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

[carlie]

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.

bronco,

The way I am understanding the story so far is that the claimant put in for an increase

and as the VA was taking a look at the entire claim history - the VA themselves called

a CUE on the SC of this claimants AO disability's, and adjudicated that his AO SC was granted

in error and terminated SC for this.

[jbasser]

Isnt it amazing that the VA can make veterans withold to the regs that were in effect at the time of a decision. So you file a EED claim for 1984 and you must be rated under 1984 guidelines unless an over rideing law is issued. With that being said, they sure used the HAAS decision to pop it to this vet and the VA will get away with it based onthe HAAS rule.

J

[Berta]

There has been confusion on the net over what this situation is all about.

I see confusion here too in the posts.

"Isnt it amazing that the VA can make veterans withold to the regs that were in effect at the time of a decision. So you file a EED claim for 1984 and you must be rated under 1984 guidelines unless an over rideing law is issued. With that being said, they sure used the HAAS decision to pop it to this vet and the VA will get away with it based onthe HAAS rule."

This has Nothing to do with Haas. It has to do with basic VA case law 101 established decades ago.Prior to Haas and even prior to the AO regs.

And NO they wont get away with it.

I wont be here much until this situation is rectified for this veteran.VA Central says they (VBA)are moving on it due to their first contact with the reporter who did the story.

I spent time yesterday with VA Central contact to hopefully help that along

I find I am even getting irritated by some of the posts here- when the 2 decisions from the CAVC cited in the training letter clearly reveal what this is all about.

This is about VA's deliberate and continuous violation of the rights of veterans and all other VA claimants.This goes beyond one veteran's plight.

One reason why the VA is so arbitrary=

it is because the community of VA claimants have enabled them to get away with this stuff.

Under the original AO regs,the receipt of the VSM on a DD 214 , legally supported an award of AO comp to any veteran who served in the Vietnam war theatre-to include 7th Fleet if they had any AO presumptive disability.

Mr Cooley was LEGALLY awarded and entitled to his AO comp.

If you take the time to read the training letter 10-06 ,it clearly states that it is established VA policy whenever a new reg alters an older reg, that any vet awarded under the older version retains any comp they received under the older version.

Rick from NVLSP only could briefly reply to me-he is off this week- but he confirmed exactly what I am saying-

the Murphy Training letter (which this vet's rep said was NOT VA policy- certainly IS VA policy -applicable to this veteran- and even if the NYRO didnt have this TL-10=-06 at the time of the reduction-still they had enough info in M21-1, 38 USC and 38 CFR -due to Jordan V Nicholson and the older Berger V Brown decision to know that what they pulled on this vet (which could -in a different scenario- sure be used on any one here as well)

to reduce comp to zero and hope the vet doesn't have adequate POA representation , therefore the vet would not fight it- as happened in the Cooley case.

[carlie]

There has been confusion on the net over what this situation is all about.

I see confusion here too in the posts.

Rick from NVLSP only could briefly reply to me-he is off this week- but he confirmed exactly what I am saying-

the Murphy Training letter (which this vet's rep said was NOT VA policy- certainly IS VA policy -applicable to this veteran-

and even if the NYRO didnt have this TL-10=-06 at the time of the reduction-still they had enough info in M21-1, 38 USC and 38 CFR -

due to Jordan V Nicholson and the older Berger V Brown decision to know that what they pulled on this vet

(which could -in a different scenario- sure be used on any one here as well)

to reduce comp to zero and hope the vet doesn't have adequate POA representation , therefore the vet would not fight it- as happened in the Cooley case.

Berta,

The way I was understanding the story so far is that

when the vet filed a claim for increase -

the VA re-looked at his adjudication history and the VA

called a CUE on their prior rating decision that had granted SC for AO related disability/s.

The VA supported their allegation of CUE stating something to the effect that the veteran

was a BWN vet - thereby not eligible for AO presumption as he was not boots on ground RVN.

VA negated to follow the instruction in Murphy's Training Letter and SEVERED SC FOR AO DISABILITY/S.

I still question if the VA followed their regs and notified the veteran with a written proposal of an adverse action

and his due process right to present evidence as to why the adverse action should not take place, along

with his option to have a hearing on this issue.

