JRW

You are correct in that once the Final regulation is published into the Federal Register, it would become effective on that date of publication. This is straight from the general counsel of the VA itself. But since the rule is one that is considered economically significant, actual payout cannot begin until completion of the 60 day review under the Congressional Review Act. Although processing of claims can commence during these 60 days, no monies will be paid out until Congress completes its review. That is the law. Webb's amendment was really a waste of time on his part. His admendment has no bearing, whatsoever, on the process. As I stated earlier, I am more concerned now, about what the effective date will be for new claims and what part Nehmer will play. To me, those are the most important questions, yet to be answered. And, yes, Congress can amend the overall Agent Orange law to restrict or remove enforcement of the Nehmer clause. The Nehmer clause was the result of a judicial determination. It was never a part of the original Agent Orange legislation that became law. Congress can overide that judicial determination by removing Nehmer if is so chooses, through legislation. Success depends if they could get enough votes in both houses and for the President to sign off on it. However, this would have to be done separately from the Congressional Review Act. Which means, that at the end of the 60 days, if Congress has not vetoed the regulation, it still goes into full effect while they are working on a separate piece of legislation to end the Nehmer clause.

SgtAFMOB, These proposed presumptives are going to be very expensive, when compared to the previous ones. I'm certanily in favor of them, but I think we are going to have to accept the fact that there's still a short distance to go. I am not the least bit impressed with the PVA court-ordered hearing for July 19th. The VA will appear but I don't think the judicial system will be able to move this thing any faster. I get the impresson that the PVA, NVLSP, and maybe others may want the VA to issue an Interim regulation. But I'm not sure that an Interim regulation, in and of itself, will activate the Congressional Review Act (CRA). I know of no instance where the CRA has activated the 60 day review process for any Interim regulation, as far as that is concerned. The CRA is only activated when a Final regulation is entered into the Federal Register. And with the new presumptives being a significant major rule from a monetary standpoint, they must go through the CRA review process. My personal opinion about these lawsuits is that, at times, they can be more of a hinderance than being something of good. The history of all of the prior presumptives being added have ranged from 6 months from announcement date, to 21 months Federal Register date. There is precedence, here, for the court ordered time frames not being followed, as long as a good reason is given. If you look at the complexity in the published preliminary regulations on the new presumptives, I would conclude there is valid reason for now following the court ordered time frames. I don't think the new ones will go 21 months, however. I am estimating mid to late fall of this year. Also, to be perfectly honest here, I'm far more concerned with what type of effective pay date for new claims and what part Nehmer will be allowed to play in the new presumptives. Don't be surprised if, somehow, the Nehmer clause were to be amended by Congress to avoid such massive payouts that are sure to come from the new presumptives. In summary, I know this sounds like a cracked record, but we've got to continue to be patient here. These presumptives will get here, in my opinion, but only through the bureaucratic system that we have. Threats of lawsuits and or federal court hearings to speed the process up, are a waste of time. Don't be deceived by them. We just all need to stay focused on the ultimate prize - implementation of the new presumptives. Just my two cents worth.

No, that is not correct. Once the Secretary signs the final rule, it is then published in the Federal Register. On the date it is published in the Federal Register after the Secretary signs off on it, it then becomes a major rule. A major rule is one that would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or have certain other impacts. This rulemaking has been determined to be a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and must be reviewed by Congress for a 60-day period. Senator Webb's requested review is, in fact, the Congressional Review Act being invoked. The question here, is whether the CRA can be invoked quicker than Webb's review hearing, so as to eat up more time on the 60 day clock. There can be only one 60 day review. The fact that Senator Webb has announced a hearing on this proposed new rule is totally meaningless. The congressional 60-day review period would still have had to be invoked. History has shown the Congressional Review Act to be more symbolic than anything else. It has been in existence for 13 years and has been invoked twice. One time was a success and one time was a failure. The time that it was a success was when a new President came into office. The CRA is more suited to presidential adminstrations just coming into office, than one that has already been in place for a year or more. So, to make a long story short, we should hope the new rule becomes final and published in the Federal Register so as to start the Congressional Review Act (CRA) as quickly as possible, so as to get it over with. If, by some miracle, the 60 day CRA clock could be started and ended before the Senator's hearing, then his hearing would be a total waste of time. But, in any case, I really would not worry that much about the Senator's hearing or the CRA. History is on the side of the administration here, and not Congress.

