Jump to content
  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cavc'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Forums
    • VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Research Forum
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Exposed Vet/HadIt.com Podcast
    • Denial Letters
    • Appealing Your Veterans Compensation Disability Claims NOD, DRO, BVA, USCAVC
    • Veterans Compensation & Pension Exams
    • PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Claims
    • Success Stories
    • TDIU Unemployability Claims
    • E-Benefits Questions
    • Entitlement - Veterans Compensation Benefits Claims
    • Eligibility - Veterans Compensation Benefit Claims
    • SMC Special Monthly Compensation
    • CUE Clear and Unmistakable Error
    • Medication – Prescription Drugs-Health Issues
    • Agent Orange
    • TBI Traumatic Brain Injury
    • MST - Military Sexual Trauma
    • Social Security Disability Questions
    • Vocational Rehabilitation
    • VA Disability Claims Articles and VA News
    • Federal Register Announcements
    • Appeals Modernization Act AMA
    • RAMP Rapid Appeals Modernization Program
    • CHAMPVA
    • OEF/OIF Veterans
    • VA Caregiver Benefits for Post 9/11 Veterans or active duty On or Before May 7, 1975
    • IMO Independent Medical Opinion
    • Veterans Benefits State & Federal
    • VA Medical Centers Navigating through it
    • VA Training & Fast letters, Directives, Regulations, Other Guidance Documents
    • MEB/PEB Physical OR Medical Evaluation Forum
    • VA Regional Offices
  • VA Claims References
  • Specialized Claims
    • Burn Pits
    • Mefloquine / Lariam
    • Gulf War Illness
    • ALS - Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
    • Radiation Exposure from Operation Tomodachi (Japan Earthquake Fukushima Nuclear Assistant)
    • Project SHAD/Project 112
    • VA Pensions
    • DIC
    • FTCA Federal Tort Claims Action
    • 1151 Claims
  • Extras
    • Hiring an Attorney Discussions on S. 3421
    • Coronavirus - COVID-19
    • VA Scandals
    • Discounts for Veterans
    • Title 38 / 38 CFR
    • 38 CFR 3 Adjudication
    • 38 CFR 4 Schedule for Rating Disabilities
    • Active Duty MEB/PEB Physical OR Medical Evaluation Forum
  • Social Chat
  • Veterans Social Chat's Social
  • Veterans Social Chat's Topics