In the story it states,

" Charles Cooley developed diabetes in the early 1990s.

He went on insulin a few years later and, in 2001, he began receiving federal benefits. At first, he was compensated at a 10 percent level, later at a 40 percent level. By 2009, his benefit payments came to about $600 a month."

I would sure love to read the exact rating decision from 2001, that first granted SC and benefits, especially the

Evidence and Reasons and Bases Sections and feel they would more likely than not also state what reg/s

were followed to support the grant due to AO. It will probably have something in the decision that refers

to the VSM shown on his DD214.

Also it's driving me nuts not knowing what effective date was first granted.

I would also like to know if the VA has him listed in the AO Registry.

[carlie]

With that being said, they sure used the HAAS decision to pop it to this vet and the VA will get away with it based on the HAAS rule.

J

basser,

I understand your thought process in regards to the HAAS decision, being like downstream issue for this AO claimant and all Blue Water AO claimants.

I have posted a snippet (in quotes) and a link below that connects your dots.

"BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE

Committee on Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and

Agent Orange Exposure

Board on the Health of Select Populations

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE

OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES"

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/poststar.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/3/ba/6a6/3ba6a636-906f-11e0-a46d-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4ded23efa339e.pdf.pdf

"Before 1997, Vietnam veterans were eligible for a presumption of

exposure if "during active military, naval, or air service, they had served

in the Republic of Vietnam" unless there was evidence that they had not

been exposed to Agent Orange.

That broad policy was later narrowed so that service on the ground in Vietnam (ground troops) or on its inland waterways (Brown Water Navy) was required to receive a presumption of exposure.

The VA further stipulated that "mere service on a deepwater naval vessel in waters off shore of the Republic of Vietnam is not qualifying service in Vietnam."

Those who served aboard deep-water naval vessels are the Blue Water Navy.

Although that interpretation was challenged by Blue Water Navy veterans,

the VA position was upheld in the 2008 case of Haas v. Peake and stands today.

Since 2008, the VA has, case by case, recognized numerous Blue Water Navy ships as

having entered the inland waterways of Vietnam or having docked in

Vietnam at specific times and locations. Navy personnel who served

aboard those blue-water ships during the specific times when their ships

were in inland waters or docked are now eligible for the presumption of

service connection for Agent Orange–associated diseases. "

The letter by Thomas Murphy (the articles states he is "director of compensation and pension services for the va") may be found as supportive to Charles Cooley's case of severance and I think those are the main focus for quick resolve - for now.

I do not think Jim Strickland or Attorney's Katrina J. Eagle and Douglas J. Rosinski will mind me sharing some great information in this snippet ( I sure hope not) from:

http://www.vawatchdogtoday.org/What_s_The_Law_.html

"VA can take many months or years to produce a regulation.

During this period, VA may issue "guidance" such as "Fast Letters" or "C&P Bulletins"

that instruct working level VA employees what to do until a Final Rule is effective.

Other times, local offices (or individual employees) are left to develop their own "temporary" procedures.

All of this guidance is also the "law," at least under certain circumstances.

Of course, the statutory language is still what controls over these temporary rules if there is a difference."

No doubt about it tho, this vet is in a pickle that could turn into a barrel of pickles if this doesn't get beat down.

[Berta]

To update this -the PostStar continues to run articles regarding Agent Orange (also Korea AO) and the Cooley issue.

http://poststar.com/search/?l=50&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&q=Agent+Orange#vmix_media_id=94211861

As I understand this- a NY COngressman is looking into this (per a NY advocate), also another advocate who won similiar claim has contacted the Cooleys to help and the VA Central Office contact person I have , told me they would update me on what they are doing about this in DC but I guess I better call them again.

Also I will be again calling the vet rep to see what he is doing to rectify this unconscionable violation of this veteran's rights.

I saw the Cushman decision mentioned here recently-

these decisions mean nothing if we continue to enable the VA to trample on our rights.

If they take away the legal established rights of one vet, that means they can continue to do it to any one of us.

I even think VA gets help from some vet reps to do that.

wait-----hold that thought- I KNOW (and have documentation to prove it) they do!