broncovet

One of the "other boards" has 2 or 3 retired Raters, a DRO Officer, and maybe even a current rater. Altho much of the information there is valuable, I could see a definite attitude difference there. The attitude there was that the VA system is just fine, but Veterans are negligent in sending in their paperwork correctly, government employees are overworked, underpaid, etc. I would like to ask James what he thinks of the Professor Linda Blimes method. If you dont already know, a college professor wrote a paper and, I think, testified to congress, That the VA should simply Pay Vetrans claims, within about 60 days, then audit some, kind of like how the IRS does tax refunds. With the IRS you pretty much get your money right away, but they check your return over thoroughly mostly in the "offseason" and if they smell anything fishy you will be called for an audit. Professor Blimes suggest that most VA claims are eventually awarded..those that are denied go through an appeal process until they get approved..sometimes for decades. I am not sure, but I seem to remember that Social Security gives you an answer on your claim in 60 days..approved or denied. It takes the VA at least 3 times that long, and on some even more time is required. VA management complains about the large number of Veterans, but does Social Security and IRS not have lots of people to deal with too? In fact, these agencies have a smaller budget than the VA, but handle a larger number of claims faster than the VA. 25 million Veterans vs about 275 million civilians.

I think James is largely right, but I would add that I really have came to doubt that the VA is always acting in Vetrans best interest. My claim was "farmed out" to at least 3 RO's, and I guarntee you it did not expidite my claim. Of course, we dont know if your claim was "farmed out" or "STAR'd out". It is clear there are at least 5 things the VA can do with your claim. 1. Delay it by sending it back for more information, (More C &P's, etc) 2. Deny it all together. 3. Punt and ship it off to another RO, and make it their problem. (Farm it out) 4. STAR it, and get it out of your hair into someone elses. 5. Approve it. Especially if it is one of the "large retros" (over 10 years or over $250,000 retro), I dont think rating specialists really like to have dozens of these in their "portfolio", since mgmt would probably want to know why so many large retro's. On the other hand, mgmt would not think twice about a rating specialist who had dozens of denials, they would think he was just doing a good job. The bottom line is that your claim is delayed, and it does not look so bad on your RO, because they sent it somewhere else, and they can blame them. In theory, farming out claims from the very busy RO's to the not very busy RO's should make claims go faster. However, as James pointed out they wind up farming out the most complex cases, and it seems to me that they just get passed around like a hot potatoe. When my claim was farmed out, it was farmed out for development only, and the other RO would not make a decision, but instead "gathered information" and sent it back to the AOJ for a decision. From my standpoint its ring around the rosie catch 22...and 7 years of delays which cost me my home.

I agree with Berta. I think it was Jim Strickland or Larry Scott who commented on presumption for IHD, suggesting this was huge. There is no doubt in my mind that the VA will figure out some method to limit presumption for IHD, or figure out how to deny them all entirely...or at least tie the whole thing up in court for 10 years or more. Those people who have IHD often are pretty sick so not very many of them will still be around to collect their benefits 10 years down the road. And, of course, we know that their family wont get a dime either. They have been playing the same game with Blue Water Navy and lots of other things. Basically, they limit it to the very healthiest people, because the others all die while waiting on the VA to process the benefit application, since the Va has no trouble at all delaying a claim 10 years. Then, if you survive the 10 years, the Va denies you on the basis that if you were that sick, you would have already died. Its a political manipulation so that some politician can boast.."I got blue water Navy benefits for Veterans..there..now I want Veterans to vote for me."....when in reality most/all of those claims are tied up in court, and few if any will live to see the money. I see the same thing happening with IHD.

