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
allan
fwd from: VNVets
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Hard Words from a Shipmate
These are some hard words from a shipmate in the Blue Water Navy Veterans of the Vietnam War. We think it is time they were said.
--------------------------------------------
One of the extremely dangerous affects of the VA winning the Haas case is that, once they have successfully treated the Blue Water Navy as a "sub-class" or "new category" of veteran, essentially legally dividing the whole into parts, they will be able to use that as precedent to pick and choose which veterans get which types of benefits.
Up until this point, all veterans (e.g., combat veterans, POWs, support troops, etc.) fall into the same class and are eligible for all benefits. If the Haas case is ruled in favor of the DVA, they will be able to exclude any veteran from receiving full medical and compensation benefits simply by creating another sub-class of veteran, as they are attempting to do here.
Let me give an example: In the XX War, veterans serving on active duty in combat or combat support would all assume they would receive medical treatment and compensation for injuries sustained in the XX War. But after the XX War is over, the Department of Veteran Affairs could proclaim that any veteran of the XX War who served further than 12 miles from some arbitrary geographical point is not eligible for full veteran benefits, even though the enemy could and did detonate weapons up to 20 miles from the arbitrary point. Those veterans who were injured by those "out of bounds" detonations are, by their own jargon, S.O.L. They will be denied medical care and monetary compensation for any injuries sustained while on active duty during the XX War.
That is exactly what is happening to the Blue Water Navy veterans of the Vietnam War. They are not being given the same medical care and compensation as the troops they supported, fought along side of, and died with. The winning of the Haas case, or the enactment of S-2026, will guarantee that the DVA can create categories of future veterans at whim, and deny them full benefits such as those received by veterans who served within the 12 mile zone from our hypothetical example.
"Impossible!" you might say? It is happening now. It is what the heart of the Haas case and what the S-2026 bill are all about. It is what the Blue Water Navy of the Vietnam War is currently experiencing and has experienced since early 2002. It is not a mere probability - it is current fact.
This situation says to the future United States military member of any branch of service: "Take your chances. Come fight our war. You might or might not receive your medical treatment and combat injury disability payments from the DVA. You won't know until after you've been injured and the War is over. But go ahead, sign on the dotted line." As a veteran of the Vietnam War, my best advice to the youth of America is "Don't play their silly game of Russian Roulette. If these problems are not fixed NOW, stay as far away from service to this Government as you can get. They lie and have no intention of taking care of you if you are injured in battle."
Of course, that's not a hard message to swallow given the current non-treatment and ill-treatment of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Even when they claim to be keeping their promise of "We'll take care of you!" the care is so poor and takes so long that it is a national disgrace. This is no longer a Government worth defending. Nonetheless, it is a hard message to give, and I do so only with a very heavy heart and many tears. But this is no longer the Government that I made and kept my pledge of allegiance to. All things change over time, but the principles of Honesty and Integrity must remain constant - and the current leadership of our country has lost touch with those Ideals.
JPR
--------------------------------------------
Our tears join yours, and our heart is also heavy at the perversion of the American Ideal by vain and greedy politicians who talk from both sides of their mouths at once. There are no friends to the American Veteran in the United States Government.
VNVets
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." -- President Abraham Lincoln
"Without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious." --President George Washington
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
1
1
1
Popular Days
Oct 18
3
Oct 19
3
Oct 22
1
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 2 posts
rthomass 1 post
allan 1 post
Doc John 1 post
Popular Days
Oct 18 2007
3 posts
Oct 19 2007
3 posts
Oct 22 2007
1 post
6 answers to this question
Recommended Posts