Categories

  • Articles
    • VA Claims
    • Orphan Articles

Product Groups

  • Subscriptions
  • Advertisement

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


GooglePlus


Military Rank


Location


Interests


Service Connected Disability


Branch of Service


Residence


Hobby

Found 17 results

  1. I was unfairly denied service connection at the BVA for multiple disabilities The CAVC overturned the Board decisions so back I go to the Board in hope of getting treated fairly A win is a win no matter how you slice it.
  2. My battle with the VA continues. Got some appeals at the CAVC. I have other appeals at the Board. Looks like my attorneys are fighting hard for me at the CAVC I wonder how long it takes to get a CAVC decision? Daniels Rule 33 Summary of the Issues.pdf
  3. In February 1975 I was discharged from service I applied for compensation for a head injury in July 1975 and was denied in 1976 then in 1984 I was awarded 100% for seizure disorder secondary to my in service traumatic head injury. In 2009 I applied for TBI and was awarded 70% for direct service connection in 2011, I requested an earlier effective date for my TBI since my original claim was in 1975 less then 5 months after my ETS, I feel my original claim should have been reconsidered but the RO and the BVA overlooked my original claim so I took it to the CAVC and waiting for a decision.
  4. I read BVA decision every week and found this case sited a few times- https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/NoahBM15-334.pdf The CAVC remanded the case back to the BVA, and the last sentence in the conclusion was one I have never seen before in any VA or CAVC decision. The veteran claimed he had received misleading info from the VA that was detrimental to his claim. "Given the Board's concession that the January 1982 notice was misleading, R. at 8, the appellant may wish to seek equitable relief pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 503(a)." I dont have time to fully read the case-yet but I am surprised at the conclusion statement. Equitable Relief info is here at hadit, but very hard to succeed in. It appears that this veteran could succeed under 38 USC 503 (a).
  5. So I got a decision from the BVA that seems favorable, totally slam dunking the VARO in Atlanta and the various mercenary opinions they acquired. A few of the items on appeal were remanded for the usual reasons. I don't feel it's necessary to go into all the details. However, then I got a letter from the DAV, which has done absolutely nothing that I'm aware of to help my claims/appeals up to this point. After some boiler plate about CAVC and deadlines, it goes on to say this: So, is this legit? Why after so many lawyers refusing to help me all these years because there is nothing in it for them would these guys be interested in helping me now? I made it this far without any of their help. Why should I even consider such a program where if anything is gained they get a chunk of it? I'm sorry, but I don't generally trust special offers through the mail claiming only to help a select few. Also, I've been burned, let's see, by six separate attorneys on completely unrelated matters. I don't trust any of them, AT ALL. As far as I can tell, most of the problems in this country currently come about because of them--the ones who run for office, the ones who chase ambulances, and the ones who burn their clients for another snort of coke, because they are friends with the opposing attorney, or because they've been paid or threatened in private. I've been through a lot--you wouldn't believe me if I told it all. Already I doubt this will be taken as more than paranoid ravings by an unstable person. More importantly, anyone out there with genuine experience with these guys at CCK? Anyone who has a history of comments online proving they aren't just a hired goon posting social media commentary for pay that is.
  6. Hide past events July 08, 2014 – January 08, 2021 VA sent you a claim decision on July 08, 2014 VA received your Notice of Disagreement on July 09, 2014 VA sent you a Statement of the Case on November 12, 2014 VA received your Form 9 on November 18, 2014 VA sent you a Supplemental Statement of the Case on November 17, 2015 Your appeal was sent to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on March 02, 2016 Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision on May 24, 2018 VA sent you a Supplemental Statement of the Case on July 22, 2019 Your appeal was returned to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on August 20, 2019 Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision on November 08, 2019 U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims made a decision on August 03, 2020 Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision on January 08, 2021 I know someone was asking about this, so I waned to post my timeline. This is my progression with moving from legacy to the new system. We will see how long the remand at the regional office will now take.
  7. Well yesterday the stay was lift on my case. I get to file my brief. This will be the first time these va lawyers will have to answer my cases. The Court allowed me also to have the bva reconsideration. Put in the record also. The va lawyer try to tell the court they don't have jurdistion over bva reconsideration because they are made after the bva decision. Smh If that the case no need for bva reconsideration it's stop the 120 day time to appeal to cavc so how is it not part of the appeal process to cavc to be reviewed Can wait to see what court rule on this. I am just venting again get my mind right my case is expidate so I got 20 days for my informal brief it's ready lol just go over it and va got 20 day to reply than I got 7 to reply. Than off to judge. Boy I am nervous lol an I prepare for this for years smh
