Can You Sue Your Service Organization For Mistakes.

[Dave1433]

I wanted to know if anyone ever tried to sue their service organization for gross errors in handling their claims. For example, if the service representative in charge (ie DVA, PVA, Am Leg.) failed to file paperwork perfecting a claim for benefits that the VA should have granted, is the service organization open to lawsuits for the gross neglegence of that employee's failings caused the vet to lose @ 75K in back benefits?

[free_spirit_etc]

Widow,

That was a powerful post. And yes, if an agency puts itself out there promising to assist with your claim, then they have, in essence, made a contract to do so. And they have a certain accountability to uphold their portion of that contract, regardless of whether they charged you for that service.

And regardless of whether you were specifically charged money for them representing you - they have been paid for those services through other means.

Also important to keep in mind is that veterans have been barred from paying people to assist with their claims, until very recently. The system was set up restricting vets to use non-paid representatives to assist them (or more appropriately, representatives who were paid by other means.)

[jerrbilly]

The problem is is being able to prove it. If you send in a certified NOD or handed it in in person you would have a receipt for submission.

If you have this and the VA has no record of it you have a solid case. You could also go another route and inform the DAV etc of the negligence and it may embarrass them enough where they make extra effort to get your claim adjudicated correctly.

A suit should be the last resort unless you're prepared for a long drawn out process. If you play it smart you might get the appropriate response pretty quickly by bringing it to attention before filing a suit.

Jerr

I wanted to know if anyone ever tried to sue their service organization for gross errors in handling their claims. For example, if the service representative in charge (ie DVA, PVA, Am Leg.) failed to file paperwork perfecting a claim for benefits that the VA should have granted, is the service organization open to lawsuits for the gross neglegence of that employee's failings caused the vet to lose @ 75K in back benefits?

[poolguy11550]

I wanted to know.........tried to sue their service organization for gross errors in handling their claims. For example,........failed to file paperwork perfecting a claim for benefits that the VA should have granted,.......gross neglegence of that employee's failings caused the vet to lose @ 75K in back benefits?

Two key issues I'd like to point out.

1. "VA should have granted". Never assume the VA will have grant anything. Did the claim eventually advice and granted?

2. If the VA did grant eventuality, then you might have damages under curtain circumstance. Meaning, can you prove the person whom handled your claim intentionally did the action to see that you where harmed financially or otherwise. If you could prove that he/she were so absent-minded they mishandled other claims in such a manor and the persons supervising him/her knew of this and did nothing to correct this from happening.

If number one was granted and you can prove number two- then you have been damaged. In regard to seeking damages from the veterans service organization, anybody can file suit against any one- winning is something else.

[free_spirit_etc]

Good points! I think in the case of the original poster, if the claim IS granted, but the effective date is much later, because the VSO told him NOT to appeal the first time (as no appeal was needed) - then he might have a case - as long as he can prove the VSO told him that - and that he relied on their advice, and thus suffered "harm."

I think besides merely showing that he was harmed, and that the VSO gave him inadequate advice, he will also have to show that he relied on that advice. Not filing the appeal will be one part. But he could also find himself defending why he didn't file the appeal anyway (i.e. throwing it back in his lap.)

From my understanding, his basic "harm" will be the amount he had to spend on health insurance for his children, because of the later effective date, or the delay in processing.

But also important to keep in mind, the agency will pull in to defend itself, and sacrifice those whom it perceives to be a threat to it.

ETA - okay..I read a bit more. Wanting to sue for both loss of backpay and kids insurance.

On the loss of back pay - might be a case, if the VA states he is entitled to increased rating, but is limited to how far back he can be paid because he did not perfect his appeal.

But, will have to see what the VA says first.....

Free

Two key issues I'd like to point out.

1. "VA should have granted". Never assume the VA will have grant anything. Did the claim eventually advice and granted?

2. If the VA did grant eventuality, then you might have damages under curtain circumstance. Meaning, can you prove the person whom handled your claim intentionally did the action to see that you where harmed financially or otherwise. If you could prove that he/she were so absent-minded they mishandled other claims in such a manor and the persons supervising him/her knew of this and did nothing to correct this from happening.

If number one was granted and you can prove number two- then you have been damaged. In regard to seeking damages from the veterans service organization, anybody can file suit against any one- winning is something else.

Edited December 22, 2009 by free_spirit_etc

[poolguy11550]

Good points! I think in the case of the original poster, if the claim IS granted, but the effective date is much later, because the VSO told him NOT to appeal the first time (as no appeal was needed) - then he might have a case - as long as he can prove the VSO told him that - and that he relied on their advice, and thus suffered "harm."

I think besides merely showing that he was harmed, and that the VSO gave him inadequate advice, he will also have to show that he relied on that advice. Not filing the appeal will be one part. But he could also find himself defending why he didn't file the appeal anyway (i.e. throwing it back in his lap.)

From my understanding, his basic "harm" will be the amount he had to spend on health insurance for his children, because of the later effective date, or the delay in processing.

But also important to keep in mind, the agency will pull in to defend itself, and sacrifice those whom it perceives to be a threat to it.

Free

So the VSO gave bad, incorrect and wrong advice. To add, he/she is a few fries short of a happy meal too. Whether the VSO was "harming" the client means nothing, unless he/she was doing so with the intent to purposely see this veteran harmed in one respect or anther. Everything else is simply a case of putting your eggs in the wrong basket.

[carlie]

So the VSO gave bad, incorrect and wrong advice. To add, he/she is a few fries short of a happy meal too. Whether the VSO was "harming" the client means nothing, unless he/she was doing so with the intent to purposely see this veteran harmed in one respect or anther. Everything else is simply a case of putting your eggs in the wrong basket.

Ditto.

carlie