying the benefit or benefits sought on appeal or dismissing the appeal. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7104(d)) © A decision by a panel of Members will be by a majority vote of the panel Members. [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 20449, May 7, 1996] § 19.8 Content of Board decision, remand, or order in simultaneously contested claims. The content of the Board's decision, remand, or order in appeals involving a simultaneously contested claim will be limited to information that directly affects the issues involved in the contested claim. Appellate issues that do not involve all of the contesting parties will be addressed in one or more separate written decisions, remands, or orders that will be furnished only to the appellants concerned and their representatives, if any. (Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), 38 U.S.C. 5701(a)) [61 FR 68666, Dec. 30, 1996] § 19.9 Remand for further development. (a) General. If further evidence, clarification of the evidence, correction of a procedural defect, or any other action is essential for a proper appellate decision, a Veterans Law Judge or panel of Veterans Law Judges shall remand the case to the agency of original jurisdiction, specifying the action to be undertaken. (b) Exceptions. A remand to the agency of original jurisdiction is not necessary for the purposes of: (1) Clarifying a procedural matter before the Board, including the appellant's choice of representative before the Board, the issues on appeal, or requests for a hearing before the Board; (2) Consideration of an appeal, in accordance with §20.903(b) of this chapter, with respect to law not already considered by the agency of original jurisdiction. This includes, but is not limited to, statutes, regulations, and court decisions; or (3) Reviewing additional evidence received by the Board, if, pursuant to §20.1304© of this chapter, the appellant or the appellant's representative waives the right to initial consideration by the agency of original jurisdiction, or if the Board determines that the benefit or benefits to which the evidence relates may be fully allowed on appeal. © Scope. This section does not apply to: (1) The Board's request for an opinion under Rule 901 (§20.901 of this chapter); (2) The Board's supplementation of the record with a recognized medical treatise; and (3) Matters over which the Board has original jurisdiction described in Rules 609 and 610 (§§20.609 and 20.610 of this chapter). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7103©, 7104(a)). [67 FR 3104, Jan. 23, 2002, as amended at 69 FR 53808, Sept. 3, 2004] § 19.10 [Reserved] § 19.11 Reconsideration panel. (a) Assignment of Members. When a motion for reconsideration is allowed, the Chairman will assign a panel of three or more Members of the Board, which may include the Chairman, to conduct the reconsideration. (b) Number of Members constituting a reconsideration panel. In the case of a matter originally heard by a single Member of the Board, the case shall be referred to a panel of three Members of the Board. In the case of a matter originally heard by a panel of Members of the Board, the case shall be referred to an enlarged panel, consisting of three or more Members than the original panel. In order to obtain a majority opinion, the number of Members assigned to a reconsideration panel may be increased in successive increments of three. © Members included in the reconsideration panel. The reconsideration panel may not include any Member who participated in the decision that is being reconsidered. Additional Members will be assigned in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7103) [61 FR 20449, May 7, 1996] § 19.12 Disqualification of Members. (a) General. A Member of the Board will disqualify himself or herself in a hearing or decision on an appeal if that appeal involves a determination in which he or she participated or had supervisory responsibility in the agency of original jurisdiction prior to his or her appointment as a Member of the Board, or where there are other circumstances which might give the impression of bias either for or against the appellant. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7104) (b) Appeal on same issue subsequent to decision on administrative appeal. Any Member of the Board who made the decision on an administrative appeal will disqualify himself or herself from acting on a subsequent appeal by the claimant on the same issue. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7104, 7106) © Disqualification of Members by the Chairman. The Chairman of the Board, on his or her own motion, may disqualify a Member from acting in an appeal on the grounds set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and in those cases where a Member is unable or unwilling to act. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7104, 7106) [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 20449, May 7, 1996] § 19.13 Delegation of authority to Chairman and Vice Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals. The Chairman and/or Vice Chairman have authority delegated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to: (a) Approve the assumption of appellate jurisdiction of an adjudicative determination which has not become final in order to grant a benefit, and (b) Order VA Central Office investigations of matters before the Board. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 303, 512(a)) § 19.14 Delegation of authority—Appeals regulations. (a) The authority exercised by the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals described in §§19.3(b) and 19.12© of this part may also be exercised by the Vice Chairman of the Board. (b) The authority exercised by the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals described in §19.11 of this part may also be exercised by the Vice Chairman of the Board and by Deputy Vice Chairmen of the Board. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 512(a), 7102, 7104) [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 70 FR 8930, Feb. 24, 2005] Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...4.1&idno=38

