Vfcs Vets Lawsuit Allowed!

[Berta]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...amp;type=health

This is incredible NEWS!

From NVLSP web site- vets news issues

Judge in S.F. allows suit charging VA denies some vets health care

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, January 11, 2008

Printable VersionEmail This Article del.icio.us

Digg

Technorati

Reddit Slashdot

Fark

Newsvine

Google Bookmarks

Georgia (default)

Verdana

Times New Roman

Arial

Back to Health

Veterans' advocates can proceed with a lawsuit claiming that the federal government's health care system for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan illegally denies care and benefits, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, a conservative jurist and a World War II veteran, rejected Bush administration arguments that civil courts have no authority over the Department of Veterans Affairs' medical decisions or how it handles grievances and claims.

If the plaintiffs can prove their allegations, Conti said, they would show that "thousands of veterans, if not more, are suffering grievous injuries as the result of their inability to procure desperately needed and obviously deserved health care."

He said federal courts are competent to decide whether those injuries were caused by flaws in the health care system and the VA's grievance procedures.

Conti did not rule on the adequacy of the treatment system, which will be addressed in future proceedings. But he decided one disputed issue, finding that veterans are legally entitled to two years of health care after leaving the service. The government had argued that it was required to provide only as much care as the VA's budget allowed in a given year.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Melissa Kasnitz of Disability Rights Advocates, said the judge had rejected the VA's "shameful effort to keep these deserving veterans from their day in court."

The next step is a hearing on the plaintiffs' request for an injunction that would require the federal agency to provide immediate mental health treatment for veterans who suffer from stress disorders and are at risk of suicide, said Sidney Wolinsky, another Disability Rights Advocates lawyer. That hearing is scheduled for Feb. 22.

The suit claims that the federal government's failure to provide timely treatment is contributing to an epidemic of suicides among returning soldiers.

The suit was filed in July by two organizations, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth, as a proposed class action on behalf of 320,000 to 800,000 veterans or their survivors.

The groups said the VA arbitrarily denies care and benefits to wounded veterans, forces them to wait months for treatment and years for benefits, and gives them little recourse when it rejects their medical claims. The department has a backlog of more than 600,000 disability claims, the suit said.

A Pentagon study group reported in June that the system was understaffed, prompting the VA to announce staffing increases in July. The study group also found that 84,000 veterans, more than one-third of those who sought care from the department from 2002 through 2006, had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress or another mental disorder.

In seeking dismissal of the suit, the Justice Department argued that Congress had barred federal courts from hearing complaints about the VA system when it established a special Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims in 1988 to review grievances over treatment and benefits. But Conti said the special court can examine only individual cases and has no power to consider "systematic, constitutional challenges." He said those belong in regular courts.

Conti also said the VA system, originally intended as an informal procedure to help veterans resolve their claims, has morphed into an adversarial process in which claimants have to comply with formal legal rules, often without a lawyer.

"It is within the court's power to insist that veterans be granted a level of due process that is commensurate with the adjudication procedures with which they are confronted," Conti said.

Efforts to reach the Justice Department were unsuccessful.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page B - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle"

[Pete53]

Bravo lets see what they pull next. Doubt if they can pass a law now cause they don't control Congress anymore.

[Billyboy]

This is great but I am afraid King Bush will try to stop this, bill

[allan]

The DVA is as good at ignoring laws favorable to the Veteran, as they are creating them.

There's thieves doing time trying to figure out how to get a perfect crime going, like what some of these rating Specialists have.

Absolutely, "NO" accountability? If that ain't a scam set up by an insurance company, I don't know what is.

I don't see any party allowing this to continue in the future, unless they want a battle on their hands.

It's acceptable to steal federal benefits from disabled veterans and be rewarded for it?

You can't spit in our face any more, thats illegal.

But you can steal from those who have gave and risked their lives to protect you?

I honestly feel that such acts in this country, should receive serious repercussions in a court of law.

No one working as a government agent, should hold themselves above the law & commit crimes against military personnel, such as to steal their disability benefits for prophet.

