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

tk3000

First Class Petty Officer
  • Posts

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by tk3000

  1. Hello Folks, On occastion of my last visit to the Orthopedics clinic in the Ann Arbor (MI) VA facility I was subject to a very unpleasant and distressful experience during my appointment with the physician that I saw in such clinic. Such invididual whom I have never met before in any previous appointment at the very same clinic engaged in a concerted and systematic effort to degrade, degenerate and downgrade the severity, complexity, and variables pertaining my disability and condition. Moreover such physician even used sarcasm and irony against my person, and almost every single statement and comment expressed by such physician was in complete disagreement and in complete contradiction with what all others physicians that I have seen ever since had stated, commented, and expressed. Such individual demonstrated a strong bias against my person and my condition; it was by all means an abhorrent and obnoxious situation. I believe that there are provisions within the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) that would allow me to file lawsuit against the VA in such circumstances (internal administrative actions within the VA seem to be mostly inept). One has the fundamental basic right to dignity and respect, thus such disgusting, distressful, and disturbing situation should never be acceptable in any way, shape, or form. It is also very important for me to have any type of statement or comment entered in my Medical Records by such individual permanently removed from my Medical Records. Could anyone please advise about what should be the best approach for such issue. Thanks, tk3000
  2. The view of the Disability Compensation as Constitutional Right is a very positive development as far as doctrine goes, but what would be the tangible benefits of such change. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that "no person shall?be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This right was extended to the states by the 14th Amendment (1868). Fundamental to procedural due process are adequate notice before the government can deprive one of life, liberty, or property, and the opportunity to be heard and defend one's rights. In the past the VA out of blue for absolute no logical reason whatsoever decided to strip me out of my Disability benefits simply because I was unable to show on to an appointment that took place in a different town (hundreds of miles from where I live); so based on their logic given the fact that I was unable to show on to such an appointment a miracle have happened and all the chronic ailments and disabilities that affect my body were cured (in all my last C&P Exams the doctors pointed out on their report that there is no perspective of improvement of the condition, so I guess that is not going to happen anyway…, but one never knows…). Wouldn't it be at least rational for the VA to only be able to withdraw such benefits if there is clear and unmistakable recurrent medical evidence showing that not only has the primary conditions but also their collateral and secondary conditions have been magically (for lack of a better word) cured. When first enacted the so called "disability benefit" was not even considered a right, but more of a given. Would such supreme court decision change all of that? Another issue that I very often have confronted myself with is the idea of "due process" as far as the VA's decision making process is concerned: it is more often than note inconsistent, full of discrepancies, and last but not least disrespecting and disregarding the medical evidence, records, and statements of all parts involved. All in all it is plain outright against any basic principle of substantive or procedural due process. Wouldn't it be a basic and essential right in any civilized society that once one is confronted with such undue process and outright negligence, disrespect and disregarding for one's basic rights that one could simply sue the VA? (I heard that there is cap for how much VA will pay in case of medical malpractice and negligence, thus many attorneys simply are not interested in pursing cases against the VA; would that be case in a lawsuit against the VA in function of the violation of one's constitutional rights: due process is the case in point?) . Couldn't veterans victimized of such disfunctional system that more often than not disrespect, disregard and disconsider all the evidence on file on occasion of making the decision be able to sue the VA rather than going through the VA's own appellate process that takes more time to be complete than any equivalent appeal in the legal system of the most miserable and corrupted riddled country in the African Sub-Saharan region?
  3. Thanks for your kind words! Sorry about the delay in my response. I am not working with a VSO on this, I am pretty much on my own; in my experience VSOs do not go to any extent in preparing documents, etc, for vets beyond a very basic, simple, and crude paragraph indicating that the Vet does not agree for X and Y reasons. I got the dockets and other documents mentioning DeLuca; actually I have used DeLuca before in the appeal for my "Left Leg Condition" in which case I had to appeal since I had new post facto evidence thus the appeal would be only route (not a request of reconsideration in such case if there is even such thing). It is really an aberration that such a simple legal-administrative procedure such as the VA appeals (especially the so called De Novo Review) take such a long time. And if we consider the systemic failure of the VA as a rating agency to even perform its most basic and elementary duty of observing the material evidence on occasion of the rating decision…, all in all it really is a horrendous and insane situation.
