Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
Our picks
-
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability ratingPicked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Welcome to hadit!
There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not. Try reading this:
https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in What is the DIC timeline?
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Good question.
Maybe I can clear it up.
The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more. (my paraphrase).
More here:
Source:
https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
rthomass
SEE STRETCHES POST OF 9 SEPTEMBER 2007
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS HAS SPONSORED A BILL S-2026 TO LEGISLATIVELY ALTER TITLE 38 THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO AS NICHOLSON SAID HAVE "BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN VIETNAM FOR PRESUMPTIVE SERVICE CONNECTION FOR AGENT ORANGE. CLOSE ONLY COUNTS IN HORSE SHOES AND NUCLEAR BOMBS.
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON September 10, 2007
VETERANS AFFAIRS
ATTTN: SENATOR AKAKA, CHAIRMAN
412 RUSSELL SENATE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
SUBJECT: Sponsorship of Senate Bill S-2026
Senator Akaka: I have been a lifelong Democrat. I read with outrage your sponsorship of Senate Bill S2026. This would negate the decisions of the 9th Circuit Court Decision as well as that of The United States Court of Appeals Decision as regards Haas V. Nichoslson.
I can assure you that as a twenty year Veteran of the United States Air Force that Agent Orange was not only used on the land mass of Vietnam but in the Country of Thailand. I was assigned to Nakhon Phanom Thailand Royal Thai Air Base from August 1969 to August 1970. NKP is located on the Mekong River across from Laos and the Ho-Mihn Trail. The Air Force sprayed the trail with Agent Orange as well as NKP'S perimeter and other areas on base. It made it easy to see enemy insurgents since it was an excellent defoliant of the tropical jungle around us. I have a three year claim that is presently before the Veterans Administration for exposure to the Herbicide Agent Orange. I am presently in the fight of my life against Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma; one of the eleven presumptive cancers cited under 38 CFR 3-309(e).
I personally thought that of the two political parties that the Republicans were the "BAD" Guys but now you and the Democrats are stabbing the Vietnam Era Veterans in the back! Guess you never know who your enemy your enemy is!
Based on your sponsorship of Senate Bill S2026 I will not vote for any Democratic Party candidates in the 2008 National Election or any other election in the future. This statement galls me to write but when you are getting raped you are reluctant to give the rapist a round of applause for the heinous act.
Your assurance that you have re-considered sponsorship of Senate Bill S-2026 will give me reason to re-consider my declination to vote Democratic. Senator we put our lives on line for our country. Please help us and do no harm.
Just a Veteran that has been forgotten
Randall D. Thomas Sr.
Louisville, Kentucky 40250
THIS IS THE LETTER I SENT TO YOU AND EVERY SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE ON DECEMBER 7, 2007
December 7. 2006
Honorable Senator Daniel Akaka
US SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
412 RUSSELL SENATE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
The United States Court for Veterans Claims in a decision dated August 16, 2006 “ Haas vs. Nicholson “ruled that the appellant on appeal from the Veterans Board of Appeals was entitled to a presumption of exposure to the herbicide specifically identified as Agent Orange. It further found that any veteran serving during the Vietnam Era (1962-1975) and who had been awarded the VSM “Vietnam Service Medal” was presumed to have been exposed to the herbicide commonly known as Agent Orange.
The desire of my fellow Vietnam Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era in Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia as well as their territorial waters who have one of the eleven diseases set forth in 38 C.F.R. 3-309(e). be presumed to have been exposed to agent orange and awarded 100% Veterans Administration Compensation.
I propose the decision of The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims “Haas Vs. Nicholson” be a guide to re-write those portions of U.S.C. 38; 38 C.F.R.; and the Veterans Administration Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1 by means of new legislation promulgated by the United States Congress.
I have attached the U.S. Court Of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision Haas Vs. Nichoson; National Veterans Legal Services Program additional information on exposure to agent orange.
Randall D. Thomas Sr.
Edited by rthomassLink to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
4
1
Popular Days
Sep 11
2
Sep 10
1
Sep 13
1
Sep 15
1
Top Posters For This Question
rthomass 4 posts
Pete53 1 post
Popular Days
Sep 11 2007
2 posts
Sep 10 2007
1 post
Sep 13 2007
1 post
Sep 15 2007
1 post
4 answers to this question
Recommended Posts