Dav Wants To Provide Attorney For Cavc Claim

[MikeR]

Recently got a letter in the mail from the DAV providing me a name of an Attorney for a CAVC appeal that they are advising to appeal using them. Historically the DAV has been of very little help to me personally so was wondering if anyone had heard of this, and would anyone follow their recommendation? Just a bit suspicious of them wanting to provide an Attorney of their choosing. Had thought they were against Attorneys in the process. This is confusing.

[Pete53]

The DAV and the VVA often pay for the Lawyers at this level. I would check the lawyers credentials and talk to him

[john999]

The DAV is providing a name, but are they going to actually pay the lawyer? The lawyers usually take a percentage of your retro. I would check out the lawyer. I would want to get the best lawyer I could get even if he gets some of the retro. Knowing the DAV there may be something they are not telling you like this lawyer is the son in law of the DAV commander or something. I think that usually when you pay for something you get a better product than when it is charity work. You notice not many lawyers do SSD work for free. I did a wrongful death claim against a nursing home. The lawyer did get 40% of the award, but he and his staff did a great job of just pounding the hell out of the insurance company. My claim was not an afterthought. It was my lawyer's business that puts food on his table. He was motivated.

[Berta]

I am concerned about this too-

the DAV and the VVA pays lawyers to be representation for VA claims???????

[Pete53]

I am concerned about this too-

the DAV and the VVA pays lawyers to be representation for VA claims???????

Berta:

The VVA has their own Lawyers Alex Humpfrey was one of them and they take claims when they reach the Courts. The original poster said that the DAV recommended a lawyer but not that they would pay. I apologize if I have caused confusion.

[broncovet]

You have a right to be suspicious when someone tells you, "I am with the government and I am here to help you". Or worse, the DAV who is saying,

"I get free rent from the government (the DAV "shares" office space at VA Regional Offices) and they paid me to tell you that you should have ........... attorney represent you. Oh, by the way, have you paid your DAV dues yet? We need your money so we can help other Veterans like yourself"

..you had better get your own attorney...UNLESS the DAV wants to pay their fee for you, and if they are paying the attorney, remember that attorney will chew your arm off before he bites the hand that feeds him.

[MikeR]

Well the letter said that it was a contingency fee from the retro, and a $50.00 charge they sometimes waive. When the AMC denied me this last time the DAV guy on the phone was reading my denial and he seemed pretty peeved at them, which was not the norm. I filed the appellant's brief (with a Hadit member's help) and added the 2 page letter from the specialist (OSU Chief of Ortho) ref my ankle with appropriate Dorsiflexion/plantarflexion measurements, as well as etiology with an opine of service connection. That portion is back at the rater as the last 2 VA exams did not mention as instructed if they thought the injury was service connected.

Well if that does get resolved in my favor, the only thing left is the PTSD which I could either let drop, and file a Depression claim, or fight on to CAVC. I was wondering if the new proposed PTSD rules may help? I may just see if Ken Carpenter will take my case.......

[Berta]

"I was wondering if the new proposed PTSD rules may help?"

I raised that point in my comments at the Federal Register site-

'If this rule becomes a reg- what impact could it have on vets who were denied prior to the reg date'-

it could open a costly bag of worms for the VA-

I would not hang my hat on this or any proposed rule at the Federal Register site-

At least many many vets and advocates have commented on this reg-we all have until OCt-forget exact date so many are still commenting-but often they dont comment and then-such as the 30 SOC SSOC response period reg now- they find out a reg has changed and they could have had some input into stopping the change.

Lawyers who rep vets, NSOs and other vet reps, and the VA itself reads the comments and they are considered-and if they get enough of them-the comments can have impact on any proposed regulation.

Not all comments need to be posted at the Fed Reg site-I sent comments directly to Bradley Mayes in the past over some proposed VA idea I thought was ridiculous..

[MikeR]

Berta,

I do think you are right, I was just hoping that by the time I filed the appeal, and when they got around to it it would be the new rule, bang a remand to BVA, and so on.....

Just a crazy thought, after all they say I am crazy but they won't pay me for it.....

Mike

[Berta]

When a case gets to the CAVC a reversal and award is best- but a remand is also great too at it can open the door for more evidence to come into play.

CAVC decisions are based on the established record. The CAVC does not consider any additional evidence.

A case has to be supported by evidence long before it gets to the CAVC.

They access the BVA decision to see if errors were made that prejudiced the veteran.If so this causes a remand.

I was aksed by a lawyer (referred to me by a vet lawyer) to help with his first CAVC case.

I found 2 BVA errors and he also agreed with these errors-last I heard his client got the remand-

the case was awful.

It had been in the syetem for years. I didn't feel the vet had any basis at all for SC based on the premise of his claim.

The vet should have done a lot more leg work prior to going to the CAVC.Maybe he expected a lawyer could perform a miracle.

But it wasnt up to me to judge the case-just find some BVA errors in order to get the remand.

I also saw one potential way to attempt another method for SC-but the chances of that leading to SC were slim too- then again nothing is impossible to do.

The vet's case made no common sense. I even used my past limited civilian pilot school experience to explain to the lawyer why the claim was very shaky.The lawyer was not a vet and had never flown a plane.

The vet had overlooked a critical aerodynamic point in attempting to get AO compensation.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Berta (see edit history)

[MikeR]

When a case gets to the CAVC a reversal and award is best- but a remand is also great too at it can open the door for more evidence to come into play.

CAVC decisions are based on the established record. The CAVC does not consider any additional evidence.

A case has to be supported by evidence long before it gets to the CAVC.

They access the BVA decision to see if errors were made that prejudiced the veteran.If so this causes a remand.

I was aksed by a lawyer (referred to me by a vet lawyer) to help with his first CAVC case.

I found 2 BVA errors and he also agreed with these errors-last I heard his client got the remand-

the case was awful.

It had been in the syetem for years. I didn't feel the vet had any basis at all for SC based on the premise of his claim.

The vet should have done a lot more leg work prior to going to the CAVC.Maybe he expected a lawyer could perform a miracle.

But it wasnt up to me to judge the case-just find some BVA errors in order to get the remand.

I also saw one potential way to attempt another method for SC-but the chances of that leading to SC were slim too- then again nothing is impossible to do.

The vet's case made no common sense. I even used my past limited civilian pilot school experience to explain to the lawyer why the claim was very shaky.The lawyer was not a vet and had never flown a plane.

The vet had overlooked a critical aerodynamic point in attempting to get AO compensation.

What was the outcome?

[Berta]

It is still on remand and pending- but I expect it will be denied again.

Unless the veteran can provide a lot more evidence and explain why he should be considered exposed to AO -He is not in-country AO vet nor comes under the Korea DMZ AO regs

Edited September 15, 2009 by Berta (see edit history)