  4. Thanks a lot for all the responses and insights. I will also be contacting my congressmen office trying to solve such issue (without going through a prolonged appeal process) and the IRIS web inquire system. I am going to be posting a new version of the document once I am done with the corrections and modifications.
  5. Such expression was never used. The rater clearly made a distinction of the two different conditions as separate and individual entities with their respective causes, symptoms, and effects.
  6. Yep, you are right, I got the idea. The document I that made available here is going to undergo some changes (specifically changes in its wording, eliminating any reference or allusion to CUEs). Thx!
  7. Thanks, Carlie, I will call them and inquire about the code tomorrow.
  8. Yeah, it is odd, but it is not the first time that they do not provide any diagnostic code (they did not provide any diagnostic code for my gerd condition either and back then their decision also was completely inconsistent with medical evidence and even with the C&P Exam. findings and diagnoses). Some time ago I did some research on the BVA website (not a very thorough research) and looked into some cases there. And the VA seems to have different ratings and criteria for the Foot and Ankle and different guidelines on how to rate each one of them. For instance, on occasion of my C&P I filled up two different form with different questions (one for the Ankle and another one for the Foot), and my C&P was divided in two sessions (one dedicated to the Foot and another one dedicated to the Ankle). I agree that the rating is way too low, but time is on VA's side (they can peruse it). The main point here is that they (raters) even ignored and disregarded VA's own C&P Examiner findings, diagnoses, and opinions. I will try to contact my congressman office to see if they can help in solving such issue given such an incoherent and disconnected decision.
  9. Carlie, Exactly what Larry pointed out. There are two different conditions, so the rater should have applied two different ratings for each one of them. The rater simply distorted the cause, symptoms and effects of the diagnoses and medical opinions, maybe the rater just skimmed through the C&P report and made his/her own assumptions disregarding the medical diagnoses and opinions. tk
  10. Larry, I wrote that paper before my exchange with the forum participants and the clarification about such aspect of the CUE (that simply does not apply to my case once it is still subject of appeals). Yep, I will lose the "cue" references" and insert "NODS" instead retaining the same rational. I will rewrite it soon and I will then will post a new version, but it is going to be almost the same basic rational and argument. thx!
  11. Berta, The point for what I could not file a CUE is clear for me now. But I still believe that in some circumstances there should be another route besides the appeal route, especially when the rater misinterpret and overlook the material evidence submitted. As is very common in the outcome of my claims there is no code or analogy for the decision that they made. The “Reason for Decision” itself does not make much of any sense considering the totality of evidence. I would expect 10% for the "Left Foot Condition" and 10% for the "Left Ankle Condition". I was working on my “Request of Reconsideration of the Decision” (I still intend to make some changes) and it supposedly explains everything, and it also has excerpt from my C&P exam and from the so called “Reason for Decision” embedded on it to help in the development of the argument. I removed the personal identification info and I am attaching a copy of it so that you can have a look (it is file in the PDF format). FOOT_ANKLE_CLAIM_RESPONSE_TO_POST_ON_FORUM.pdf
  12. Thanks, Larryj. It is clear now why I can not file a CUE. But I still believe that there should be another resource besides and beyond the appeal route since the appeal usually takes a long time (seems that the VA likes to play with time since people's time is disposable for the VA).
  13. Yeah, that's what I was considering... Should I send statements and documents attesting their error and request reconsideration based on such clear and unmistakable error?
  14. I have two appeals pending as of now (one for my "Left Leg Condition" and one for "My Heartburn/Gerd Condition"), for both of them I filed a NOD and requested to have a so called "de novo review" (by Decision Review Officer) since I would imagine that taking such path (Review Officer) rather than going directly to the Board of Appeals would be faster; but it has been over 7 months since I filed the first NOD and I am still waiting... The problem is that the appeal process, even when one request a "Decision Review Officer, takes a long time. If you consider that we have to wait on average 6 months simply to have just a claim processed and decided it would be reasonable to have such claim decide in a proper and adequate manner considering the material evidence pertaining, etc. Can Raters make such nonsense decisions and simply get along with it, jeopardizing other peoples life along the process? They should at least be held accountable such nonsense insane decisions that even contradict what the C&P Examiner has stated and diagnosed.