Josephine, Once they get the statement their looking for to deny your claim with, you will need to send in another IMO rebutting their IMO. In their SOC, the rater will take a statement in regards to your favorable evidence and leave out words or add words until it means nothing. They create whatever reason or bases they need. Facts have little significance to rating specialists, like your service records, if they left you with any. You may want to give some thought to make sure that the IMO you obtain next, is from a "COURT" certified doctor. I now have three IMO's the raters refuse to reconize or grant any weight to. The BVA has remanded my claim back through the Appeals Center to process, since ST Peterburgs raters can't provide an honest evaluation of evidence. No action on BVA remand by the AMC since June/06

. 06-2268 withers.268.wpd -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Search Terms: AGENT ORANGE HYPERTENSION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS No. 06-2268 Eugene Withers, Appellant, v. Gordon H. Mansfield, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Before IVERS, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent. IVERS, Judge: The appellant, through counsel, appeals a June 19, 2006, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) decision that denied entitlement to service connection for hypertension, including as secondary to service-connected diabetes. Record (R.) at 1-9. This appeal is timely and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter on appeal pursuant to 38 U. S.C. 7252(a) and 7266(a). Single-judge disposition is appropriate. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990). For the following reasons, the Court will vacate the June 19, 2006, decision and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision. I. FACTS The appellant served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1969 to July 1971, including service in Vietnam. R. at 13. The service medical records are negative for any evidence of high blood pressure or a diagnosis of hypertension. R. at 16-44. In September 2002, the appellant filed a claim seeking service connection for hypertension. R. at 48-57. The appellant's private medical records, dating from November 1993 to September 2002 (R. at 71-101), reflected a diagnosis of hypertension beginning in November 1993 (R. at 101). In January 2003, the VA regional office (RO) denied service connection for hypertension. R. at 122- 26. The appellant filed a Notice of Disagreement the same month. R. at 128. In February 2003, he filed a claim seeking service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus (diabetes) as secondary to Agent Orange exposure in service. R. at 134. The appellant underwent a VA diabetes mellitus examination in October 2003. R. at 236-37. The appellant gave a history of hypertension since 1993. R. at 236. The examiner diagnosed Type II diabetes and "[e] ssential hypertension unrelated to diabetes." R. at 237. The RO granted service connection for Type II diabetes in November 2003. R. at 245-48. The appellant perfected his appeal the same month. R. at 250. In January 2006, the RO sent the appellant a Supplemental Statement of the Case denying service connection for hypertension as secondary to a service- connected disability. R. at 318-24. The Board issued its decision on appeal on June 19, 2006, denying service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service- connected diabetes. R. at 1-9. The Board relied in part on the October 2003 VA medical examination. R. at 5-6. The appellant argues that the October 2003 VA medical examination was inadequate because the examiner did not provide any rationale for his opinion. Appellant's Brief (Br.) at 4-8. He also argues that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases to support its determination that the 2003 examination was adequate. Appellant's Br. at 4-6. The Secretary argues for affirmance of the BVA decision and asserts that VA was not required to provide an examination, because there was no indication in the record that the appellant's current disability may be related to an event in service or to his service-connected diabetes. Secretary's Br. at 9-10. II. ANALYSIS As previously noted, the appellant filed a claim for direct service connection for hypertension in September 2002. R. at 48-57. The issue of secondary service connection for hypertension was first raised by the VA physician in 2003. R. at 237. The claim was thereafter adjudicated and denied by both the RO in January 2006, and by the Board in the decision now on appeal. R. at 1-9, 318-24. In denying service connection for hypertension as secondary to diabetes, the Board relied on the negative nexus opinion rendered by the VA examiner in October 2003. R. at 5, 236- 37. The Board further relied upon that opinion to support its determination that VA adequately fulfilled its obligation to assist the appellant in the development of his claim. R. at 7-8. The Secretary must provide a medical examination or opinion if the evidence of record indicates that a current disability may be related to service or a service-connected disability, and an examination or opinion is otherwise "necessary to make a decision on the claim." 38 U.S. C. 5103A(d)(1)-(2); 38 C.F.R. 3.159©(4) (2007); see McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 79 (2006). After the BVA issued its decision in the instant case, the Court decided Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 303 ( 2007), holding that "once the Secretary undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, he must provide an adequate one or, at a minimum, notify the claimant why one will not or cannot be provided." Barr, 21 Vet.App. at 311. Here, the October 2003 examination contained the examiner's opinion that the appellant's essential hypertension was unrelated to his diabetes, but failed to include a sufficient rationale for that opinion. R. at 237. "[A] mere conclusion by a medical doctor is insufficient to allow the Board to make an informed decision as to what weight to assign to the doctor's opinion." Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 120, 125 (2007). Accordingly, a remand is appropriate because the Board relied upon an inadequate examination to deny the appellant's claim. See Barr and Stefl, both supra; Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991). The Court will not, at this time, address the other argument and issue raised by the appellant. See Best v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 18, 20 ( 2001) (per curiam order) (holding that "[a] narrow decision preserves for the appellant an opportunity to argue those claimed errors before the Board at the readjudication, and, of course, before this Court in an appeal, should the Board rule against him"). On remand, the appellant may present any additional evidence and argument in support of the matter remanded, and the Board must consider any evidence and argument so presented. See Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 (2002). The Court expects that the Board will provide expeditious treatment of this matter on remand. See 38 U.S.C. 7112. III. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the foregoing analysis, the appellant's and the Secretary's briefs, and a review of the record on appeal, the Board's June 19, 2006, decision is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision. DATED: Oct 18 2007 Copies to: Nona M. Robinson, Esq. VA General Counsel (027) SOURCE: http://search.vetapp.gov/isysquery/704abf8...9138f843/6/doc/

