Jake206th

Some more recent claims accuracy reports.
I like this old thread. Wasn't sure where to post this info.
 
https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-18-05663-189.pdf
 
https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-15-00399-410.pdf
 
 
I am not a lawyer, and nothing I have written is legal advice, it is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding, and therefore may be incorrect.

Jake Good posting by you. It just shows that training is lacking at most VSO organizations, and the ability (and desire) to spend time in researching correct responses to veterans issues is just about non-existent.  Like you said, use them for looking into your claims file and getting VA paperwork for you. But we have to realize that free isn't really "free" advise if it isn't any good. When something complicated like your situation comes up, I'd either get a lawyer or maybe a Veteran Claims Agent. Unfortunately, it's "you get what you pay for."

I had so much bad advice and info from DAV VSO's over the years, it was very hard to find someone that was both knowledgeable and competent. And they are getting much more difficult to contact now also.
At one point, I was looking into statutory TDIU, and how to meet the combined portion based on a secondary SC condition that I have which adds up correctly. So I talked to the DAV about it, and they looked at my file and said I don't have any secondary conditions. Which wasn't true, I have the VA decision letter, and it even shows secondary sc for a rated condition in VA.gov or Ebenifits (can't remember which right now).
But I held off on filing for TDIU because I didn't think I could financially survive on it and not work. But it worked out for the best in the end because the appeal that I filed for a different condition ended up getting me statutory 100% P&T.
I talked to the local DAV VSO about appealing the EED on that recent 100% appeal decision, and they didn't even look at it closely, and said I don't have the evidence to support an earlier effective date so they wouldn't help me. So then I contacted the DC appeals DAV VSO, and they tried to tell me the same thing, but after going back and forth with them about it, and they looked at the C&P exam evidence, they said sure enough, I have slam dunk medical record evidence in my VA C&P exam to prove an EED evaluation.
 But then without consulting me they filed a motion for reconsideration, which is a process that doesn't even exist anymore under the AMA. When I found out and asked them to cancel that motion, they filed a 20-0996 without telling me and then cancelled them both. I terminated the DAV immediately.
So then the HLR DRO from the ST Paul RO called the WA Appeals DAV VSO 5 days later after their POA, the Motion, and 0996 had already been cancelled, and proceeded to discuss that appeal with them despite the DAV telling them about the POA termination. The HLR DRO told the DAV that they were prepared to grant the EED based on the DAV arguments that they submitted in the Motion for reconsideration, but there was nothing to act on since everything had been terminated.
I would have just let the HLR ride had I known they filed one. Of course I told the DC DAV that, and they said I could reassign them as POA and a regular non appeals VSO would help with filing the HLR appeal.  So I said they had already told me they couldn't which was why I reached out to the DC Appeals DAV in the first place.
Oh well, I still have the option to file an 0996, and now I studied it and know how to word and present the evidence in the argument. I am just not sure if it's worth the risk of loosing my 100% P&T if they mess around with it, because it would put me into financial hardship. If I go to the Board, it could possibly end up right back at the RO on a remand if the Board doesn't order an EED.
Having the board order an EED would be ideal, cause that would protect that EED evaluation from the RO being able to mess with it as easily, and would get me the 10 year protection level, and half way to the 20.
Anyway, just a rant about the DAV. They were pretty good at looking into the VA system for a while when I could get in contact with them, and could find a competent VSO to talk to.
 
 
I am not a lawyer, and nothing I have written is legal advice, it is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding, and therefore may be incorrect.

That is great. I have been preparing and filing all of my own claims, appeals, and arguments also for 10 years now, but was using the DAV as my eyes to see into the VBMS system.
 
 
I am not a lawyer, and nothing I have written is legal advice, it is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding, and therefore may be incorrect.

I had so much bad advice and info from DAV VSO's over the years, it was very hard to find someone that was both knowledgeable and competent. And they are getting much more difficult to contact now also.
At one point, I was looking into statutory TDIU, and how to meet the combined portion based on a secondary SC condition that I have which adds up correctly. So I talked to the DAV about it, and they looked at my file and said I don't have any secondary conditions. Which wasn't true, I have the VA decision letter, and it even shows secondary sc for a rated condition in VA.gov or Ebenifits (can't remember which right now).
But I held off on filing for TDIU because I didn't think I could financially survive on it and not work. But it worked out for the best in the end because the appeal that I filed for a different condition ended up getting me statutory 100% P&T.
I talked to the local DAV VSO about appealing the EED on that recent 100% appeal decision, and they didn't even look at it closely, and said I don't have the evidence to support an earlier effective date so they wouldn't help me. So then I contacted the DC appeals DAV VSO, and they tried to tell me the same thing, but after going back and forth with them about it, and they looked at the C&P exam evidence, they said sure enough, I have slam dunk medical record evidence in my VA C&P exam to prove an EED evaluation.
 But then without consulting me they filed a motion for reconsideration, which is a process that doesn't even exist anymore under the AMA. When I found out and asked them to cancel that motion, they filed a 20-0996 without telling me and then cancelled them both. I terminated the DAV immediately.
So then the HLR DRO from the ST Paul RO called the WA Appeals DAV VSO 5 days later after their POA, the Motion, and 0996 had already been cancelled, and proceeded to discuss that appeal with them despite the DAV telling them about the POA termination. The HLR DRO told the DAV that they were prepared to grant the EED based on the DAV arguments that they submitted in the Motion for reconsideration, but there was nothing to act on since everything had been terminated.
I would have just let the HLR ride had I known they filed one. Of course I told the DC DAV that, and they said I could reassign them as POA and a regular non appeals VSO would help with filing the HLR appeal.  So I said they had already told me they couldn't which was why I reached out to the DC Appeals DAV in the first place.
Oh well, I still have the option to file an 0996, and now I studied it and know how to word and present the evidence in the argument. I am just not sure if it's worth the risk of loosing my 100% P&T if they mess around with it, because it would put me into financial hardship. If I go to the Board, it could possibly end up right back at the RO on a remand if the Board doesn't order an EED.
Having the board order an EED would be ideal, cause that would protect that EED evaluation from the RO being able to mess with it as easily, and would get me the 10 year protection level, and half way to the 20.
Anyway, just a rant about the DAV. They were pretty good at looking into the VA system for a while when I could get in contact with them, and could find a competent VSO to talk to.
 
