Craig's "choice Of Representation" For Veterans Bill Picks Up Support

[Guest allanopie]

NEWS FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

CRAIG'S "CHOICE OF REPRESENTATION" FOR VETERANS BILL PICKS UP SUPPORT --

Legislation seeks to overturn 150 year-old prohibition on hiring lawyers

Craig's legislation seeks to change a policy prohibiting attorneys from

representing veterans -- a policy which began during the Civil War.

Image courtesy the U.S. Social Security Administration

June 8, 2006

Media contact: Jeff Schrade (202)224-9093

(Washington, DC) Legislation to allow veterans to hire an attorney as

they seek benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs picked up

strong support Thursday. The positive reaction came during a hearing of

the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The legislation (S. 2694), sponsored by Chairman Larry Craig (R-Idaho),

seeks to overturn a policy begun during the Civil War.

Under current law, all 24 million living veterans are prohibited from

hiring legal counsel to help them navigate the Veterans Affairs system.

It is only after a veteran has spent months and even years exhausting

the extensive VA administrative process that the veteran then may retain

a lawyer - a process that often takes 3 or more years to complete.

"Particularly for veterans of today's All-Volunteer Force, the current

paternalistic Civil War-era law is completely outdated. These

highly-trained, highly skilled veterans have the ability - and should

have the right - to decide for themselves whether to hire a lawyer,"

Craig said.

The Idaho Republican noted that many veterans have written in support of

the bill, including one from New Jersey, a decorated disabled military

retiree who served in Vietnam. He wrote:

"Murderers, rapists and pedophiles can hire an attorney; why are

veterans treated as third, yes third class citizens?"

Among those who spoke out Thursday in favor of changing the law was

former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims, Donald Ivers, as well as Rick Weidman of the Vietnam Veterans of

America and Barton F. Stichman of the National Veterans Legal Services

Program.

"Freedom to seek counsel of one's choice has long been a hallmark of

this nation's system of justice. That those who have given much in

defense of that system are denied that freedom in pursuing claims

arising out of their service is, at best, highly contradictory," Judge

Ivers said.

Under current federal laws and court rulings, criminal defendants,

illegal aliens, and enemy combatants have the right to have legal

counsel. Veterans are the only group which does not enjoy that

privilege.

"It makes no rational sense to deny them this right," Stichman said.

That sentiment was shared by Rick Weidman, who spoke to the committee on

behalf of those in his organization.

"Vietnam Veterans of America strongly and unreservedly supports S.2694

by convention resolution," Weidman said. "We urge its endorsement by

this committee and passage by both houses of Congress."

In the House of Representatives, two bills similar to Sen. Craig's have

been introduced, one (H.R. 5549) by Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman of a

subcommittee of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and (H.R.

4914) Rep. Lane Evans, the top Democrat on that same committee.

Despite the strong support Craig's legislation has received, the

Department of Veterans Affairs voiced opposition to the bill during the

hearing. That drew a strong rebuke from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who

is co-sponsoring the bill with Sen. Craig.

Other co-sponsors of the bill include Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX),

who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee on the Military Construction

and Veterans Affairs, Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

#####

See this story on-line at: http://veterans.senate.gov

<http://veterans.senate.gov/>

If you want to send Chairman Craig a message, click on: Contact the

Veterans' Affairs Committee

<http://veterans.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home>

[Scott D]

I believe that this bill will not do anything except create a way for lawyers to make more money. As we all know the problem usually is not on our ends, but at the VA itself. We have all submitted good claims only to be shot down by some screw up made by a VA employee. Will it really make a difference if the claim is printed on the letterhead from a local attorney? I seriously doubt it will.

The money that would be spent implementing and creating the changes necessary to encompass the actions required by the bills, would be better spent training and hiring new VA employees. Also with the limelight of the ID scandal Congress could create a method that would hold the VA responsible for negligence on their behalf, including error committed during claims processing.

I know from browsing the DAV's website that they do not support this bit of legislation.

After all who is the best representative for your case, you are. Study up and fight fire with fire.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Scott D

[rogus]

Terry - Although I believe that lawyers are a needed step in resolving this issue. I believe until the laws change to allow veterans to hold (as in sue) the VA responsible for it's misconductthat this jesture in and of itself is meaningless.