AGENT ORANGE and HYPERTENSION DIC case http://search.vetapp.gov/isysquery/704abf8...9138f843/4/doc/

You can expect the AMC and their C&P window shopping raters to disregard favorable evidence in your SMR's. Until the AMC and rating specialists are held accountable and prosecuted for their illegal acts to cheat veterans & widows out of their earned benefits, it will be business as usual for returning troops and the rest of us.

Hello Paul, you can wait until its actually under review. Heres what happened to me. I submitted the IMO I received from Dr Bash concerning MS. St Petersburg VARO ignored it existed, while they reviewed and denied the claim. The BVA caught them and made them review it again. The decision of this claim has be set aside since 2005 until the other two IMO's for my spine are recognized and all the other issues are decided on. Dr Bash and the PVA has requested multiple secondary issues need to be awarded with it. I guess it's a good idea to wait until it is actually under review, but they have many, many ways to stall it once it is in your folder. All they have to say is "we have considered it, but choose to give it no weight, because we found this internal medicine Dr in New Jersey to provide us with an unfavorable IMO". Then you will need to get yet another IMO to counter the VA whore. The RO rating specialist doesn't have to have any good reason or basis to deny it. They can just make it up or rephrase what your doctor said until it makes no since. No one who gives a damn and is in a position to change it, is going to check your rating officers work. No one is even going to pin your decision to the one that actually cheated you either. End the end, theres no one to blame but the Veteran for not filing a complete claim or explaining their issues clearly, not sending in the evidence, etc. I really hope it works out better for you Paul. I wish this for all of us. But the facts tell me very few of us ever see and honest decision made regarding the evidence. Since no one investigates these criminal acts and it's passed off to the nation as,"taken care of them Vets", it's looked at as they are working hard to process the claims backlog. Experience tells me delaying the claim is the goal, and will be the goal as long as they are permitted to commit criminal acts in the claims process, without any repercussions. Allan