 
I am not a lawyer, and nothing I have written is legal advice, it is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding, and therefore may be incorrect.

http://vetlawyers.co...nn+%26+Moore%29

"Bergmann & Moore Testify Before Congress: VA Disability Claim Error Rate Hits 26 percent in Oakland Regional Office

On April 24, 2012, in B&M News, Department of Veterans Affairs, Disabled Veterans, In the News, Politics, VA Disability Benefits, Veterans, Veterans Law, by VetLawyers


"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) made a stunning admission at last week’s Congressional hearing about VA’s backlog inventory of 1.1 million claims.
For the first time, VA revealed more than one-in-four disability compensation claims processed by VA’s beleaguered Oakland office are riddled with errors. Almost all of VA mistakes are against Veterans, forcing them to appeal.

Paul Sullivan, managing director of public affairs & veterans outreach here at Bergmann & Moore, testified before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Reporters from the Military Times, NextGov, and the Washington Post covered the hearing.

Sullivan told Congress that when VBA speeds up claim processing, VA makes mistakes. Then Veterans must appeal, often with the assistance of a private practitioner such as Bergmann & Moore.
Sullivan remains especially concerned about the impact of delays on veterans with psychological conditions. Being forced to wait months or years for healthcare and disability benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and military sexual trauma (MST) can often worsen a Veteran’s health.

VBA’s Director of Compensation Service Tom Murphy confirmed VBA leaders had met with Veterans advocates, including Sullivan, and were willing to grant attorneys and agents access to their clients’ computer and paper VA files.

Murphy also pledged to lawmakers that staff at Oakland’s VBA Regional Office would receive additional training in coming months to improve productivity and quality.
U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), a member of the Committee, admonished VA during his opening remarks: “VA should remember that ‘VA’ should stand for ‘Veteran Advocate’ and not ‘Veteran Adversary.’”

Wednesday’s hearing was titled, “From the Inside Out: A Look at Claims Representatives’ Role in the Disability Claims Process.” Bergmann & Moore testified on behalf of the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates.

The hearing was held as investigative journalist Aaron Glantz of the Bay Citizen reported on very serious problems our Veterans face at VBA’s Oakland Regional Office:

April 15: “Veterans’ Disability Claims Buried Under Paperwork: The average wait for a decision in the Bay Area is now 313 days.”

April 16: “VA Pledges to Overhaul Disability Claims System: Promise comes after The Bay Citizen reveals Bay Area veterans wait an average of 313 days.”

April 19: “Send Immediate Help’ to Oakland’s VA, Say Bay Area Reps: Letter to veterans secretary cites ‘extreme disappointment’ over decision not to overhaul troubled office”

@SPOAs with any veterans service organization, it really boils down to the individual and the situation.
I had a well-seasoned DAV rep at one point who was fantastic. I would do my own research and take my draft submission to them for review. However, they ended up retiring. Their replacement appeared to know less about the VA claims process than I did. I went to the VAMC in Montgomery and a different rep there said they would not help me unless I brought them a favorable medical opinion. I explained the a VAMC specialist had surprisingly wrote a positive medical opinion in my progress notes. They read it and said it needed to be on a separate letter, not in my records. I ended up winning that one without DAV's help.
I switched to a different organization before going to an in-person DRO hearing. The rep reviewed my submission and said that if all vets did their homework like I did, then they might be out of a job. 
It really is a mixed bag depending on the person, experience, and willingness to actually help.

In my own personal experience, I have been rated 100% scheduler P & T for well over a decade, I have had multiple claims on appeal and the VA has never brought up my evaluations. Even when the VA requested new C & P exams to determine my current level of disabilities, they never suggested to reduce my current ratings. Like this veteran, one claim on appeal the RO tried to reduce it but the BVA corrected them. I still currently have two separate appeals for EEDs pending. We all have to play their games if we want our benefits. Even you, though you don’t like it, is playing their games. It is what it is. This is how we win. Speculations on theories about a proposed regulation change is just a waste of time. As you stated, this proposal has not been past. My point was that the VA can’t (cannot) use a new rule/law to reduce a veteran’s rating, it would still fall under the old law even if the veteran file a new claim for increase. Some veterans do not understand that VA just can’t reduce their rating, the VA must show proof that the disability has improved, and the VA cannot use the new regulation to do it. Now if the VA determines that there was a CUE in granting the claim the VA can propose a reduction, but it still has to go through the right channels.
(D) The reviewer may grant a benefit sought in the claim notwithstanding § 3.105(b), but except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, may not revise the decision in a manner that is less advantageous to the claimant than the decision under review. A review decision made under this section will include a summary of the evidence, a citation to pertinent laws, a discussion of how those laws affect the decision, and a summary of the reasons for the decision.