SgtAFMOB

Heard same speech and the President specifically mentioned the three new presumptives and making it easier for Vietnam Vets to obtain their compensation. This FNG as previously referred to as dumb and a lecturer on this board has credentials that I would put up against anyone on this board academic, service to country after military, or otherwise. It would seem that factual comments that support those have a dog in this fight are dampened by people who have their ratings up to 100% already. I for one had my ducks in a row with regard to VA claims and have been served well. As with another forum on the net there are those who chose to elicite agressive behaviors and comments from people who are reasonable people, but have their limits, there is a name for that type of behaviour. Support of those who are eligible for these benifits is truely appreciated. The President said what he said, true we will see. But this dumb,FNG has an acronym for those who choose to take cheap shots BM.

As you are a moderator I am wondering what constructive, informative value did you comment have and the contridiction involving the number of people involved is factless. If you have stats to share please do. This is supposed to be Vets serving Vets. No meaningless supposition.

The President signed into law today HR. 4899 the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010 see http://www.militaryupdate.com. Additionally here is a quote from aTom Philpot article dated July 29 2010. Title: 60 Day Countdown Near for Paying New "AO" Claims. "A sixty day countdown to the day that the VA can start compensating up to 86,000 veterans retroactively for the disorders will be when the VA publishes it's final implementing regulation which could be next week." And yes the letter Stillhere got is popping up all over, it's a canned letter. If Webb had a part in it he needs to brush up on procedural issues or just some Aid drafted it who also needs to brush up, it is flawed in terms of the procedure cited. The Secretary was under no obligation to run anything by Congress see Law 102-4, Febuary 16, 1991, the Agent Orange Act. If someone thinks the Secretary didn't have sufficient evidence as furnished by the IOM then bring on your experts of which Webb is not one. Benedict Arnold was a warrior and a partriot before he became a traitor to the people he served with!!! Hope this encouaging and helpful.

What is your factual base for your December prediction?

HR 4899 passed the House on Tuesday the 27th with the Sen. Webb admendment and the funding for the three new AO presumptives intact. The War funding bill is supposed to be presented to the President for signature Tuesday the 2nd of August as the deadline for funding of the war expires on the 7th. In another forum I found the text of an interview in June with Tom Philpot interviewing Webb on the topic of the new presumptives http://www.moaa.org. The interview is something I had not read and illustrates Webbs position. It is worth it to read the article and the comments, and to draw your own conclusions. Webb comes across as if their was no Institute of Medicine evidence to support the presumptives. He also questions the boots on the ground justification for presumption for everyone who set foot in Vietnam. This will be his tact at the September 23rd Hearing before the Committee. Again not to get hopes up because it is understood this means alot to eligible Vets; there was a post by a person that has been on target regarding the process. The post indicated that the VA had a meeting scheduled with OMB next week and the rule would be going back to the VA shortly thereafter. I hope this is accurate, but at least we know the process is moving along. Hope this is helpful. Of note that the debate over the bill was on CSpan and Rep. Chet Edward, 17th Congressional District, Texas spoke up on behalf of the Agent Orange issue, hats off to him!!!

Donna; Thanks for the udate on information you received from Senator Boren's office. From what has been stated on this website and other Forums and citations of process it would appear that the Aid is wrong about payment of claims during the Congressional Review Act period. Sen. Webb's Admendment invokes the CRA, but so does regulation/law involving and expenditure over $100,000 million. There are many many people monitoring OMB for Final Rule Status, publication of that Rule in the Federal Register, the Court for any possible influence, veterans websites for comments/facts/ideas on political slants, etc. The consensus of most is that we can look to sometime in December before payment could become a reality!! New developments can be dealt with by writing our duly elected legislators with hopefully positive impact. You are lucky you are getting updates from yours because most of us are being shined on or recieving some irrelavant canned letter. I read a suggestion from a Veterans Advocate Sage about the process and how to cope with it. He said file your claim to the best of your ability. Once it has been filed feel that you have done the best that you could have done, and let it run it's course. Get a copy of War and Peace, read it twice. Buy a large salt water aquarium, stock it with expensive fish, watch them gradually die off. Replace them and start the process all over. Your case will be adjudicated when it is adjudicated, not a day before!!! We just have to wait without letting it consume us. My cent and a half contribution!!! Regards

Thanks for your summary JRW as you did on the other forum, both are the most logical presentations on the subject matter. I found the rule at OMB before the proposed rule was published and it had been there since December, now we have it at OMB again. I could not find a double review in the process and wondered why court ordered time frames were not being adhered to then. The NVLSP proposed suit moved the rule to the proposed rule stage. Any thoughts?

