Dioxin Follow On: Strategies For Va Claims

[allan]

<H2 class=date-header>Tuesday, June 16, 2009</H2><H3 class=post-title><A href="http://vnvets.blogspot.com/2009/06/dioxin-follow-on-strategies-for-va.html">Dioxin Follow on: Strategies for VA Claims </H3>

Recently we posted an article written by Chuck Graham and Susie Belanger titled Dioxin: What the U.S. Navy knew and didn’t [or wouldn’t!] tell us.

This is a follow on to that post with a suggested strategy on how Veterans can use the documents in the article to support their claims in the DVA's claims processing system.

Readers with VA Claims in various stages of denial by the VA are welcome to use all of this as additional evidence in the development of their claims. It is of limited use to those who's ships did not get close inshore, but for those who anchored in bays, harbors and estuaries and those who's ships worked in close on Market Time, Naval Gun Fire Support [NGFS], and associated duties should be able to present this, along with other evidence to advance their claims.

That said, this will likely not have an effect on claims at the Veterans Affairs Regional Office level [VARO, or simply RO], but the chances of using this evidence to support a claim as described above successfully increase the farther up the Department of Veterans Affairs [DVA] food chain one goes: Board of Veterans Appeals [bVA], and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims [CAVC]. It may take a while, but sooner or later, all this documentary and "scientific" evidence in support of granting presumptive exposure will overwhelm the scientific evidence that claims we could not have been exposed because we only served at sea -- of which there is absolutely none. The CAVC recently remanded the Haas claim back to the BVA with the warning that if they are going to deny a claim, they MUST have overwhelming evidence to do so, otherwise they must approve the claim. Simply repeating a line of policy [based on no scientific evidence] will not suffice.

The DVA has recently backed off the ports and harbors exclusion and is now granting claims if a ship tied up to a pier -- or at least they have SAID they would make that change.

With this evidence that the Navy, the Army, the Department of Defense [DoD], and the DVA knew as far back as 1969 of the dangers of dioxin in water supplies, there should be no problem getting a claim approved.

Warning, do not rely completely on the evidence from the documents listed as proof of exposure. Veterans must provide much more evidence, such as deck logs, charts showing ship's locations, letters, buddy statements, and/or official records of incidents leading to exposure.

What this evidence does is provide a high mountain of evidence that exposure MORE THAN LIKELY occurred, which, according to the recent Haas remand, requires the DVA to prove overwhelmingly that exposure did not occur. They cannot.

And suddenly, at least at the CAVC, the WORD of the DVA is no long good enough on its own.

Veterans with claims should also know that their true salvation concerning Agent Orange exposure is the timely enactment of HR 2254, and should therefore put all the pressure they can bring to bear on their Congressional Representatives and both their Senators to fully SUPPORT and FUND HR 2254. This MUST be accomplished soon. We find it impossible to believe that of all our readers and associates, none have any political connection, none worked on campaigns, none feel the power to tell an incumbent, "If you don't fully support this bill and its funding, and don't work to get it enacted, I will ensure that you have far fewer votes, especially among Veterans the next time you run."

Do not write letters unless you intend to fax them. If you get the canned response, telling you all about the bill and how the Congressman works hard on behalf of Veterans, and how he will keep your thoughts in mind should the bill reach the floor...," send back this response:

<B>

Thank you for your kind response to my request that you actively support and co-sponsor HR 2254. You response assures that I will keep your interest in mind when I next enter a polling booth with you on the ballot.

</B>Then move on to your Senators.

We also now have resolutions under way in the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts General Assemblies, and perhaps the Illinois legislature as well. These resolutions call for their respective state Secretary of State to forward a request to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and each member of that state's Congressional Delegation to fully fund and support HR 2254, the Agent Orange Act of 2009.

VNVets

http://vnvets.blogspot.com/2009/06/dioxin-...ies-for-va.html