The VA has had decades to develop was to keep cases in the remand process even if the claim is done correctly it will still end up being a crap shoot since their is no legal recourse a veteran can take against the VA.

[john999]

How do workers compensation lawyers and SSA lawyers get paid? Maybe this is how vet lawyers should get paid? If there is a will there is a way.

[timetowinarace]

I believe that this bill will not do anything except create a way for lawyers to make more money. As we all know the problem usually is not on our ends, but at the VA itself. We have all submitted good claims only to be shot down by some screw up made by a VA employee. Will it really make a difference if the claim is printed on the letterhead from a local attorney? I seriously doubt it will.

The money that would be spent implementing and creating the changes necessary to encompass the actions required by the bills, would be better spent training and hiring new VA employees. Also with the limelight of the ID scandal Congress could create a method that would hold the VA responsible for negligence on their behalf, including error committed during claims processing.

I know from browsing the DAV's website that they do not support this bit of legislation.

After all who is the best representative for your case, you are. Study up and fight fire with fire.

No, the DAV is not likely to support legislation that would reduce jobs in their ranks. The more attorneys are utilized there would be fewer needs for SO's. As helpfull as these organizations can be, it is clear the use of SO's in claims filing is not working to improve veterans chances of getting their well deserved claims approved.

As far the vet being their own best representative goes----BULL

It can take years for a person that is able to learn all that needs to be learned in law and medical experience to represent themselves. For some it is impossible. For those that it is impossible, many may find someone willing to do it correctly. The rest will starve on the street.

My SSDI attorney will get a percentage of my backpay. I think it is 20%. I will gladly give him $20 for every $100 he get's me for his services. If I do not present my claim properly I get nothing. $80 is better than $0 no matter how you do the math. The best part is that I do not endure the stress created by taking on the claim myself making it an all or nothing type situation.

It is my opinion that by permitting attorneys the claims proccess will speed up. If for no other reason than because an attorney will not work for free. If the claim cannot be successful it will not be filed. Claimants hireing attorneys will be told if their claim is winnable. SSDI lawyers will not take a case they cannot win because they do not get paid if it doesn't. Fewer frivolous claims filed=more time for good claims to be worked on. SO's generally file all claims with or without merit because they do not want to offend a veteran and then let the VA be the bad guy. They get paid the same either way.

If we think attorneys make too much money, maybe we should send our kids to law school. ;0

Time

[rogus]

Your right about the DAV They seriously DONT WANT LAWYERS; Check out this posting by them:

http://capwiz.com/dav/issues/alert/?alertid=8819571&type=CO

Attorneys in Claims Process

June 6, 2006

The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is concerned that the current claims process does not work properly. We believe Congress should focus on correcting the process, not making it more adversarial and legalistic. The question should not be whether veterans have a right to hire an attorney, but how to improve claims processing. Clearly, the solution is not to allow attorneys into the process.

The VA benefits delivery system was designed to be open, informal, and helpful to veterans. The goal was to ensure that veterans receive the benefits a grateful nation has provided for them, rather than discourage or inhibit their claims with government “red tape” or lengthy litigation. Allowing attorneys into the process would interfere with this goal and will create a system that is more adversarial and legalistic and less veteran-friendly.

I urge you to write to your Representative and Senators, urging them to oppose the enactment of this bill and to truly focus the attention of Congress on ways to ensure the process performs in the manner for which it was designed—an ex parte, non-adversarial system, with VA being obligated to provide all benefits allowable under the law.

Take Action Now! Enter Your Zip Code:

powered by Capitol Advantage ©2006

[john999]

Rogus

I read the DAV's statement about lawyers. They are just afraid of how bad they will look when lawyers eat their lunch. These VSO's have been sitting on their asses for years. Craig's agenda may be to weaken the VSO's by bringing lawyers into the picture. I joined DAV because they were my POA. I would not have joined otherwise. Their probably is an ulterior motive to Craig's actions. All those guys want to destroy the VA and cut back on benefits. This is the party of Lincoln. Hard to believe what the Republican Party has turned into a bunch of right wing cheap skates.