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?

[jerrbilly]

And then there's always the media.

That would get their attention for sure.

jerr

[poolguy11550]

Widow- I fully understand your position and I am sympathize to the poor advice your VSO gave you and result of such. However, the law is not favorable to your situation. I know of no implied law that would affect your situation. Veterans are free to choose their VSO or go-it-alone. Veterans can research the VSO or particular officer that would be handling their claims. One can choose Perry Mason or the jerky boys to handle their claims. How do you know which is which?

On a more lighter note, as you describe the various VSO's, maybe one should put in a call to the organized crime task force- as these folks my be charged under the RICO laws.

Again, I sympathize with you and something should be done to get better advisers out there. the current status as largely unacceptable.

Edited December 22, 2009 by poolguy11550

[free_spirit_etc]

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.

I wasn't aware that intent to harm was necessary to prove to show negligence. I thought you only had to show they breached the "duty of care" owed to you, whether or not they actually intended to harm you by such a breach. But then I am not well versed in this subject area, so I do not know anything for sure. I am merely stating my opinion.

I also have no idea what forms they have you sign before representing you, but I would venture to guess that they include phrases that relieves them of liability for most things.

Free

[poolguy11550]

I wasn't aware that intent to harm was necessary to prove to show negligence. I thought you only had to show they breached the "duty of care" owed to you, whether or not they actually intended to harm you by such a breach. But then I am not well versed in this subject area, so I do not know anything for sure. I am merely stating my opinion.

I also have no idea what forms they have you sign before representing you, but I would venture to guess that they include phrases that relieves them of liability for most things.

Free

The term your looking for is fiduciary duty. To my knowledge VSO's do not have a fiduciary duty to the veteran. They are merely guides standing on the massively congested claims highway pointing out the way you should go and filing papers along the way. What direction they point to? Sometimes wrong and sometimes right. Are they punctual in the filings? Most are, some not so.

I guess the easiest correlation to make my point is a case study where one lawyer showed up drunk the very day of his cross examination of the states witnesses. His cross was very poor to the point he thrown-up and had to depart the court room several times.

Next case, the same situation but the lawyer has tourettes syndrome coupled with massive anxiety and cannot communicate his ideals to the jury.

Finally, A lawyer whom despises his client and jokes often to his closest friends that his client is guilty. In the court room he make no objections or motions to advance his client cause and is often sending text messages on his cell phone.

1st case- the lawyer has addiction issues but hey, he give it his all as best he could.

2nd case- the lawyer is most likely in the wrong line of work, but he tried none the less.

3rd case- the lawyer broke the fiduciary duty with his client, fail to represent him and the worst mistake- joked in a negative way toward his client.

The third lawyer is negligent. Why, his intent was simply provable by way of witness.

Point is, that lawyers have a fiduciary duty to their clients, that is the only standard acceptable. It like a code they live by. The VSO's do not have this duty and few officers approach this level. So, you may have any of the three VSO's listed like above working on your claim, but until you actually hire an attorney, one does have that actual level duty and trust.

Edited December 22, 2009 by poolguy11550

[free_spirit_etc]

Ahhh... here is something SIMILAR (though not exact) to what I was talking about - in having to prove (and perhaps defend) the fact that you RELIED upon the advice given.

It is in a discussion in SSAconnect on a specific occurrence with a non-attorney representative in Social Security.

http://ssaconnect.com/component/option,com...ewtopic/t,2363/(at bottom of page)

If the AC refuses (and they may do so, or they may lose the request, etc.) and the DLI has passed or this is an SSI claim only, then you may wish to be retained for the purpose of suing the rep in state court on a malpractice claim. It would seem to me however, that the precursor to the malpractice suit would be the existence of damages that could not have been mitigated. Failure to at least file pro se would not be excusable unless the claimant was too mentally ill to understand the notice of the right to appeal, illiterate, or dead, or home bound.

Edited December 22, 2009 by free_spirit_etc

[carlie]

I also have no idea what forms they have you sign before representing you, but I would venture to guess that they include phrases that relieves them of liability for most things.

Free

Free,

I think it's a VA Form 21-22.

There is a link to VA Forms on Hadit's Homepage

about 3/4 of the way down on the right.

It says, Forms.

carlie