  8. Here is the bva reconsideration that the va lawyer are fighting the court over jurdistion to review. Lawyer stated cavc doesn't have the right to review a chairman reconsideration because the decision was made after the bva decision. I can't make this up So I guess there no reason for reconsideration and the chairman decision are not reviewable. Wait for the court decision on just this smh Look at the last part we're they stated they didn't adjudicated smc I r r1 and told me to reapply lol U would lose all your cavc review on the issue if u reapply va games
  9. Hello, I checked ebenefits and it said I received a GRANT from the CAVC for increased rating "anklyosis of the shoulder." I had appealed for depression and anxiety as well and they were not addressed on ebenefits so I am guessing it is still on remand at the BVA level. Ebenefits also stated that my remand would take 16-24 months. I am currently 60% with 10 for tinnitus, 20 for ankle, 20 for shoulder, 20 for shoulder radicupathy, 10 for knee. What does all this mean? if I am not providing the information needed for input I am happy to do that but at this time I dont know what else to provide you guys. Thank you.
  10. A few years back read a CAVC cite that in effect said 'RO can't ignore request by C&P examiner for a test, diagnostics, they deem necessary'. Stupid me, I didn't write it down or if I did, I can't locate it now when I need it. Been googlin' but Google produces way too many hits to wade thru. Then I found this at the BVA appeals search page: “The Board notes that the Court of Veterans Appeals(COVA) has indicated that the VA cannot ignore requests for diagnostic studies suggested by its own physicians” The BVA docket # is 91-37 953, and I believe the year is 1995, that the Board remanded it back to the RO using the language above. So I'm not nuts...the BVA was referring to a CAVC(COVA back then) opinion. I just can't find that COVA case cite. Anyone have an idea? I'd like to use it in a CUE argument that'll probably get to the BVA sometime next year, late 2019 if I'm lucky, and I'm condensing/clarifying and adding clarity in preparation. Thanks
  11. Finally- one of your very own members is accepted at the Court... https://asknod.org/2018/02/07/beyond-the-yellow-brick-road-road-trip/
  12. I'm working on preparing my brief to the CAVC on my appeal having received the Record Before the Agency (RBA). Searching for the initial EENT consult in the RBA now. Have it in a CD sent to me by the VA Records Management Center earlier. Does anyone know the date of "liberalization" of tinnitus allowing the rating of 10% for noise induced loss instead of only as secondary to a TBI? Is there a reference? Docket 17-2990 The following is in the RBA. 1) RBA Pages 4255 & 4254; The Rating Decision of 2-25-76, RO did not do investigation of injuries medically, only for “in line of duty” determination. a) CUE: RBA page 4365 dated 4/5/65; 4/4/65. “Patient took exam to operate a forklift and was noted to have a moderate hearing deficit. Please see and evaluate.” 4/5/65, “tinnitus ® ear & vertigo.” (tinnitus subsequent to exposure to 5” naval gunnery practice in the battle dressing station under the gun mount during the USS Sperry AS-12 gunnery practice during my tour on that ship aggravating a pre service mild hearing deficit with an incident of losing most of hearing for a period of 3 days not recorded or complained about on the record as an HN E3 when told it would come back.) b) RBA page 4309, Audiogram at Guam Memorial Hospital dated 7/31/75 noting “poor speech discrimination both ears.” But without noting the claim of tinnitus which is at least partially contributing to that. And the AOJ, given the EENT consult of 4/5/65 above and the other earlier Audiograms failed to send the examination back for a clarification on whether the tinnitus had subsided or was omitted from the report. c) RBA page 476, Audiology consult dated June 18, 2013. Please include the audiology report and notes on tinnitus and word discrimination. d) RBA page 3106, Rating Decision date 1/22/92: i) “F. Service medical records show complaints of recurrent tinnitus in April 1965 and January 1968. The audiometrics done on current VA examination show average pure tone thresholds as 48 in the right ear and 63 in the left ear, with speech recognition as 88 percent and 76 percent respectively. Also shown is periodic bilateral tinnitus.” ii) D. Service connection is warranted for a separate diagnosis Of tinnitus at a compensable level with application of 38 CFR 3.114 (A). iii) 2016 38 CFR 3.114(a) “…or a liberalizing VA issue approved by the Secretary or by the Secretary's direction, the effective date of such award or increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the act or administrative issue.” iv) 1974 38 CFR § 3.114 Change of law or Veterans Administration issue. (1) (a) Effective date of awards. Where pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation is awarded or increased pursuant to a liberalizing law or a liberalizing Veterans Administration issue, approved by the Administrator or by his direction, the effective date of such award or increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the act or administrative Issue. v) 1974 38 CFR 4.84(b) 6260 