Jim: Exactly why I swithched to my previous cardiologist even though I had a longer commute. The one I was using was of Hungarian descent and I got much the same rationale you did, his first words were X number of people have IHD/CAD and he had no concept of Agent Orange exposure. It would have been futile to persue the issue. Best wishes on your claim sounds like your record is pretty solid without a specific letter, just make sure the RO has the neccessary documentation.

Jim: I filed for IHD July 2009, along with PTSD was granted PTSD April 16, 2010 effective back to Aug 1, 2009. My IHD C&P was in February 2010. I had changed to my previous cardiologist that same month and asked for a letter that specifically contained the word ischemic. His statement began I am reintroducing myself to Mr. ---- for cardiology evaluation and management of his chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy. I have known Mr. ---- for quite sometime and he has a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy status post coronary artery bypass grafting in 1994, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, etc. etc. (the graft to the damaged heart muscle is completely occluded as of two months after the bypass) Farther down he again states "He is a Vietnam veteran with a history of exposure to Agent Orange, and at this point clinically he does carry a history of ischemic cardiomyopathy, which is one of the disabilities listed for Agent Orange exposure in combat soldiers. I made sure I included the copy of the most recent (within six months) Thallium Stress Test which showed a left ventricular ejection fraction of 39%. Since the bypass surgery it has never been above 45% and should according to the rating guidlines be compensable at 60%. I JUST DIDN'T TAKE ANY CHANCES, BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY, HOPE THIS HELPS.

Jim: I have the same horse in the race and have a history of CAD/IHD, MI, Bypass surgery in 1994. I sent my medical information to the RO and provided a copy of my most recent Thallium Stress Test, past stress tests and private cardiologists letter indicating IHD. I also provided the same at my C&P in February. Sometimes there is a disconnect between the RO and the VAMC. I had an appointment last month for another purpose and the Counselor indicated that IHD was reflected on my record. I have the standard deferred till the rule is posted letter. All I can suggest is that you furnish the RO with the info you did at your C&P, many things go to who knows where.

Not certain what this means, however, I do know this is a second go round for the AO presumptives at OMB. I found the rule there in December of 2009. I am not certain but I believe the suit was filed because the VA was in violation of existing law and the time frames involved. The comment in the VA Watchdog article as quoted from a court observer is that the court had, had it with the VA and thus the unheard of short fuse imposed to publish the final rule in the Federal Register or an interium regulation, or explain why not. Will have to see how this washes out, but it would seem to me if the rule were published on the 19th, then the 60 days for the Congressional Review Act would begin from that date. This is speculation on my part and not to get peoples hopes up. Another poster on the Veterans Benifits Network had something similar formulated prior to this court order. Posting would prempt Webbs attempt to delay.

The twitter site for www.vawatchdog.org announced an hour ago that The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order July the 15th that requires the VA Secretary to publish the new rule or an interium rule by noon Monday the 19th. The alternative is to appear and explain why not. This suit was brought by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the NVLSP, and three other advocacy organizations. Suggest interested parties read the full account at Vawatchdog. Let the fur fly!!!!

For What It's Worth: The best explaination I have found is a post on www.VeteransBenifitsNetwork Agent Orange section, Topic "September Agent Orange Hearing Set, page 3, Post #43 by Omega. This post preceeded the House passage of the bill. however, deals with the process and possibilities involved. There are other similar topics with conjecture and situational stories regarding need. I followed this regulation also and in December 2009 it was sitting in OMB, prior to the Proposed Rule being published in March 2010. The NVLSP suggested lawsuit seemed to move it out of OMB. Seems to me this is a second go round at OMB. Hope Omega's explaination of the process will be helpful.

Donna: Dittio on the thanks for your post!!! I had to deal with Senator Boren's office several times in my past Department of Justice life answering Congressional Inquiery Letter's. The dealings were always fair and responsible, even a thank you letter in response to one of my investigative reports. You went that extra mile after your initial request. I have gone the extra mile with Senators Mc Cain and Kyl and Representative A. Kirkpatrick in AZ, no response yet. I went to a Veterans Forum about six months ago sponsored by the Arizona Department of Veterans Affairs. The new Director spoke and in his second sentence stated that Arizona was last in the list of States in terms of Veterans Benifits and he came from Lousiana. Rep. Kirkpatrick was there also and after Col. Kirkland's remark she could not be found. Ditto the weasel comment from Pete. Mc Cain should hang his head in shame.