  15. carlie, Sorry about the delay in my response. But based on what I read, a CUE is a decision in what the rater was clearly wrong (not a judgmental error per si) in his/her assumptions on occasion of making the decision; such as in the case where the rater does not take into account the material evidence submitted (not the new evidence). That is a new claim, I filed it in Feb. of 2009, it was never appealed (I received the Decision via mail a few days ago) and the decision is even inconsistent with the findings of the C&P Examiner so it should be a clear error even from the VA point of view I would assume. tk
  16. Hello Folks, Afater a long time span I finally received the outcome of my claim that was filed in February 2009 for the "left foot condition" and "left ankle condition", both secondary to my left leg condition. For my dismay the two separate conditions for what I had two separate C&P exams and two separate diagnoses/prognosis given by the C&P examiner wherein the C&P examiner clearly stated that "left ankle => strain and pain" and the "left foot => strain and pain" the VA simply decided on its "Reasoning for the Decision" to turn both conditions into a single condition and distort its own C&P examiner conclusion stating the following: "left ankle sprain with left too pain" and then given me a rating of 10% for both conditions rather than rating each one individually. It seems that clearly that the rater overlooked the evidence and the C&P examiner findings. I am planing to request a review (an appeal would take too long) on the grounds that there is a clear and unmistakable error. Does that sound a good approach to such issue? To make things worse that 10% did not change my general rating (still 40%) given the VA's formula to calc. it. Thanks, tk3000
  17. <h4 class="align-center">Veterans Rehabilitation and Training Improvements Act of 2009</h4> March 3, 2009 Congressional Record Statement of Senator Daniel K. Akaka Mr. President, I am introducing today the proposed "Veterans Rehabilitation and Training Improvements Act of 2009." This measure would improve the program of rehabilitation and training for veterans who suffer from service-connected disabilities by offering an increase in the amount of subsistence allowances, reimbursing certain incidental costs, and repealing the limit on the number of individuals who may be enrolled in a program of Independent Living services. Under current law, veterans who are enrolled in a program of rehabilitation under Chapter 31 receive a monthly subsistence allowance. This, in addition to the payment of the costs of the program of rehabilitation, is intended to offer the veteran a means of paying for basic living expenses while pursuing their training or education. With the enactment of the new Post 9-11 GI Bill last year (P.L. 110-323) which adopted a tuition-and-fees plus a living allowance approach to the payment of benefits under the educational assistance program, I am concerned that there may be an inequity between the vocational rehabilitation and education programs and that individuals who would truly benefit from enrollment in a program of rehabilitation and employment under Chapter 31 will be tempted to enroll in the Chapter 33 education program in order to take advantage of the higher living allowance. Those who would make such an election might forgo valuable counseling, employment and placement, and other assistance from which they might benefit. To address this concern, the measure I am introducing today would modify the Chapter 31 program by offering a subsistence allowance to enrollees equal to the national average for the Department of Defense's Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) for members of the military at the E-5 level, adjusted for marital status. This is similar, although not identical to, the approach of the new chapter 33 program which adopted a regionalized BAH approach based on the address of the institution. This is intended to help ensure that individuals who could best benefit from enrollment in the Chapter 31 program are not faced with a disincentive to do so. With regard to the second issue, VA is permitted to pay certain costs associated with enrollment of an individual in a program of rehabilitation - for example, fees, equipment, and supplies. However, there are other costs that an individual might incur that are not covered by VA and these costs could represent a substantial barrier to the successful completion of a program. An example could be that of a single young mother with young children who - in order to attend classes - needs child care. Another example might be a veteran who lost both legs in service and needs a new suit in order to make the most favorable impression at the interview with a prospective employer. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would require VA to issue regulations providing for the reimbursement of incidental costs associated with obstacles that pose substantial barriers to successful completion of a program. I believe that this will substantially increase the ability of many individuals to finish their rehabilitation programs and be placed in rewarding jobs. I also believe we need to repeal the cap on the number of individuals who may be enrolled in a program of Independent Living services under the Chapter 31 program. Current law provides that individuals for whom a determination is made that a program of rehabilitation leading to employment is not reasonably feasible may be eligible for enrollment in a program of independent living services which is designed to help the individual achieve a maximum level of independence in daily life. However, the number of veterans who in any one year may enroll in these programs is capped at 2,600. Even though the VA has testified in the past that this enrollment cap does not present any problem for the effective conduct of the program, I remain concerned - despite the fact that last year Congress raised the cap from 2,500 to 2,600 in P.L. 110-389 - that the effect of the cap is to put downward pressure on VA's enrollment of eligible veterans in this very important program. This is of particular concern when so many of today's returning servicemembers suffer from disabilities that may require extensive periods of rehabilitation and assistance in achieving independence in their daily lives that can result from such conditions as traumatic brain injury or PTSD. Disabled veterans are transitioning from military service into an economy that is changing, challenging, and contracting at historic rates. My bill will give these veterans more of the help they need by increasing program flexibility and boosting the living stipend for disabled veterans undergoing rehabilitation. Mr. President, while there will be costs associated with this legislation, the veterans who are served by the chapter 31 rehabilitation and employment program are the highest priority for our Nation - individuals who have incurred service-connected disabilities in service to the country. This truly is one of the costs of war that must be borne. I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this legislation through the Congress. - END -
  18. Thanks a lot, poolguy! I am still investigating the possibilities, there are even some upcoming changes in the voc. rehab program (I posted about that in the Educational benefits sections of the forum) that may even provide full treatment (but maybe a claim may provide treatment for the lon term). I will contact you soon if I need it. tk
  19. Sandy, You could try to contact the fee basis department of the VA Health Care Center/System that handled your fee basis requests and payments. They should have records of the treatments. tk
  20. Thanks a lot Sharon, that suits my situation very well!
  21. Thanks, I will look into that. But at the same time I have dental benefits through chapter 31 (vocational and rehabt) which basically means that I can request from my voc. counselor a consult and see a dentist at the VA dental clinic. The problem is that they (dentists, dental clinic) have a guideline of only fixing cosmetic stuff (things that could in theory affect my self image in a negative way in a job interview for instance), so if it is a frontal tooth that is broken or missing they will fix it (put a new one if it is necessary); but if it is a tooth in the far back they may treat it and extract it but they will not fix or put a new one even if it is necessary. Ironically the one that I need fixed is the far back.
  22. While in service I broke small portion of a back tooth. When I left and took my dental exams and x-rays (which is routine when one leave the service), I was informed of a discrepancy of my dental x-rays and that the VA should decide if it would provide a one-time treatment or anything in order to fix it. As is the norm the VA never decides anything unless one fights for it. But when I mentioned such fact to my SO a long time ago he dismissed the whole issue and discouraged filing a claim for dental condition. I don't expect any monetary compensation but a one time treatment would be welcomed. I requested my dental x-rays from VA's archive center in St. Louis just in case. Would that be a good idea to file? Thanks tk3000
  23. I heard and read about several cases when the so called entitlement period of 48 have been extended to 56 months. I had read about 10% SC Veterans who used 56 months of entitlements. Since I am running out of entitlements it is certainly something that I could use myself in order to try to finish my coursework. Funny enough one of the main obstacle to finish the school through that program (chap 31) is the minimum and minute substandard living allowance, which now is going to have a substantial increase in order to keep some equity with the GI Bill allowance; difficult to understand why so many have to fail for the VA to realize that such a low allowance is one of main hindrances of the program. But coming back to the point, it would be beyond my understand that someone with a much more severe type of disability (currently I am rated 40% and have implants of rod, screws, pins, plats in my leg; with chronic pain, etc) could not obtain such an extension. Also I noted that my Voc. Rehab counselor is not even aware of the possibility of such an extension. It seems that many of the VA employees don't receive the proper jobs training. tk3000
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use