Tinnitus ---------------------- 0 (See diagnostic codes 8045 and 8046.) vi) 1974 38 CFR 4.124(a) 8045 Brain disease due to trauma Purely neurological disabilities, such as hemiplegia, epileptiform seizures, facial' nerve paralysis, etc., following trauma to the brain, will be rated under the diagnostic codes specifically dealing with such disabilities, with citation of a hyphenated diagnostic code (e.g., 8045-8207). Purely subjective complaints, such as headache, dizziness, insomnia, tinnitus, etc., recognized as symptomatic of brain trauma, will be rated 10 percent and no more under diagnostic code 9304. This 10 percent rating will not be combined with any other rating for a disability due to brain trauma. Ratings in excess of 10 percent for brain disease due to trauma under diagnostic code 9304 are not assignable in the absence of a diagnosis of chronic brain syndrome associated with brain trauma. vii) RBA page 844, Periods of steady tone were greater in Japan because of the constant additional background noise but still the 20 per day of the steady high-pitched tone seems a bit exaggerated. Probably something lost in the translation to the Audiologist. However, even with the translation, this is the clearest and best history of my tinnitus reported in the record. viii) RBA pages 3149 & 3150, Audiogram dated 8/21/91, recording tinnitus but inaccurately. My tinnitus has been constant with the bird chirping, with an intermittent steady high-pitched tone that more grossly interferes with hearing especially in a circumstance like an audiogram, since it first appeared in late 1964 during my tour on the USS Sperry AS-12 following gunnery practice and a temporary hearing deficit of everyone sounding like they were down in a well which off the record, after the practice, by a physician I was told would go away in a day or two. As an HN E-3, at the time, all I was concerned about was getting my hearing back which I did except for the tinnitus interference which wasn’t too severe except when trying to intently listen to soft sounds when it becomes a high pitched steady tone. So, it is intermittent in nature of interference. Otherwise it is like a soft background noise unless competing with soft sounds. This is the way I always describe it, but it has never been recorded in the long version except on RBA 844. ix) RBA page 3202, Claim on my behalf by representative with no mention of tinnitus. Given that it was granted on the review of the record under 38 CFR 3.114(a) it should have been dated from Mar 18, 1976 per the 1976 38 CFR 4.85b and the cited, in the 1/22/92 Rating Decision, 38 CFR 3.114(a). x) RBA pages 3484 & 3485 Audiological Case History, dated 5/24/88, recording tinnitus but with errors. Not “since taking Elavil” as the record shows. Worse since taking Elavil. And not intermittent as stated above except for the difference in tone. It is there when I wake up and when I go to sleep and probably keeps me from dreaming most of the time. And it has been like that since the 1963 or 1964 USS Sperry AS-12 gunnery practice. xi) RBA pages 3955 & 3956, Audiology Case History dated 5/14/85, also reporting tinnitus but erroneously. Is the reporting of “intermittent” because that is the usual? Where did the “2 episodes come from” Perhaps 2 episodes of the change in tone to a high-pitched tone. Should be mild constant with intermittent severe. xii) RBA pages 3965 & 3966, Audiology Case History dated 7/14/83 recording tinnitus moderate with errors as above. xiii) RBA pages 3987 & 3988. Audiology Case History dated 12/13/83, tinnitus reported, correctly as not in ears, incorrectly as periodic and just in morning (louder when first awakening). Appears to include both high pitched and “birds” (high pitched; “birds.”) xiv) RBA pages 4328 & 4329, Audiogram dated 22 Jan 67, Audiologist did not fill out history on back. Similar Beltone reports back was not copied. xv) RBA page 4462, Rating Decision dated June 25, 2015; “We determined that the following condition was not related to your military service, so service connection couldn't be granted: Medical Description Tinnitus” This goes to the authenticity of the June 25, 2015 Rating Decision and its sloppiness. e) Several audiograms listing tinnitus in boxes provided on VA and Military audiogram report forms are not included in the record. Some but not all are on the CD provided to me dated 02/15/2017.
  13. Is this motion to correct the Record Before the Agency in order or does it need some adjustments? IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS Lemuel clayton bray Appellant, vs. DAVID J. SHULKIN, MD Secretary of Veterans Affairs Appellee, Docket 17-2990 Motion to correct the rba This motion is brought under Rule 10 (b). There are many missing items from the RBA relevant to my claim and appeal. While most of the items are not relevant to the NOA current issue, they are relevant to the BVA Remand and bode for causing a return to the CAVC if not obtained. Obtaining a carefully copied new complete copy of the Medical Division OPTRs and IPTRs from the VA Records Management Center should provide most of the missing evidentiary documents and in a reasonably organized fashion not including much of the superfluous and disorganized documents in the RBA. The rest can be obtained from the Communications Division in the VA Central Office. Missing, specifically, but not limited to: 1. Missing 5 months of OPTRs for Seizure Clinic visits at the West Los Angeles Medical Center that started 2 weeks from 9/17/90, reference RBA pages 3290 (page1) beginning & 3289 (page 2). 