My claim has been collecting dust at the AMC since it was remanded from the BVA in June 06. As soon as it was remanded, I sent in the waiver. When and if the AMC ever opens my file for review, they will see the waiver sitting on top and it will than be sent to the BVA. My guess is it will take another two to three years for the BVA to decide it, once they recieve it. That gives me "no" garanty the BVA will reconize the three IMO's from Dr Bash. But if the BVA denies the claim, my 30 year wait to have an attorney represent me will be over and my claim will fanally have its day in court. If you have sent in a waiver for RO rating process to the AMC, nothing will be done to it until the BVA recieves the file. The waiver takes it out of the RO level review, so they can't process it. If they're telling you they're working on it, they are lying. Allan

Sen Bob Dole is the "only" republican i've ever considered voting for. It's a shame we cant trust him. I was hoping he would finally do something to help us, so much for that thought.

Here are some diagnosis I have that cause pain. 1)Chronic Pain Syndrome 2)Multiple Sclerosis 3)Cervical, Thoracic, and Lumbar Stenosis/Spondylosis. 4)Fibromyalgia 5)TBI What I recieve from the VAMC for these conditions is some baclofen and ibuprophin. Im forced to pay for effective pain medicine myself and it takes around 20% of what little income we have to cover it. I see nothing in this bill that will force VAMC care providers to treat Veterans in a humane manner as their license to practice medicine dectates. Allan