The numbers quoted in the article are average per Veteran in each state. They are a reflection of the VA benefit awards in each respective state. A 100% disabled Veteran gets the same disability compensation in any of the 50 states. However, when some places have a very low average this means that some states are "lowballing the compensation", that is, if a rater rated a Veteran at 70% in New Mexico, he would probably be rated at 30% in Ohio. The disability ratings percentages are a judgement call by the rating specialist...it just so happens that some states rating specialists are more generous with their rating evaluations than are other states. As far as New Mexico having a smaller population than Ohio, of course that is true. One of the errors of logic is to base an assumption on too small of a sample size. The classic example of this is : I have 3 rocks..all of them are round, therefore all rocks in the world are round. The percentage of rocks in the shape of a knife is probably higher in New Mexico than in Ohio, because much of New Mexico was used as an Indian reservation, not because New Mexico has more land area than Ohio. However, using a sample size as large as a STATE's Veterans should not produce this abnormality without some type of reason. Of course, the reason here is that Veterans send their disability claims to their respective Regional Offices. And these RO's are staffed by people who make judgement calls about Veterans disabilities. At each RO there is a "culture"...basically an opinion about Veterans. Everyone has an opinion about Veterans, so that cant be helped. I have personally heard, at a VA hospital, a guy who was the lab manager say, "That agent orange stuff is a bunch of crap, and Veterans trying to stiff the government out of money" I heard another guy, on a different web board say that unless a Veteran has a missing leg, or some disability you can actually see, he deserves zero compensation. He pretty much said that all PTSD Vets are frauds. He angered a lot of Veterans, big time, and was banned, but still there is no doubt there are people who are rating specialists that really dont beleive there is such a thing as PTSD and pretty much deny all of those claims. There is also lots of politics going on at the VA. It is a political organazation, with its head (the Secretary) appointed by the president and confirmed by congress. It isnt a thing where the best rater works his way up to the position of Secretary of the VA, like it would be if the VA were a private company. I am going to add here that I am definately opposed to that guy who says all PTSD Vets are frauds, or anyone with Agent Orange is trying to ripoff the government. Agent Orange and PTSD are very, very real. We saw that a couple months ago with that Psychiatrist, who didnt want to go back to Iraq/Afghanastan, who went and shot something like 12 people. I think that guys PTSD was very very real..if you dont think so, ask the famalies of his victims.

Yes, thank you James Breckenridge. The last thing we want you to do is to loose your job. Instead, we want you to train other VA employees to respect Veterans like you do.