2. Missing 6 or more months of OPTRs for Spine Clinic or Back Clinic reference RBA 2996 dated 9/12/91included in IPTRs. Appellant has a copy of the 10/28/91 visit which is now missing from the IPTRs but dates the visits from April 1, 1991 in the copies provided by Cheyenne VARO. 3. Neuropsychological Assessment, undated, but dated by Progress Note on RBA page 3343 as 8/16/91 in IPTRs. Appellant has a copy of this from the hard copy of the file sent to Appellant by Cheyenne VARO. 4. 1-5-90 X-ray report of X-ray ordered on RBA page 3256. 5. Multiple additional hard copy radiographic reports that will be in the Medical Division OPTRs and INPTRs. 6. Denver VARO internal memos and VAOIG letters responding to the Appellant’s alleged failure in getting a DRO hearing in Cheyenne, before the closure of the 1/22/1992, in addition to The Denver VARO letter dated JUL 20, 1998, RBA pages 2626 thru 2628, claim appeal on June 19, 1995. I have an interoffice memo provided to me by the Communications Division in the VA Central Office last year. It is available from the same resource to the Appellee’s attorney for inclusion in the RBA as are probably many of the other missing items. Use the Denver VARO JUL 20, 1998 letter to the VAOIG as a reference point to get the memos. 7. Denver VARO letter of June 19, 1995 Closing the appeal of the 1/22/1992 referenced on RBA pages 2626 & 2710. 8. The missing letters from me stating periods of unavailability for a hearing because of traveling for obligations to family and friends including the transfer to DC when the hearing hadn’t been provided while I was in Wyoming before my move to DC. The letters are detailed on that interoffice memo provided to me by the Communications Division in the Central Office last year. The RBA is 4529 pages long and is not in any way correlated to the 3151-page CD that I received dated 2/15/2017 which I have done considerable work on. I may have to referenced pages from that CD as 02/15/2017 CD that I have not yet found in the RBA. I can forward to the attorney for the Appellee via Adobe Creative Cloud or by Fax broken up for large files, as the attorney requests by phone or email, items that I have that escaped becoming paper mashie from water damage from my original copies, or from the hard copies sent to me by Cheyenne VARO in 2015 or were on the 1420-page CD provided to Attorney Ellermann for the BVA hearing. The items that I do not have, have been previously requested by FOIA on numerous occasions and responded to with items from the C&P file in a non-denial denial response. “This is all of the records we have,” quoting the letter dated, February 9, 2017, (RBA page 1056) from The Records Management Center in response to my FOIA of August 11, 2016, (RBA 1399 thru 1405). Quoting from my letter: “I’m requesting all C&P Documentation that was not included on the CD provided to my attorney, Vanessa Ellermann via correspondence dated March 28, 2016. There is a big gap from the time I was in Japan until 2009. In that time I had a claim and an appeal that is either incomplete or denied that there is no documentation of on the CD. Also, I’m attaching a previous request for Medical Division copies of Medical files to replace documents that have gone missing from my C&P file.” The Record Management Center is under the Appellee’s jurisdiction and is not responding with the missing items from the hard copy of the pre-computerized Medical Division OPTRs and IPTRs which fall under the jurisdiction of the Director of the Medical Division which was the former position of the Secretary and has not provided a complete record of the correspondence via the U S Consulate from 1998 thru 2012 regarding attempts to get a C&P exam for pending claims and appeals. The Appellee’s attorney may stipulate that efforts to obtain a qualified English Speaking Neuropsychological Assessment were impossible and that therefore all claims and appeals between 1998 and the present. The RBA seems to be sufficient except for the missing response to the VAOIG by Denver VARO acknowledging the failure to give the requested hearing in the appeal of the 1/22/1992 Decision. I have a copy of the memo (which is not in the RBA) that seems to have been used to prepare the letter I saw in my file on my last review of it in Washington, DC, sent to me by the Communications Section in the Central Office detailing the dates of my letters, dates I would be unavailable, dates of the AOs letters in the period of unavailability and dates of hearings set in the period of unavailability on those same letters. I request the Appellee’s attorney fulfill all previously requested FOIA letters, from January 1, 1990 through the present, as required by 38 CFR 3.159, that were responded to with non-denial denials from the Medical Division or stipulate to the Appellant’s belief of what is on those documents, and radiographic films, which had incomplete reports not rejected by AOs, as required by 38 CFR 3.159 and 4.2, for failure of completeness and failure to provide etiology opinion statements, and EEG tracings which would show, if given to a second opinion professional requesting a complete report including an etiology statement form the medical history included in the Appellant’s medical file. By 1990 these items were produced digitally except for the hard copy OPTRs & IPTRs and should be archived somewhere for research access. The films, that were shown to me, would have been retired after 5 years but replaceable from the digital data. The hard copy EEG tracings are probably similarly disposed of on the