Legislation > 2007-2008 (110th Congress) > S. 2160 S. 2160: Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007 Bill Status Introduced: Oct 15, 2007 Sponsor: Sen. Daniel Akaka [D-HI] Status: Introduced Go to Bill Status Page You are viewing the following version of this bill: Introduced in Senate: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. Text of Legislation S 2160 IS 110th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 2160 To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a pain care initiative in health care facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES October 15, 2007 Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a pain care initiative in health care facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) Acute and chronic pain are prevalent conditions within the population of veterans. (2) Methods of modern warfare, including the use of improvised explosive devices, produce substantial numbers of battlefield casualties with significant damage to both the central and peripheral nervous systems. (3) The successes of military health care, both on and off the battlefield, result in high survival rates of severely injured military personnel who will be afflicted with significant pain disorders on either an acute or chronic basis. (4) Failure to treat pain appropriately at the time of transition from receipt of care from the Department of Defense to receipt of care from the Department of Veterans Affairs contributes to the development of long-term chronic pain syndromes, in some cases accompanied by long-term mental health and substance use disorders. (5) Pain is a leading cause of short-term and long-term disability among veterans. (6) The Department of Veterans Affairs has implemented important pain care programs at some facilities and in some areas, but comprehensive pain care is not consistently provided on a uniform basis throughout the health care system of the Department to all patients in need of such care. (7) Inconsistent and ineffective pain care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs leads to pain-related impairments, occupational disability, and medical and mental complications for veterans with acute and chronic pain, with long-term costs for the health care and disability systems of the Department and for society at large. (8) Research, diagnosis, treatment, and management of acute and chronic pain for veterans constitute health care priorities of the United States. SEC. 3. PAIN CARE INITIATIVE IN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE FACILITIES. (a) Requirement- Subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: `Sec. 1720F. Pain care `(a) In General- The Secretary shall carry out at each health care facility of the Department an initiative on pain care. `(b) Elements- The initiative at each health care facility of the Department shall ensure that each individual receiving treatment in such health care facility receives the following: `(1) An assessment for pain at the time of admission or initial treatment, and periodically thereafter, using a professionally recognized pain assessment tool or process. `(2) Appropriate pain care consistent with recognized means for assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and management of acute and chronic pain, including when appropriate, access to specialty pain management services.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1720E the following new item: `1720F. Pain care.'. © Implementation- The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure that the pain care initiatives required by section 1720F of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), are implemented at all health care facilities of the Department of Veterans affairs by not later than-- (1) January 1, 2008, in the case of inpatient care; and (2) January 1, 2009, in the case of outpatient care. SEC. 4. PROGRAM ON RESEARCH AND TRAINING ON PAIN IN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. (a) In General- Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: `Sec. 7330A. Program of research and training on acute and chronic pain `(a) In General- The Secretary shall carry out within the Medical and Prosthetic Research Service of the Veterans Health Administration a program of research and training on acute and chronic pain. `(b) Purposes- The purposes of the program shall include the following: `(1) To identify research priorities most relevant to the treatment of the types of acute and chronic pain suffered by veterans. `(2) To promote, conduct, and coordinate research in accordance with such research priorities-- `(A) through the facilities and programs of the Department; and `(B) in cooperation with other agencies, institutions, and organizations, including the Department of Defense. `(3) To educate and train health care personnel of the Department with respect to the assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and management of acute and chronic pain. `© Designation of Centers- (1) The Secretary shall designate an appropriate number of facilities of the Department as cooperative centers for research and education on pain. Each such center shall be designated with a focus on research and training on one or more of the following: `(A) Acute pain. `(B) Chronic pain. `© A research priority identified under subsection (b)(1). `(2) The Secretary shall designate at least one of the centers designated under paragraph (1) as a lead center for research on pain attributable to central and peripheral nervous system damage commonly associated with the battlefield injuries characteristic of modern warfare. `(3) The Secretary shall designate one of the centers designated under paragraph (1) as the lead center for coordinating the pain care research activities of the centers designated under this subsection. The functions of such center shall be the following: `(A) To review and evaluate periodically the research of the centers designated under this subsection and to ensure that such research is conducted in accordance with the research priorities identified pursuant to subsection (b)(1). `(B) To collect and disseminate the results of the research of the centers designated under this subsection. `© To develop and disseminate educational materials and products-- `(i) to enhance the assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and management of acute and chronic pain by the health care professionals and facilities of the Veterans Health Administration; and `(ii) for veterans suffering from acute or chronic pain and their families. `(d) Award of Funding- Centers designated under subsection © may compete for the award of funding from amounts appropriated to the Department each fiscal year for medical and prosthetics research. `(e) National Oversight- The Under Secretary of Health shall designate an appropriate officer-- `(1) to oversee the operation of the centers designated under subsection ©; and `(2) to review and evaluate periodically the performance of such centers.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7330 the following new item: `7330A. Program of research and training on acute and chronic pain.'. SOURCE: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2160

>I don't know what we would do without those Highly Skilled Workers Those skilled workers must have gotten their training in prison. Sending them back to prison with the rest of the thieves should be our goal since they refuse to provide us with due process. Josephine, Your evidence is likely sitting in your folder like mine. If the BVA can remand my claim over and over back to the appeals center and the RO theives consistanly ignore the evidence in it, it's set up that way and it's not going to change. The BVA says in the remand that what they are doing is illegal and in violation of DVA laws. The RO level is so corrupt, 30 yrs of watching them lie tells me it will never change, neither will the senseless remands. You may want to consider waiving review by the RO level and have the BVA decide it. Due process is not part of the RO or DRO review. It's way to corrupt for that. Anytime you talk to someone at the AMC, you will be lied to. Get used to it.