This year, instead of a pay raise, the VA is giving Veterans the warm fuzzy feeling that VA executives and government contractors got the pay raise intended for Veterans instead. Veterans and social security recipients will need a warm fuzzy feeling since that will be the only heat bill they can afford this year. The average disabled Veteran, in Ohio, gets a whopping $674 per month to try to pay his bills $(8090 per year) . Altho this article was dated last year, since there was no raise, the average disabled Veteran will need to try to survive again on $674 per month this year, even tho they probably could not survive on that last year either. Source: Cleveland Plains Dealer article below: Injured Ohio veterans get 2nd-lowest disability payments in nation By Christine Jindra April 11, 2008, 6:34PM Tracy Boulian/The Plain Dealer A direct hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Vietnam resulted in a 100 percent disability rating for Hank Vasil, 60, of Brook Park. But he's aware that other Ohio vets face the vagaries of a Department of Veterans Affairs system in which disability payments, based on ratings, vary between states. Ohio is near the bottom in average annual disability compensation. If you're among the more than 85,000 Ohio veterans receiving disability payments, you might be tempted to heed the advice once given to America s 19th-century fortune seekers. "Go west, young man . . . " Say, to New Mexico, where 27,010 veterans get an average annual disability benefit that is $4,801 higher than the $8,090 Ohio gives to its vets. Or to Oklahoma, where disabled vets receive $4,185 more than Ohio's in average yearly payments. Or west. as in West Virginia, where the compensation is $3,857 higher. According to the latest annual report issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefit Administration, Ohio ranked second-to-last in the nation in disability compensation in 2006. The state average annual disability benefit was only $112 higher than Indiana's, here 47,693 vets receive payments. It's a step up from 2005, when Ohio was dead last. The longstanding issue of disparity in average annual disability payments between states heated up last year in hearings before the U.S. House Committee on Veterans Affairs. Last week, Rep. Zack Space of Ohio, a member of the committee, introduced the Veterans Disability Fairness Act, which calls for increased scrutiny of the VA's compensation program. "The veterans living in Ohio sacrificed as much as veterans living elsewhere," Space, a Democrat from Dover, said at the time. "There is no reason that a veteran here should receive less than veterans in other states." Monthly tax-free disability payments are awarded to veterans for injuries they receive or diseases incurred while on active military duty. Compensation is based on the severity of a disability, which is assigned a rating depending on a veteran's earning capacity. That rating is set in 10 percent increments, up to 100 percent for total disability. Still, payment disparities exist between states. One factor cited by government reports is the difference in the way some VA workers evaluate disability claims. For example, a veteran with a post-traumatic stress disorder claim can be evaluated as being a little disabled in one state and a lot disabled in another. Such a subjective process could result in a different disability-percentage rating and thus different benefit payments for veterans. Government reports also note that disability benefits can vary according to a veteran s period in the military and branch of service and the degree of training for claims officers, as well as the percentage of veterans applying for and receiving compensation. Also, those retiring from military careers tend to get higher payments, as do enlisted versus officer veterans. "There should be a standard rate for all veterans across the U.S.," said Frank Anderson, 54, of East Cleveland, adding that he has a 100 percent disability from an automobile accident that occurred during his service in the Army. Disabled veteran Hank Vasil said the lack of an effective method of transferring medical records from the military to the VA makes it harder to file disability claims and therefore can result in a disparity in payments. Vasil, 60, who said he has worked as a veterans service representative for the state of Ohio, believes some vets don't get the benefits they should because they don't know how or choose not to apply. "Veterans are ill-educated as to what their rights are," said Vasil. "Other times a lot of it has to do with a person's pride. He may feel he doesn't warrant it [a disability award], that somebody more severe should have it." Space's bill would require the VA to collect and monitor regional data on disability ratings, review and audit the system used to rate disabilities and periodically evaluate the performance of individual raters. "It's simply a matter of equity and fairness . . . standing up for what's right for those who stood up for our country," he said. "It's kind of hard to contest that." "Gov. Ted Strickland is well aware that Ohio has historically been behind other states in the collection of veterans benefits, and that's why he has proposed establishing a Cabinet-level department of veterans affairs," said Keith Dailey, a spokesman for the governor. He added that this department -- currently under consideration by the state legislature -- would work closely with county and local veterans service organizations to better provide our veterans and families with the tools they need to obtain the benefits that they have earned and which they deserve. Additionally, the VA says it has taken steps to address the disparity of benefits between states, according to agency spokesman Steven Westerfeld. Those steps include implementing national standardized training for rating specialists, standardizing the medical evaluation of disability claims, increasing oversight and review of rating decisions, and designing a procedure for routine monitoring of claims data to check for consistency. The VA also is exploring ways to consolidate parts of the rating process into one location and developing a skills-certification process for the specialists who determine disability ratings, Westerfeld said. But Army veteran Larry Scott, who runs the Web site vawatchdog.org, said there may be practical limits to what the VA can do. Scott said the VA lacks a common training program and supervisor structure for claims officers. "In theory, there should be one huge office handling all claims for all vets. That's physically impossible. It'll never be done," he said. "So what you have is kind of like McDonald's technically, all the restaurants have the same recipe, but you'll still get disparities in various parts of the country." Vietnam vet Richard Healy, 61, of Lakewood, fears that legislative attempts to address the disparity issue would result in a one-size-fits-all rating system and remove interpretation of a disability based on an individual's medical or psychological condition and needs. Healy said he has helped veterans file claims for the past 31 years on behalf of Disabled American Veterans and that energy should be put into making the current system work better and faster. "Every one of us is different," he said. "If a doctor, for instance, says a veteran is minimally disabled for [post-traumatic stress disorder], what does 'minimally' mean?"