Telemetry Units, but the digital video and tracings should be reproducible from archives. The several “abnormal” EEGs and 9/16/1990 IPTR should be sufficient to provide the Appellee’s attorney grounds for stipulations as to the similarity of what could or would be produced given the West LA VARMC was using the telemetry units for a “cutting edge” theory research that led to over a decade of wrong information regarding temporal lobe seizures being diagnosed by VA physicians as pseudo and psychogenic seizures and being passed as “clinically approved,” affecting all Americans with this particular problem. The Appellee’s attorney can, keeping in mind my TBI residuals, rely upon my residual 126 verbal IQ and 13 plus years as a Naval Hospital Corpsman independent duty qualified and having been shown the Radiographic films by the attending physicians, being present when the EEG technician left my side to get a physician for a stat reading of an EEG by the attending physician, or being present when the ultra sound technician left my side to obtain a stat viewing by the attending physician and having noted them in writing over several years in requesting the copies of the films on the refusal of the medical division to do complete reports including etiology assessments as required by 38 CFR 3.159 and 4.2. I will raise no objection to an Appellee’s request for an extension to 30 days of the time to respond to this request to correct the RBA. At the same time, I request the opportunity to make further requests to correct this very lengthy and complex RBA in the interest of getting it right the first time and not having to carry this action out further. Lemuel C Bray In Pro Se 2833 Main Street Torrington, WY 82240-1929 lembray@gmail.com Ph 307 316 8568 FAX 307 316 0936
  14. This is a decision I recently received from the BVA after a successful battle at the CAVC (please see below). My appeal dates back to May 2006. I just need clarification on a few things. Staring with what disabilities exactly are they granting me. I don’t understand what is meant by “a disability characterized by chronic fatigue”. What exactly is" that" disability? Do they mean chronic fatigue or something similar to chronic fatigue? Is the polymyositis going to be secondary to major depressive disorder? Another thing that confuses me is that they are saying these things (chronic fatigue and polymyositis I assume) are secondary to my major depressive disorder. I was only granted service connection for major depressive disorder in May 2014 and this appeal dates back to May 2006. Which date will they use to determine the award May 2006 or May 2014? Any help on clearing up these matters will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s currently diagnosed chronic fatigue disorder, to include polymyositis, is aggravated by her service-connected major depressive disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a disability characterized by chronic fatigue, to include polymyositis, to include as secondary to a major depressive disorder are met.
  15. Okay I have some questions Regarding the differences of the BVA CAVC and Supreme court Appeals.... Does the BVA determine or review the constitutionality of appeals based on due process? In non veteran courts they review Constitutional appeals in a strict manor, does this hold true for the BVA? If not how does the BVA respond regarding jurisdiction and appeals concerning due process? Does the CAVC review decisions regarding the BVA before they become final? If title 38 CFR doesn't coincide with United States Code how does the BVA address this? What other recourse does a veteran have at their disposal if their due process rights have been violated? Thanks for your help and consideration, Sox
  16. A veteran's story... after service. A difficult, but true story with a warning to Veterans. Fore-warned is forearmed. Like many others, I enlisted in the military, to do my part. It never occurred to me, beforehand, that such as this story would occur. I find most veterans are reluctant to discuss their ‘stressors’. After years of experience with VA hospitals, I don’t remember anyone ever telling me what happened to them. Those painful events are personal, private and burdensome. I don’t want to discuss my ‘stressors’ either; suffice to say they occurred and I struggled with them for years, before I sought help at Fort Harrison, MT. The process being what it is, I received many demands for information and ordered to numerous examinations. At the end of each communication, VA threatened to dismiss my claim, if I did not comply. With each new demand I spent days or weeks struggling with my memories and flashbacks, trying to meet VA’s requirements of the moment. For those fortunate enough not to understand that struggle, hours and sometimes days are lost to thoughts and overwhelming states of mind. Staying on task is usually very difficult, if not impossible. Each new brief submitted by VA was rife with errors. Often it required eight to ten pages to correct the critical errors made by VA’s claim of the “facts”. The true facts were in the record and the errors were always skewed to my disadvantage. VA’s inability to get it right has made for me some very dark years. I submitted to numerous Compensation & Pension (C&P) examinations. The consensus was: “chronic & severe PTSD”. Unsatisfied with these diagnoses, VA requested some of the doctor’s change their diagnoses. These requests were illegal and fraudulent, they are also in the record, much to VA’s chagrin and I suspect that of the doctors