Upon final completion of the review by the OMB, the regulation will then be sent back to the VA for the Secretary's signature. Once it is signed, it will be posted in the Federal Register. With this being a regulation of significant economic value, the Congressional Review Act is then activated whereby it is subject to review by Congress for a 60 day period. If Congress does not object to the new regulation, then at the end of the 60 days, it becomes effective. Assuming no objections from Congress, I estimate sometime in mid to late fall. It is highly doubtful that Congress will veto the regulation, despite some of the political chatter coming from a certain senator from Virginia. Hope this helps you.

The VA has forwarded the presumptives regulation (RIN: 2900-AN54) for final review, in to the OMB. It is showing on the OMB webpage as being received in on 7-8-10. Below is the link. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/EO/eoDashboard.jsp Hope this helps.

No. Your Parkison's Disease being deferred has nothing to do with the Seantor in Virginia. The new presumptives have to complete all of the administrative requirements before becoming law. The proposed presumptives are now at the OMB (Office of Management And Budget) for a final review. Upon final release from the OMB, the presumptives must undergo a mandatory 60 day review period by Congress.This is a requirement of administrative law. It has nothing to do with the Senator from Virginia or even his admendment to delay. If Congress does not decide to change anything or reject the findings, the presumptives then become law at the end of the 60 day review period. The Senator from Virginia, at this point, cannot stop it. Expected implementation could be anywhere from mid fall to the end of the year. There is a slim possibility that it could be even earlier. Once the new presumptives become law, then those with one of the new presumptives will be moved from deferred status to actual rating, compensation, etc. In the past, Congress has never rejected a VA presumptive. Don't expect it to happen here either, despite what the Senator from Virginia may or may not want to do.

I can understand the military doctor recording his comments into the medical file. However, I also have to think that his military duty could very easily have aggravated such pre-existing condition. Possible aggravation of a pre-existing condition, while on active duty, is a whole new ballgame, in my opinion. I don't think your friend should roll over on this one.

Webb's request for review was wrapped into an amendment (No. 4222) to the supplemental spending bill (H.R. 4899) in the Senate on 5-27-10. The bill has now been sent back to the House for reconciliation. Passage is expected. It is possible that the final bill might be completed and the the President could sign the overall bill with amendment 4222 in it, sometime late June or early July. I am thinking that with the President's signature, the 60-day clock will then begin (I wish the clock would begin sooner). If that turns out to be the case and the bill is signed before July 23rd, then the congressional hearing, scheduled for September 23rd, will have no impact on the Executive branch (the VA) implementing the three new presumptives. There seems to be some thinking that the 60-day period will expire by that time. Even if it did not, I don't believe the hearing will have an impact on the implemenation of the three new presumptives. There just doesn't appear to be enough time in the congressional calendar, with elections coming up, to pass new legislation in both the House and the Senate to overturn the Executive branch's decision on the new presumptives for the veterans. Now, I might be wrong, but I just think the new presumptives will still go through. If anything the congressional hearing, scheduled for September, might put a damper on future illnesses being accepted into the Agent Orange program. That is something we'll just have to wait and see.

Senator Webb is really acting under the auspices of the Congressional Review Act. This act, states that a new annual expenditure that is $100 million or more must be reviewed by Congress during a one-time 60-day period. During this 60-day period, Congress can determine if it wants to accept this newly projected expenditure from the Executive branch of government (in this case, the VA) or not. If Congress chooses not to accept the new expenditure, it must pass new legislation in both the Senate and the House to override the Executive branch of government. I don't think Webb is comfortable with the rationale the VA is using to want to include IHD as presumptive to Agent Orange. The hearing in September is to get a greater understanding from the VA for their decision. With the date of the hearing, scheduled for September 23rd, it is most likely that the 60-day review period under the Congressional Review Act will have expired by that time. If that is the case at that time, the congressional hearing will have no impact upon the VA decision. You cannot invoke a second 60-day review period under the Congressional Review Act for the same issue. Secondly, in the past, family history and or lifestyle has not been taken into account upon a veteran being diagnosed, with any previous presumptive illness connected to Agent Orange. It does not play a part in such presumptive illnesses.