Thats right. We cant call them Co** anymore, we will have to use "Diet Dr. Pepper" instead of Col*. Anyway, Veterans do not get "Diet Dr. Peppers" or any other type of soda that indicate a raise in pay, because the people that figure out Diet Dr. Pepper raises use a CPI-W formula that they have manipulated which has resulted in raises for VA executives, raises for the military, increases in medicare/medicaid copayments, raises in the Va budget, and raises for wall street executives, but nothing for Veterans.

You can bet the VA does not want Veterans to have access to things like "fast letters". Its no wonder they either took it off the website, or made it much harder to find. The VA is upset with some informed Veterans, in particular, those that read hadit, Vawatchdog.org or VBN, because these Vets are not only demanding their rights, but many are helping other Veterans be informed of their rights. The VA's goal is to keep Veterans uninformed so that fewer Veterans will apply for benefits, and more will think that once the VA says something its final, and there is no appeal. Yea, sure the Va puts a notice in with the Veterans decision, but it is written by lawyers, for lawyers deliberately so that the average Veteran has no clue what it means.

It is built right into the VA system to "burn" Veterans. For information on how the VA puts Veterans on the "hamster wheel" (on purpose) go to: http://www.yourvabenefits.org/sessearch.ph...wheel&op=ph to find just a few examples of how the VA "burns" its Veterans. The Va reminds me of a broke bill payer who tries everything in the book to get out of paying his bills.

Yes, and I will add that the VA will burn Veterans who cant afford Copayments on prescriptions by deducting it from their tax refund check also.

We didnt call it "hazing" back then. What ever you called it, I was thrown by 4 men into a huge box, and fell about 10 feet as a result and fractured my leg. They put a cast on it, and now I have arthritis in that knee.

Veterans for common sense has the article. The VA keeps promising to get the payments out, and keeps failing to deliver its promises. I hope some of the Student Veterans get mad because they are being treated like Vietnam Veterans...their claim goes to the bottom of the pile. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/inde...543-kim-hefling

I got a call from the VA also, altho not about an award, about an IRIS email I sent complaining about document shredding. I know the Va is changing, and communicating with Veterans would be a positive change. Half the time the Veteran does not know what the Va is doing. The other half of the time the VA does not know what the VA is doing.

They ask me the same thing. I worked at the Va as a student back in the 1980's, and they still have me on their "black list". I wonder how much of the stuff that went wrong with my claim was attributed to me being on the "black list" and how much of it was just plain VA incompetence.

The issue here is not what I think, or what your neighbor thinks, or what Lassie thinks. If your doctor says in your medical report, something close to, "Veteran's weight gain, and thus OSA, are at least as likely as not caused by steroids taken for SC foot issue in the military" you should be in, even tho the RO may not like it. I recommend "backing up" what the doc said with evidence from the steroid drug makers website which says that a side effect of this medication is weight gain. JMHO. Yes, I will agree that it would be easier to ask the doc to give you the keys for his Mercedes for a demolition derby, but an IME should suffice.

I think the criteria for (waiver) of copayments are: 1. If you are more than 50% SC, then I think copayments are waived. 2. If your income is below a certain range, then copayments can be waived, but you have to ask for the waiver. He needs to go to the "means test" to qualify by income level. Dependents play into this income level

JHawks Of course, I do not know what, if any medication(s) you are on for your SC foot issues, however, some of them may have a side effect of weight gain. If this is the case, then your obesity could well be secondary to the medications you are taking. JMHO.

Wow, James...I never knew that. Thanks. I guess if I dont agree with the RO decision, I can appeal it (again?!). There would not seem to be a downside to this from my point of view with the exception if it goes to the BVA anyway, it would be better if it went sooner rather than later. I am guessing this means that I have one more chance for a favorable decision on the RO level. As the late Alex Humphrey once put it, this gives me one more person to "argue" my case to, and that person can award my benefits, in this case an EED. Alex said you dont want to turn down a chance to argue your case before someone who can approve it..who knows, they may just do just that.

Im kind of at a loss here. I got a DRO decision in March, 09, which awarded full benefits and I appealed based on an Earlier Effective date. I got a letter in Nov saying they are working on my "claim" for an EED? This is puzzling. I have received a SOC, and filed an I9, but they seem to be continuing my claim at the RO level. I really think they are "afraid" of the BVA for me..since I was already at the BVA in 2004 and was awarded a "complete grant of benefit sought". I contend that BVA award grants me benefits that I sought in 2002..but that the RO simply ignored. I think the RO is trying desperately to keep this out of the BVA. Has anyone had a DRO decision, then appeal it, only to get another DRO decision (or even a regular RO decision)?

I remember the my first military Christmas...2000 miles from home. I had Christmas at the chow hall, and they let us have chocolate milk...all we could drink. My son is in Iraq, and he loves Kipper Snacks (a canned fish similar to sardines) . I sent him about 6 cans. The other guys in his squad complain that they stink up the place, when he eats them. One of the guys also likes em, so they go outside and stink up Iraq by eating Kipper snacks.

Larry I like your idea. "I am seeking the maximum benefit allowable by law" should be in the fine print on the application form, and, tho its not, I read where the law says that anyway, but cant find a reference to it.

If the nexus letter says "possibly related to military service" you are going to be denied until/unless you can get a doc say something more like, "at least as likely as not related to military service"

Its gonna be difficult to answer this. You said you "was told......." but did not specify WHO told you this. Was it the 8 year old kid next door, or Eric Shinseki, or your RO, or someone else that told you this as these vary in their credibility, with the 8 year old next door being the most credible. (8 year olds get spankings for lying, but g workers just get promoted). The bottom line is you are probably just going to have to wait...but, if you like you can check your account balance if you have auto deposit to see if it goes up, as sometimes that goes up before you even get the letter.

Based on Delta's and Carlie's posts, I am guessing that "a continuously Prosecuted claim" differs from one that is "NOT" continuously prosecuted primarily with a potential Effective date of claim. That is, I am guessing that if a Veteran does not give up on his claim, and he keeps on filing NOD's to his denials, then it would be "continuously prosecuted". I guess I am not sure I like the word "prosecuted"...that sounds like the Veteran violated the law, and so the Va decided to prosecute him. At any rate, it sounds like Veterans want to keep their claim "continuously prosecuted" in order to try to win a particular effective date. That is, the Veteran needs to make sure he doesn't miss any deadlines... or else the VA is going to try to shaft him on his effective date. Gee..maybe Vets need to reword their claim to something like this: "I would like to apply for Veterans benefits for the condition of PTSD, effective December 23, 2009, and continiously prosecuted until I am awarded my just benefits, along with applicable retroactive payments, plus dependents compensation for dependents...........plus applicable SMC compensation, and applicable TDIU. Please also accept this as my notice of disagreement to any decision which does not award the above beneifts."

Delta...first THANK YOU! (I feel like I am just about to hit on what I need to win my appeal for EED) Then I am curious as to the application of exactly what this means: "(q) New and material evidence (§3.156)—(1) Other than service department records—(i) Received within appeal period or prior to appellate decision. The effective date will be as though the former decision had not been rendered. See §§20.1103, 20.1104 and 20.1304(:)(1) of this chapter. " Ok. Does "prior to appealate decision" mean prior to a BVA decision, or prior to a DRO decision? I would like to know how it worked out for you. I was always "afraid" of using "new and material evidence" because I was afraid it would "blow" my effective date out of the water..but maybe not?