involved. Once the first examiners had reversed their diagnoses per request, VA set about having the record and examinations reviewed by numerous other doctors, who expanded on the fraudulent opinions with even more fraud. At one point an examiner stated I was not credible because I had “requested” so many C&P exams. Fortunately there was an honest physician that pointed out I had not requested the examinations, but had been ordered by VA to comply or have my claim dismissed. After several years of treatment, a doctor recommended I seek representation by a service organization. Up to that point I had merely jumped through the hoops required by VA. I did not understand the process. In hindsight, a veteran should not need to understand the process or deal with a predatory VA. Their service should be honored by an honest and forthright Veterans Administration, as promised and as required by law. Disabled American Veterans (DAV) was recommended to me and I made numerous efforts to enlist the help of DAV, only to be rejected by Mr. K.G. in his condescending manner. His reason… I had begun by talking with someone else. This seems absurd, but nonetheless true. After seven years of submitting to VA’s process, my claim made it to the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), in 2006. I retained representation by B&M, a veteran’s law firm in Bethesda, MD. During that time, the Court decided I also needed to be represented by a service organization. My attorney informed me of this and asked whom I wanted to give Power of Attorney (POA), for my claim. I explained to the attorney that I had tried to enlist DAV’s help, but Mr. K.G. had refused to accept my POA. The Court assigned DAV to my claim and my attorney and VA jointly agreed to remand the matter. My attorney told me remand was "the best I could hope for". Although in the end, the facts that won the Court’s reversal and my service connection were of record and in his possession, when he said remand was "the best I could hope for". When I approached Mr. K.G., expecting help with the next step, he made it plain that he resented being assigned by the Court. He accused me of “some underhanded dealings” and said “Go home… don’t do anything… don’t call anybody, don’t write anybody… and don’t come back to this office”. I have not gone back and I will never forget his words. Eight years later, my claim made it back to CAVC, with B&M representing me again. My attorneys began again saying remand was "the best I could hope for", but this time I refused, up front, to accept a remand and insisted they read my statements concerning VA’s fraudulent prosecution of my claim and seek reversal of VA’s denial of benefits. With a small and insignificant exception, B&M’s brief to CAVC in 2014 was a reiteration of my statements. While I am grateful for B&M’s assistance and the Court’s reversal of VA’s denial, granting me service connection, I have to wonder why the facts were not viewed the first time, eight years prior. The facts used by CAVC in 2014 were present in the record in 2006 when my “best hope” was remand. My attorneys were well paid for their service. With the Court’s reversal in hand, they correctly predicted that VA would “drag their feet and low-ball my rating”. Then they offered to prevent this continued injustice and see that the Court’s orders were carried out… for a 1/3 share… which was over 5 years of benefits. I declined their offer, believing that the Court’s orders must be carried out… period. Shouldn’t they? I’m beginning to wonder! In a few days, it will be a year since the Court granted my service connection. To date, I have received a form letter from Fort Harrison, MT confirming receipt of my claim from CAVC and the Court’s decision, but nothing else. Not a word. In the Court’s decision, the law requiring expedited handling is quoted and ordered. After months of nothing, I inquired about the required expediting only to be told they “only pay lip-service to that law”. Lip-service only… to the law? That’s outrageous. About that time, a public relations person from B&M’s office contacted me, wanting to use my name & picture in their professional advertisements, because “reversals are rare”. I expressed my desire to remain private and again explained that their desire for 1/3 of my benefits was unwarranted. The PR person stated maybe one of the attorneys could make a phone call on my behalf. That was many months ago and I have not heard from them again. In desperation (I’m about to lose my home), I recently sought ‘un-official’ advice from another service organization, since DAV still refuses to assist me. The other organization found that CAVC’s decision has “not been entered into the computer”. The reason and remedy were unknown. Their advice: be patient. At this point, I have been patient for 16 years. This other person sent a note to Mr. K.G. at DAV, about our conversation. A few days later, I received a call from DAV, the first since 2006. The woman that called was very smug and reminded me that DAV has my POA. I explained that Mr. K.G. refuses to assist me and I am about to lose my home, to which she said I’d “just have to wait”. Why am I writing this? I hope it will find the eyes of someone that gives a damn about the law and injustice. And I hope veterans that find themselves in need of assistance will read this and not be hoodwinked as I have been, for years upon years. Too… I wonder how CAVC Judge S. would feel about “lip-service” to the law and his order. Sincerely,
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines