Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Important Developments With Regard To Va Claims Based On Agent Orange

Rate this question


Guest VetWife Advocate

Question

Guest VetWife Advocate

IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS WITH REGARD TO VA CLAIMS BASED ON AGENT ORANGE

EXPOSURE

The American Legion and the National Veterans Legal Services

Program (NVLSP) have been working closely together over the last 15

years to make sure that the VA pays all of the benefits that Vietnam

veterans and their survivors deserve due to exposure to Agent

Orange. Recently, there have been two important developments. This

article provides advice about the steps you should take if you represent

a veteran or survivor who may be affected.

A. Claims Based on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the latest disease the VA added to

the list of diseases presumptively service connected due to Agent

Orange. The VA issued the regulation adding CLL on October 16,

2003. CLL is a malignancy (cancer) of the white blood that results from

an acquired injury to the DNA of a single cell, a lymphocyte, in the

bone marrow. This injury is not present at birth.

As a result of the Nehmer lawsuit, the VA is normally required to pay

benefits for an Agent Orange-related disease retroactive to the date the

VA received the first claim the veteran or survivor filed based on the

disease (not counting claims that were finally denied before September

25, 1985). Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1175

(N.D. Cal. 1999). When it service connected CLL, however, the VA took

the position that the Nehmer rules did not apply to CLL claims. As a

result, the VA assigned an effective date no earlier than October 16,

2003 whenever the VA granted a disability or DIC claim based on CLL -

even if the first CLL claim was filed before October 16, 2003.

The Nehmer lawsuit is a class action brought by NVLSP on behalf of

Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and their

survivors. NVLSP appealed the VA's decision concerning CLL, and on

December 1, 2005, the federal court that oversees the Nehmer lawsuit

agreed with NVLSP that the Nehmer rules do apply to CLL claims. The

court's December 1st ruling requires the VA to pay disability and DIC

benefits retroactive to the date of claim to all veterans or survivors

who filed a CLL claim before October 16, 2003. The VA recently appealed

the December 1st decision to the court of appeals.

What you should do: If you know of a Vietnam veteran or survivor who

filed a CLL claim before October 16, 2003, you should contact NVLSP

attorney Rick Spataro at 202-265-8305, ext. # 149 or

rick_spataro@nvlsp.org <mailto:rick_spataro@nvlsp.org> (there's an

underscore after rick and before spataro). NVLSP is currently trying to

get the court to require the VA to pay the retroactive benefits owed

under the December 1st order as soon as possible, even though the VA has

appealed the decision. Rick is collecting a list of all CLL claimants

who deserve an earlier effective date under the December 1st order to

present to the court.

B. Disability or DIC claims filed by Navy veterans who served in the

waters offshore Vietnam or their survivors

From 1991 to 2002, the VA took the position that Navy veterans who were

awarded the Vietnam Service Medal as a result of service in the waters

offshore Vietnam were entitled to the same presumption of exposure to

Agent Orange as veterans who set foot on land in Vietnam. As a result,

many Navy veterans who served in the waters offshore and their survivors

were granted disability or DIC benefits based on an Agent Orange-related

disease.

In February 2002, however, the VA amended VA Manual M21-1 to limit the

presumption of exposure to Agent Orange to only those veterans who

actually set foot on the land mass of Vietnam. In other words, Navy

veterans who earned the Vietnam Service Medal for service in the waters

offshore Vietnam (often called "blue water veterans"), but who never set

foot on land, were no longer entitled to the presumption of

exposure. As a result of the amended M21-1, ever since February 2002,

the VA has been denying claims for Agent Orange-related diseases filed

by blue water Navy veterans. In addition, the VA has taken action to

sever awards of service connection in some of the cases that were

granted prior to February 2002.

NVLSP has appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims many of

the BVA decisions denying benefits to blue water veterans. NVLSP has

argued in these cases that the VA's change of position in 2002 violates

the Agent Orange Act of 1991. On January 10, 2006, a panel of the Court

heard argument in one of NVLSP's appeals and a decision on the legality

of the VA's set-foot-on-land requirement is expected some time this year.

What you should do: In any case in which you are representing a blue

water Navy veteran or a survivor of a blue water Navy veteran on a claim

based on an Agent Orange-related disease, you should keep the claim

alive by filing a timely NOD after the VA denial, and a timely

substantive appeal after the SOC. If the BVA denies the claim, contact

NVLSP attorney Rick Spataro at 202-265-8305, ext. # 149 or

rick_spataro@nvlsp.org <mailto:rick_spataro@nvlsp.org> (there's an

underscore after rick and before spataro), so that a timely appeal can

be filed with the Veterans Court. This is the best strategy because if

NVLSP wins its appeal, the VA will be required to follow the Veteran

Court's decision on the pending claim. On the other hand, if the VA's

denial of the claim becomes final, there is no guarantee that the VA

will consider the prior final denial to be CUE even if NVLSP were to win

its appeal.

PLEASE PASS ON!! Brenda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

0 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

There have been no answers to this question yet

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • jERRYMCK earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      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
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • 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.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use