If they receive a bonus for any criminal act against disabled veterans, they should have to repay it to the veteran with interest, plus interest on the claim from the time the crime was committed. Our military families are paying interest on the debts they've accumulated waiting on their benefits.

If it takes two signitures to sign off on an aproved claim, why not do the same for a denial?

If the errors & criminal acts get past the two signitures on the denial, those who signed off on it should also loose their bonus and pay interest to the veteran and family on appeal. If you want to stop the crime, changes in laws MUST have some serious teeth in it, or there is NO deterant to stop it from happening again.

If there are errors on a decision by a rating officer, they shouldn't get paid for that rating.

They should only recieve pay for deciding a claim correctly, wether it's favorable or unfavorable.

Remands should come with a monatary penalty back to the rater for any errors, along with a warning for federal charges of, "obstruction of justice" if the same error is repeated more than twice.

A Veteran and their families sure pay a price for any sinceless delay in recieving the benefit.

Absolutely, "NO" accountability?

Payback is right. It's time to blow this out of the water.

I completely agree that a march on DC is the "ONLY" way to get er done.

Just a few thoughts.

Allan

[Speaking Out]

I think a March on Washington is a great thing. Do you think we could get those 9 service organization leaders that signed the letter asking the President to release the additional funding the VA needed to organize their members? I think a couple of those 9 would do it, but some of the others probably wouldn't even respond.

[Testvet]

vets are great at complaining but when it comes time to put their money and time where their mouths are it suddenly dries up, most veterans are not hurt by the actions of the VA out of 25 million veterans less than 10% get compensation checks and for the most part they are satisfied with what they get, the percentage of veterans in our boat where they have to fight the system to get even a portion of their benefits awarded are less than 1% so we are considered "trouble makers" and misfits despite the fact we are the ones the system is abusing

many veterans of the "greatest generation" feel that if the government owed it to you they would give it to you, so if it was denied there has to be a reason for it. They are the ones who are less likley to appeal a denial or NOD a low ball award. Many times it is their children who force them to deal with it, many like my step father never "deal with it" he was one of the Cold War "Nuke exposed vets" in the Nevada above ground experiments....he had 3 kinds of cancer linked to the tests, he died the year the govt passed the RECA act he never got the 75,000 lump sum payment.

Vets are hard pressed to go to area field hearings like they had for the Veterans Benefits Commission 2 years ago, how many are going to spend the time or the money to travel to DC to rally or hold schedulaed meetings with VA Committee members from the Hosue or the Senate, I don't think it was 2 weeks ago Charles Kelley tried to get people motivated to do just this and he got less than 10 responses from people willing to get involved 10 people from 25 million, Congress doesn't care about us, because despite all the Service Organizations "helping us" it appears we just don't care look at how well they support us, they don't and they are still in business why?

[Berta]

This article contains some overwhelming statements:

"Conti did not rule on the adequacy of the treatment system, which will be addressed in future proceedings. But he decided one disputed issue, finding that veterans are legally entitled to two years of health care after leaving the service. The government had argued that it was required to provide only as much care as the VA's budget allowed in a given year"

Say what:

"The government had argued that it was required to provide only as much care as the VA's budget allowed in a given year"

This is NOT in the VA's own mission statement-

If the budget gets signed late or under Emergency signing-

this statement from the VA shows that veterans waiting for the 'budget' to be 'allowed' VA could die while waiting for VA care.

Who decides how much budgeted care is divided out to vets?

Maybe this is how my husband got on ice-

The monetary value of proper VA health care-in his case- somehow didnt fall into the budget.

"The government had argued that it was required to provide only as much care as the VA's budget allowed in a given year."

Rod always said that with his 30 % rating he felt he only got 30 % of the available VA med care.But his posthumous awards and my IMOs reveal he was way over 300 % service connected.

I am using this article to support one of my pending claims.

Can you imagine how this statement must affect the men amd women in Harm's Way today in the military?

The extent of their VA health care depends on money-

and not on the VA's Mission Statement.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Berta