Hello John, Years ago I requested my claim to be decided by the BVA, because I believed the Seattle VARO rating officers were the most corrupt in the nation. Than my claim was sent to St Petersberg. Why not give them a trial and a hanging? They have murdered enough of us. It wouldn't bother me to see any of these rating specialists die for their crimes. I feel the same way about child molesters as I do ratings specialists that lie in order to deny. It may sound a little harsh to some, not to me.

fwd from Kelly ***************** Hi to all, Some possible good news! I posted a link of some possible good news for Veterans regarding some House actions today. This is posted at: http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/C...egoodthings.htm Also some news from the senate below on hearings on Wednesday. NEWS FROM THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS October 23, 2007 Media contact: Jeff Schrade (202) 224-9093 (Washington, DC) U.S. Senator Richard Burr, the top Republican on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said he is looking forward to Wednesday's hearing which will examine five bills that could benefit veterans: S. 38 - Veterans' Mental Health Outreach and Access Act of 2007 S. 2004 - To establish epilepsy centers of excellence in the Veterans Health Administration S. 2142 - Veterans Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2007 S. 2160 - Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007 S. 2162 - Mental Health Improvements Act of 2007 The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 24 in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. It will be broadcast live on the Committee's website and available for viewing later http://veterans.senate.gov/. Audio may also be available - during the hearing only - at http://www.capitolhearings.org/. I will not be able to listen real time as I will be at Atlanta VA doing battle on Wednesday. Kelley

Hello Josephine, Getting the evidence into your file is one thing. after you've forced them to put it there, you will need to get them to recognize it and act on it in accordance with the laws. The AMC sent my folder to St Petersburg VARO contractors to trash after I sent in Dr Bashs IMO. They completely blew it off and denied it. Dr Bash sent in two more IMO's but they denied the claim again without giving them any consideration or listing them as evidence. The Board of Veterans appeals remanded it back to the appeals center again in June 06 holding them in violation for denying the claim. These so called rating specialists can get away with anything and it will be labeled as an error? Intentional criminal acts designed to cheat veterans out of their benefits are not errors. Such crimes against disabled Veterans should be made an example out of just like the ones receiving benefits that aren't even veterans. If they can hunt those frauds down, they should be able to track those rating specialists down and prosecute them for their crimes. Allan

fwd from: VNVets Tuesday, October 16, 2007 Hard Words from a Shipmate These are some hard words from a shipmate in the Blue Water Navy Veterans of the Vietnam War. We think it is time they were said. -------------------------------------------- One of the extremely dangerous affects of the VA winning the Haas case is that, once they have successfully treated the Blue Water Navy as a "sub-class" or "new category" of veteran, essentially legally dividing the whole into parts, they will be able to use that as precedent to pick and choose which veterans get which types of benefits. Up until this point, all veterans (e.g., combat veterans, POWs, support troops, etc.) fall into the same class and are eligible for all benefits. If the Haas case is ruled in favor of the DVA, they will be able to exclude any veteran from receiving full medical and compensation benefits simply by creating another sub-class of veteran, as they are attempting to do here. Let me give an example: In the XX War, veterans serving on active duty in combat or combat support would all assume they would receive medical treatment and compensation for injuries sustained in the XX War. But after the XX War is over, the Department of Veteran Affairs could proclaim that any veteran of the XX War who served further than 12 miles from some arbitrary geographical point is not eligible for full veteran benefits, even though the enemy could and did detonate weapons up to 20 miles from the arbitrary point. Those veterans who were injured by those "out of bounds" detonations are, by their own jargon, S.O.L. They will be denied medical care and monetary compensation for any injuries sustained while on active duty during the XX War. That is exactly what is happening to the Blue Water Navy veterans of the Vietnam War. They are not being given the same medical care and compensation as the troops they supported, fought along side of, and died with. The winning of the Haas case, or the enactment of S-2026, will guarantee that the DVA can create categories of future veterans at whim, and deny them full benefits such as those received by veterans who served within the 12 mile zone from our hypothetical example. "Impossible!" you might say? It is happening now. It is what the heart of the Haas case and what the S-2026 bill are all about. It is what the Blue Water Navy of the Vietnam War is currently experiencing and has experienced since early 2002. It is not a mere probability - it is current fact. This situation says to the future United States military member of any branch of service: "Take your chances. Come fight our war. You might or might not receive your medical treatment and combat injury disability payments from the DVA. You won't know until after you've been injured and the War is over. But go ahead, sign on the dotted line." As a veteran of the Vietnam War, my best advice to the youth of America is "Don't play their silly game of Russian Roulette. If these problems are not fixed NOW, stay as far away from service to this Government as you can get. They lie and have no intention of taking care of you if you are injured in battle." Of course, that's not a hard message to swallow given the current non-treatment and ill-treatment of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Even when they claim to be keeping their promise of "We'll take care of you!" the care is so poor and takes so long that it is a national disgrace. This is no longer a Government worth defending. Nonetheless, it is a hard message to give, and I do so only with a very heavy heart and many tears. But this is no longer the Government that I made and kept my pledge of allegiance to. All things change over time, but the principles of Honesty and Integrity must remain constant - and the current leadership of our country has lost touch with those Ideals. JPR -------------------------------------------- Our tears join yours, and our heart is also heavy at the perversion of the American Ideal by vain and greedy politicians who talk from both sides of their mouths at once. There are no friends to the American Veteran in the United States Government. VNVets "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." -- President Abraham Lincoln "Without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious." --President George Washington

