Va Ceases Benefits For Veteran Suffering Ailments Linked To Agent Orange

[carlie]

"VA ceases benefits for veteran suffering ailments linked to Agent Orange"

http://poststar.com/news/local/article_3a1107e2-8f27-11e0-a387-001cc4c03286.html

[Berta]

You are RIGHT Bill-

I am focused solely on getting this travesty resolved-cant wait for VBA to open in DC-

The VA could decide (in the free time they seem to have to prepare reductions like this one, to determine that some past stressors that awarded PTSD comp- do not fall under the criteria of the new PTSD regs and start whipping out proposed reductions.

They could decide that vets who came under favorable ratings due to say-the newer IVDS criteria, are instead being reduced back to the older rating criteria.

There is a wealth of potential scenarios in which VA, despite recent Court case decisions, could whittle away comp here and there successfully to save money so this is not about one veteran- it is about ALL veterans and the rights they have that VA seems determined to ignore.

It reminds me of what I went through many years ago after Rod died.I own a lot across from my farm.

A neighbor started to cut into my lot saying-you cant do anything to us because you are alone-

then another neighbor starting cutting into the other side of my land.

This was a 7 acre lot.

I figured at some point they would meet in the middle and here in NY there is a squatter's rights law if you don't take action to stop this sort of trespass land theft and I could have been left with no lot across the road.

I sued the first neighbor and won.The second neighbor stopped his actions on the other side of the lot right away.

Our rights are being trespassed on by the VA whenever they can get away with it in the same way-

they feel most of us are alone in the respect that many of us cannot get adequate representation for our claims.

Reps "in bed with the VA" was a mantra in the 1980s and 1990s and I definitely feel that is true in some cases as far as too much of a cozy relationship between some reps and VARO employees.

I know what it is like when a vet gets a letter that whittles down their comp-for no good cause.

And I know what it is like to have a vet rep or even a VA attorney tell you- no- that reg says this and that but it really means something else.

Someone is going to pay for this Cooley reduction situation- so help me GOD!

He was fully and legally eligible under the original VSM regs for AO compensation.

I wonder how many more vets like him are going to be reduced.

I remember how when VA decioded to change the VSM regs- they pulled one over on vets attorneys as well as veterans themselves.

The full story of all that is at NVLSP and in the VBM.

Someone here said "what VA giveth ,.they taketh away".

That should be their new mission statement because they have defiled the words of Abraham Lincoln and are counting on vets like Mr. Dooley to be too disabled to attempt to fight back.

There is more to this situation-that is so outrageous that that too needs to be dealt with---

and I am determined to see it rectified because this could happen to any one of you if the VA can overrule a Training Letter and ignore the head of VA C & P in DC.

[broncovet]

I do think it would be a good idea to wait and see what the decisions/appeals are before we get too upset because some of these things do not always turn out like they first appear, especially in the media.

However, if this stands as it sounds, it is disturbing.

While I agree that a "Nod" is not appropriate for a "Proposed Reduction" as this applies only to "decisions", if the proposed reduction resulted in a "decision" terminating benefits, then the NOD is appropriate.

Of course, the Veteran should have asked for a hearing and fought the proposed reduction, if, in fact, the VA did give the Veteran due process of a proposed reduction.

I do think Carlie is spot on, that if the VA did not dot all the I's and cross all the "T"s of a proposed reduction, this should be reversed by the courts, even tho it may be too late for this Veteran.

This is taking advantage of a very sick Veteran, counting on him not living long enough to appeal this reduction. You see, this can be used as a precedent to sever other Veterans benefits.

"Justice delayed" is justice denied.

And I agree...thank God for Berta, because I know she meant what she posted about this.

This is about all Vets, not just this Vet, because if they can sever his benefits, they can sever ours, too.

[Bigred122]

This is just the beginning of things to come!!

http://www.military.com/news/article/mullen-says-pay-benefit-cuts-on-the-table.html

[Berta]

Sorry -I think I said NOD and I was wrong- the regs are right here-the decision has to be formally appealed with evidence and hearing should be requested. 38 CFR 3.105

M21-1 -1 Adjudication, under 9.16

I have been back and forth with the reporter as the second article he did said the veteran had,in fact, appealed but I am thinking as well as the reporter that the increase for DMII denial was apealed (and also an asbestos claim) and not the proposed reduction.

"I do think it would be a good idea to wait and see what the decisions/appeals are before we get too upset because some of these things do not always turn out like they first appear, especially in the media."

I agree with that Broncovet and it is difficult at this point-we are awaiting clarification as the vet and his rep said today that this was appealed but his rep indicated to me yesterday that the reduction was not appealed.

"You see, this can be used as a precedent to sever other Veterans benefits." I dont doubt that at all.

I have contacted Rick at NVLSP and await his input but then again- I still have no good idea if the proposed reduction was appealed in time.(not nodded but appealed per the appellate info in the letter)

It makes the veteran's increase for DMII on appeal-a moot issue if the VA can disregard his DMII AO SC award under the VSM regs.

Not only did VA take advantage of this vet-I think that is only the tip of the iceberg here but only by trying to get more info that is accurate- will this all be resolved.

The VSM regs were only VA law for a short period of time.

I guess the VA will be reducing all VSM Blue Water vets now.

If the vet died already due to the AO SC they had I guess their widows will have their DIC stopped.

Very very few BWN vets fell under the VSM regs.But the training letter from VBA C & P is quite clear that they cannot be severed.

[Berta]

to add to anyone interested-please note that

The training letter from Murphy VBA C & P - cites Berger V Brown and Jordan V Nicholson in that a new interpretation or change in a VA reg does not mean that

the VA can retroactively sever the veteran's comp.

This has been VA 101 for decades-reiterated in many decisions as well as in Berger and Jordan.

[broncovet]

I agree with Berta, but here is the problem: The VA severs the service connection to very old disabled Vets, probably too sick to survive years of appeals. They get away with it, even tho it conflicts with regulations. And they continue with it, because Vets dont appeal. Its the same problem as the fiduciary scandal..where the VA regurarly gets away with it scott free, essentially, with stealing tired old Vets money.

The solution:

We have to unite. Vn Vets, Iraq Vets, female Vets, male Vets, WW2 Vets, widows, spouses, kids, all of us. "Divide and conquer" is their motto. We think it wont happen to us because we are still young enough to fight.

Assuming this Vet was P and T, IMHO the VA cant severe service connection without medical evidence the condition has had "material improvement". While they can "cue" a decision, they should have to comply with all the Cue standards that we have to comply with. If there was justification for the original decision, then a difference of opinion with another decision maker is not CUE.

Finally, the regulations normally require a C and P exam for the VA to severe that justifies a rating reduction. This is why the VA calls P and T "no future exams scheduled". While the VA can call for a reexam, they are not supposed to do this with Vets over age 55 "except in unusual circumstances".

I doubt this Vet was reduced based upon a "material improvement in condition". Once the VA determines a condition is "service connected" then they would have to meet CUE standards, after one year from the date of the decision, to severe SC, except in cases of fraud. The reduction rules are very specific, and are designed for "rating stability".