As I understand the Congressional Review Act, during a 60-day period, Congress can evaluate the decision of the VA to add the three new presumptives to the Agent Orange list. If Congress does not agree with the VA, then legislation would have to be introduced and passed in both the Senate and the House to rescind the VA's decision. Has Congress ever rescinded a VA decision before? No. Is it possible that Congress might do so this time? I don't think so. The VA is continuing to move this proposed regulation through the appropriate regulatory channels for final review. It is currently at the Office Of Management And Budget (OMB). Below is the link to the OMB page that shows the status of the VA proposed regulation. http://www.reginfo.g...4&RIN=2900-AN54 I believe it can stay at the OMB for up to 90 days. I'm thinking that it may be sometime in mid to late fall before it is finally posted in the Federal Register, barring an unpleasant surprise from Congress.

I'm thinking around mid-fall this year. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say retroactive to the application date, rather than the ruling date.

Sometimes we overwhelm people with the process, and the initial step needs to be a simplistic step, to get them started. Your right, I agree with you, your way is the optimal way.... but I also know there is a simple way to start a claim, for those who are worried the claims process might be to difficult for them. ____________________________________________________________________________ I don't believe you should think of starting out with dealing with the VA with simplistic steps. It is, by definition, a vast bureaucratic organization. You cannot approach it with a simplistic view (I wish you could). To do so, is to do it at a peril of something getting lost. Even, with the best of paper trails, things still get lost. I think if you were to meet a veteran on the street and you want to help him or her to file a claim and you also sense that they do not know how to start the process, I think you should be prepared to personally assist them in the start of this quest by either getting them the necessary VSO, DAV, AL, VFW, etc. help or be prepared to assist them with the paperwork itself. This means you will be committing some of your time and effort to assist them in their effort. Are you ready for that? I think just giving them an 800# is too much of a risk in something falling through the crack. I think 800#s are good for a lot of things, but for something this important, I think not.

I agree with John999. On something as important as filing a claim, why would anyone want to trust doing such filing, via the 800#? If I had to choose between that of trusting an electronic trail and that of a paper trail, it is a no-brainer............paper trail everytime! Do it through your VSO or, do it yourself and you mail it out certified mail with signatures.

My C&P exam (in March) was fast and smooth. It wasn't something to get terribly nervous about. They did an ECHO and an EKG on me. The examiner asked the usual medical questions about my heart condition, listened to my heart, checked my blood pressure and, looked at the "zipper" and asked had I healed up properly from the heart surgery. He also had a copy of my private heart medical records. He confirmed my service in Vietnam. I did not do a METS stress test as it was medically contraindicated. I got a copy of the C&P results back last month. The VA confirmed my IHD diagnosis. Their EF rating from their ECHO test was slightly lower than my most recent private ECHO. I was impressed with that. Also, they rated my METS level at a low level as well. As a matter of fact, their write-up on the entire exam was very favorable. I really cannot complain, so far. I'm expecting a good rating, once the rules are published. I'm thinking the rules will be published sometime, ranging from the end of May to July of this year.

This is my take on the AO exam. I took mine in October of last year. The exam, itself, was not nothing to be concerned with. The VA doctor at the VA clinic first asked when I served in Vietnam. Then the doctor proceeded to ask various questions such as diabetes, skin lesions, etc. I told the doctor that the VA had announced that there were three new presumptives to be added to the AO list and that I had one of those, IHD. I gave the VA doctor a copy of private medical records showing such. The doctor said their staff were not aware of the three new additions. The doctor finished the very brief exam and told me I would be getting a report on the findings from the AO exam. A few weeks later in November, I received a letter from the VA clinic telling me that I had no illnesses associated with AO. In March of this year, I took my C&P exam for IHD. In April, the VA sent me a copy of the C&P results back, confirming my IHD diagnosis. From the C&P examiner's write-up from the exam, it looks like I will get a good rating, once the final rules are published into the Federal Register. This, after the initial AO exam said I had no illnesses associated with Agent Orange. So, if I were you, I would not put a lot into this so-called AO exam. Take it with a grain of salt. If you get a good report, fine. If you think or know they are missing something from your diagnosis, as long as you have good private medical records for a C&P exam, the C&P exam will always trump the AO registry exam.