An "Extraordinary Claim" is defined as a claim "...with an effective date retroactive eight or more years or that result in a lump-sum payment of $250,000 or more..." Now, we have discovered that the VA is finding many errors in these claims. ********************************************** >we have discovered that the VA is finding many errors? Who's checking their findings to make sure they're accurate and that their findings are errors and not agency procedures from rating contractors dumping claims? If a valid claim that has been denied for six, eight, ten, twenty, thirty, forty and so on years based on the Dept of Veterans Affairs agency errors, and is later found to be valid from the date of application, than not only will they cheat you out of the interest, but cheat you out of the back payment? And Trusting the DVA to do the right thing by this country's returning troops over the DOD means what exactly? Doesn't anyone else consider this to be an act to stop what little enlistments this country is getting? Why in the world would anyone support such a idea? I hope its not to show cause of why we need the draft due to decline of enlistments? Why would anyone supporting this nation, especially during a time of war, support the theft of benefits that rightfully belongs to disabled US Veteran? The result of this is to tell everyone of us that being a thief pays in this country.

heres a link......... Veterans Benefits Network http://vets.yuku.com/bvetbenefits

Hello Berta, last night when I connected, the connection speed was 7.2 k. No phone at all when it rains, heavy fog or snow. So downloading is difficult sometimes. Basic training for claims? Good idea! You can start by hitting them with the truth. Their regional office (RO) level rating specialists, teams etc, may create any fraudulent statement they wish and substitute it for the ratable medical opinions they receive from their own C&P examiners, hired medical consultants or your own private Dr's medical opinions. Example: Brain trauma? "The VA's opinion is this happened post service after eating his Mom's Chile". Yes, it's an acceptable practice of VARO rating specialists. The identity of those raters that do this in order to deny or obstruct your claim, is protected. No one signs their name to it. VARO rating teams will send your records to one internal medicine Dr after another, window shopping for an unfavorable Independent Medical Opinion,(IMO)to rebut any favorable one you've turned in. You do not have to be examined. The VA will seldom use a specialists for a Medical Opinion. It will almost always be an "Internal Medicine" MD, even if the BVA orders a specialist. If this was not an acceptable practice by the DVA raters, it would almost end the backlog in claims. If your still in service, start getting copies of your medical records now and get it rated at separation or be prepared to fight the DVA the rest of your life. Never give up if you have a valid claim Allan

The Pathology Guy http://www.pathguy.com/