Agent Orange Claim Movement Slows

[NSA-Saigon-ET]

I checked the VA spreadsheet yesterday for the AO claims workload. I was dismayed to notice a slowing for the last 2 weeks.

Reopened or new Agent Orange claims prior to 8/30/10 * 681 7,040 6,674 94.8%

Nehmer review cases based upon new Agent Orange presumptives * 687 73,738 69,967 94.9%

I mainly follow the EP681 claims as mine is in that stack. The VA figures reported since the first of the year showed an average of 2000 claims finished nationwide per week until the last 2 weeks. The last 2 weeks it slowed by over 50% by week.

I believe that they have worked all the easy claims and now are working thru the more complex ones, which really is eating up time. I keep calling the call center for updates and have found that my own claim has been back and forth between rating and development since February 24 to now and they still haven't rated it yet. This is at the Waco, Tx RO.

[Berta]

"I believe that they have worked all the easy claims and now are working thru the more complex ones"

I agree with you- even though AO claims are still probably being filed,that makes sense to me.

I felt my claim was "complex" because it involved a past misdiagnosis of IHD and I had to send a lot of ancillary OGC documents in with the claim.I figured mine would take some time when I filed it in August 2010.

[Ascomdepot68]

Could you please post a link to the spreadsheet? Is it specific to each RO or are they all available from this one resource? Thanks.

I checked the VA spreadsheet yesterday for the AO claims workload. I was dismayed to notice a slowing for the last 2 weeks.

Reopened or new Agent Orange claims prior to 8/30/10 * 681 7,040 6,674 94.8%

Nehmer review cases based upon new Agent Orange presumptives * 687 73,738 69,967 94.9%

I mainly follow the EP681 claims as mine is in that stack. The VA figures reported since the first of the year showed an average of 2000 claims finished nationwide per week until the last 2 weeks. The last 2 weeks it slowed by over 50% by week.

I believe that they have worked all the easy claims and now are working thru the more complex ones, which really is eating up time. I keep calling the call center for updates and have found that my own claim has been back and forth between rating and development since February 24 to now and they still haven't rated it yet. This is at the Waco, Tx RO.

[Papa]

According to the Va, I really screwed up by submitting my claim for Parkinsons, as it will slow up my other claims. I told them that I may have other claims to submit, and was ask to not submit them until the current claims are completed. I just hope I live long enough to win this.

Papa

[NSA-Saigon-ET]

Well wouldn't you know it? I found out yesterday that my AO/IHD has been rated at last. They tell me it is in the notification phase now, and shouldn't take much longer. I sure hope that is true.

My claim should come under the Footnote 1 section of the training manual so I will be very eager to see how they handled it.

This is out of the Waco Tx nehmer team.

[Berta]

I sure hope this goes well for you!

I have a Footnote one claim myself.

We discussed Footnote one in this thread:

It could apply to many vets who have not read the Nehmer Training Guide(I just hope all those Vet reps out there have read it)

[Berta]

I think that link I posted was after the CAVC case Rick had that I referred to here in last post I made.

Footnote One is a critical part of the Nehmer Training Guide:

http://www.nvlsp.org...ainingGuide.pdf

On pages 15 and 16 pf the NVLSP training guide for the new AO presumptives, the substance of Foot Note 1 is explained.

Here is Footnote one explanation from NVLSP: (my note here- the IHD could also have been Hairy Cell B or Parkinson's)

"As for your second question, if the VA should have coded IHD in a rating decision, the claim that resulted in the rating decision could be considered a claim for benefits for IHD under footnote 1 of the Final Stipulation and Order in Nehmer. It basically depends on the timing of the claim, rating decision, and evidence received while the claim was pending. It may also depend on the rules in the Manual M21-1 regarding coding that were in effect at the time of the claim. Typically, though, the following example would be accurate: A veteran filed a claim for SC for a low back disability on May 1, 1990. The VA obtained medical evidence showing a diagnosis of IHD in the development of that claim. The VA issued a rating decision on April 1, 1991, but does not code IHD (list IHD as “NSC” on the code sheet of the rating decision). Under footnote 1, since the condition should have been coded in the April 1, 1991 decision, the May 1, 1990 claim should be considered a claim for SC for IHD under Nehmer.

I recently made the argument / explained the application of Footnote 1 in a case at the CAVC (docket # 08-1840):

https://efiling.vetapp.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc&dls_id=01201049391&caseId=56380&dktType=dktPublic

The judge has yet to render a decision in the case, but the VA basically agreed with our interpretation of the application of footnote 1 in their brief that was filed before ours:

https://efiling.vetapp.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc&dls_id=0120978598&caseId=56380&dktType=dktPublic"

Rick

Richard V. Spataro

Staff Attorney NVLSP"