Post a clear title like ‘Need help preparing PTSD claim’ or “VA med center won’t schedule my surgery”instead of ‘I have a question.
Knowledgeable people who don’t have time to read all posts may skip yours if your need isn’t clear in the title.
I don’t read all posts every login and will gravitate towards those I have more info on.
Use paragraphs instead of one massive, rambling introduction or story.
Again – You want to make it easy for others to help. If your question is buried in a monster paragraph, there are fewer who will investigate to dig it out.
Post straightforward questions and then post background information.
Question A. I was previously denied for apnea – Should I refile a claim?
Adding Background information in your post will help members understand what information you are looking for so they can assist you in finding it.
Rephrase the question: I was diagnosed with apnea in service and received a CPAP machine, but the claim was denied in 2008. Should I refile?
Question B. I may have PTSD- how can I be sure?
See how the details below give us a better understanding of what you’re claiming.
Rephrase the question: I was involved in a traumatic incident on base in 1974 and have had nightmares ever since, but I did not go to mental health while enlisted. How can I get help?
This gives members a starting point to ask clarifying questions like “Can you post the Reasons for Denial of your claim?”
Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. This process does not take long.
Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. The review requirement will usually be removed by the 6th post. However, we reserve the right to keep anyone on moderator preview.
This process allows us to remove spam and other junk posts before hitting the board. We want to keep the focus on VA Claims, and this helps us do that.
Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:
You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons …Continue reading
Atom bomb veterans decision due
Posted on June 04, 2009 by assteditor
UK-MORE than 1,000 atom bomb test veterans claiming hundreds of millions in compensation from the Ministry of Defence will discover the fate of a government bid to derail their claims on Friday.
A widow from north Hampshire, whose husband died from "unusual cancers", is among those taking part in the High Court battle against the MoD.
Edna Ellis’s husband Stuart was a scientist aboard HMS Diana, which travelled to the South Pacific in 1956 to monitor atomic testing.
Despite leading a healthy lifestyle, he died in 1989 at the age of 63, with a consultant surgeon describing his cancer as the "the most unusual presentation" he had ever encountered.
Naval veteran Roger Atkins, from Frimley, is also involved in the court battle. The 70-year-old, who watched Britain explode one of its first hydrogen bombs, has been fighting cancer for 14 years.
The ex-servicemen, their widows and families claim the men were made ill by radiation exposure following nuclear tests in the Pacific and mainland Australia in the 1950s.
The claims, if successful, could potentially cost the MoD hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation payments for a wide range of health problems.
Earlier this year, the government launched a legal bid to halt the claims before they even got off the ground, arguing that they were made too late to go ahead.
On Friday, High Court Judge Mr Justice Foskett will give his judgment, which will decide whether the men's claims can go to a full trial.
Douglas Hern, litigation secretary for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, said the claimants were hopeful of a positive outcome.
During a 15-day hearing in January and February, MoD barrister Charles Gibson QC argued that, even if it was deemed that they should go ahead at such a late date, the men's claims had "no reasonable prospect of success".
They had been made in a "vacuum of evidence" and were an "attack" on the veterans and scientists who organised the tests and were there at the time, he said.
For the veterans, Benjamin Browne QC, said recent research made a clear link between radiation exposure and illnesses suffered and it was only when that became available that the claims could have gone ahead
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
Top Posters For This Question
Testvet 1 post
allan 1 post
Jun 5 2009
1 answer to this question
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.