More From Watchdog On

[Berta]

Larry Scott (VA Watchdog) is on a roll here- I posted the other info the other day here-

years ago I got what one could consider an "extraordinary award" from the USA-wrongful death due to VA- however the VA made an enormous financial error when they had to process the DIC I got based on that award-

I think they should be looking at all awards and not just the ones over 250,000- then again a claimant can challenge anything right away and even ask for a monetary breakdown of a retro check -if they think something doesnt seem right.

The VA tried to snooker millions from AO vets in the past- many of these awards involved lots of money-

probably some were extraordinary amounts-

today at VA Watchdog:

"On October 13, 2007, we brought you a story about "Extraordinary Claims" and the fact that the VA is now reviewing all of them. That story here... http://www.vawatchdog.

org/07/nf07/nfOCT07/nf101307-1.htm

An "Extraordinary Claim" is defined as a claim "...with an effective date retroactive eight or more years or that result in a lump-sum payment of $250,000 or more..."

Now, we have discovered that the VA is finding many errors in these claims.

The following came to me from a VA employee.

-------------------------

The following comes from the September 18, 2007 Veterans Service Center Managers' Conference Call.

"On August 27, 2007, Compensation & Pension Service issued Fast Letter (FL) 07-19, Procedures for Handling Extraordinary Awards. This FL outlines procedures for handling awards resulting from rating decisions with effective dates of eight or more years in the past, or lump-sum payments of $250,000 or more. These awards require review by the Compensation and Pension Service prior to authorization.

To date, approximately 230 of these cases have been received. Our review of them has shown a surprisingly high number of errors, especially with effective dates. This high rate of non-concurrence is of concern. The FL directs that the Veterans Service Center Manager (VSCM) review the decision and sign the transmittal memorandum if he or she agrees with the decision. The VSCM must insure that individuals who prepare these decisions for their signature have taken care in their preparation.

If questions arise they should be addressed to [redacted] of the Advisor Review Staff (211B) or submitted to VAVBAWAS/CO/21Q&A."

Article continues below:

MONEY TALKS NEWS VIDEOS -- MONEY-SAVING TIPS FOR YOU

(use left/right arrows in screen to view more videos)

Below are the comments of the VA employee.

"First, I am amazed by the sheer number of huge retro awards out there. This document claims 230 of them in a three-week period (August 27 to September 18). This is further evidence that a lot of vets have been waiting years for completion of their claim.

Second, there were a 'surprisingly high number of errors' in the proposed awards. Are Regional Offices erring in the vet's favor or the agency's favor? Or is it all over the place? One now has to wonder if the guy who got a $300,000.00 retro in June (before the review began) actually got the correct amount."

I forwarded this to an attorney who practices veterans' law for his comments...below...

"I think sometimes the fact VA does grant thousands and thousands of claims each year, and many with large retroactive benefits, is overshadowed by the other problems with the C&P Service, such as the delays. I agree many of the 230 'extraordinary' claims noted below probably represent significant delays before the granting of the claim...If I had to guess, I would guess the errors go both ways.

...There is no 'conspiracy' within VA to deny legitimate claims. There are, however, completely overburdened rating officers at the ROs who must issue at least five decisions per day in order to meet their quota. VA would deny quotas exist, but I was told that by a rating officer at the [redacted] RO...This is the number one reason for errors by rating officers, by far. Add to that the inexperienced rating officers and the lazy rating officers and you can see why there are so many errors. The vast majority of those errors are caught by the Board, and that's why there are so many remands from the Board to the RO. Sad, but true."

-------------------------

Larry Scott

This doesnt surprise me- the VA makes a lot of financial errors.

from VA Watchdog today:

[Christopher]

At least the rating errors are being recognized.

Putting the focus on the raters overall competence can only make things better in the long run.

[Pete53]

My math said that the over 250,000 claims would be around 4000 a year. Still does not seem right and I guess the gist here is that the errors go both ways but I doubt that

[john999]

I am with you Pete. I bet the bias in the erros is towards underpaying the vets. I wonder if these examinations of large claims will be looking hard for errors that increase the award or decrease it? It is another attempt to dely or deny payment in my book. Do you think the VA suddenly said " We may have been underpaying large awards. We better go back and re-examine these large retro awards just to make sure we paid enough". Someone at VA said "oh,oh we gonna get in trouble with the boss for giving away all this money. How can we slow this thing down or reduce the awards?" If they begin to find many errors that show underpayment of vets the inspection will go away quietly.

[RockyA1911]

A Ha!!!!! So my claim is an “Extraordinary Claim” because it has been pending for 31 years since original date of claim for skull loss. Now I think I should send my claim info to this guy at VA Watchdog so he can see how it has been 31 years since I officially claimed it and no decision was ever given until Feb 2007 and they did not provide the earlier effective date of 28Nov1976, but instead gave the effective date of 5Jul2005. The VA also used as the reason bases for service connection for skull loss was that “Military Service Medical Records detail the cranioplasty and skull loss of 4.5cm x 4.5cm provided to the VA on 28Nov 1976.”

Wonder how the VA would like my claim on the news that would show severe incompetence in the employees abilities to read and interpret 38CFR4 used for rating compensation that details the percentage to award, the M21 Policy on rating claims, math, and basic common sense?

With questions such as “Why does it take 3 years and over 90 days still at a rating board to determine that 4.5cm x 4.5cm is 20.25 sq. cm.?” It only takes a second or two using a calculator and less than a minute long hand.

“Why does it take 3 years to award retroactive payment for 31 years of rightful entitlement to 31 years of compensation when there is a VAOPGCPREC 4-2004 dated May 28, 2004, Case Law on CUE Claims:?”

“Is there a reason the VA cannot multiply 4.5cm x4.5cm within three years and comply with a case law precedent that is an order to provide me with retroactive payment.?” When case law is held as precedent, it is undebatable. The VA must provide the retroactive payment. No if’s, and’s, or, but’s.

HELD:

For a final Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or Board of Veterans' Appeals decision to be reversed or revised under 38 U.S.C. § 5109A or 7111 (clear and unmistakable error) on the ground that VA failed to recognize a claim for veterans benefits, it must be concluded that: (1) it is obvious or undebatable that, when prior filings are construed in the claimant’s favor, the pleadings constitute an earlier claim for the veterans benefit that was subsequently awarded by VA; and (2) VA's failure to recognize that claim manifestly affected the subsequent award of benefits. VAOPGCPREC 12-2001 is hereby superseded by this opinion.

DAH! 1) I claimed the skull loss officially and VA examined me for it and reviewed the medical records in 1976. So since I was awarded finally in Feb 2007 that clearly means that it is obvious or undebatable that my prior filing was construed in my favor, the pleading constituted an earlier claim that was subsequently awarded by the VA in Feb, 2007.

2) Yep! VA definitely failed to recognize that claim manifestly affected the subsequent award of benefits. DA! Do the math. I was awarded 10% combined compensation effective date 28Nov1976 when it should have been 60% combined rating had they awarded the service connection for the skull loss at 50% in addition to the 10% compensation for Post Concussion Residuals awarded. I had been deprived of 50% compensation per month for 31 years.

I think I will send my info to VAWATCHDOG to that Larry Scott guy and see if he will print my sad story with the VA and see if it get’s national news attention.

[cowgirl]

Stands proudly beside Hadit Senior Chief Petty Officer Rocky while Larry Scott reads his claim data!cg

[carlie]

Rocky,

YES -- Send it to Larry.

carlie