Question For "interested"

[broncovet]

I do agree, however, even "BOD" is subject to interpretation. The bottom line is that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is.

I think that someone will "test" Bradley Vs Peake in the CAVC or Federal courts, and a judge will decide whether they think congress meant to "add" the disabilities or "combine" them in Bradley vs Peake. It is even possible this issue is pressed on to the US Supreme Court. None of what any of us thinks will matter...the only important opinion will be the judge's on a precedential case.

I dont think that case has happened yet deciding it. I do think it will come, tho, and maybe within a year or less, too.

[jbasser]

I had a feeling his topic was a baiting tatic when it was proposed. We had a similar one a few months ago.

This topic is beating its head against a wall as the answer is the same. The arguement still exists.

If change is warranted, why not do something about it from a legal point instead of complaining about it. This will get us nowhere.

Ask for clarification from a higher source, or better yet, get a connected person to do it the form of a formal request.

Interested, I think you have been dealing with veterans for a long period of time. You also know that when a Veteran Feels short changed by the VA the reaction is often negatively based.

Lets put this thing to bed and move on.

Thanks

Basser

[Philip Rogers]

Basser - I'm really disappointed in you making that "baiting tactic" comment. I was merely looking for an "inside" view, of how the VA uses the CRT, in these cases. In my case, it's already working it's way thru the appeals process and I'm prepared to go all the way to the court. I was merely questioning whether I was missing something and was the one in error. I hope you at least allow "interested" to respond before using your veto powers. I personally don't see anything wrong w/this discussion. No one is flaming or being disrespectful, in any way and other new members may gain some insight from it. jmo

pr

PS - I've emailed and phoned the NVLSP numerous times looking for an answer but to no avail, as they only respond if you are purchasing something or are named Berta. LOL Just kidding Berta!!

I had a feeling his topic was a baiting tatic when it was proposed. We had a similar one a few months ago.

This topic is beating its head against a wall as the answer is the same. The arguement still exists.

If change is warranted, why not do something about it from a legal point instead of complaining about it. This will get us nowhere.

Ask for clarification from a higher source, or better yet, get a connected person to do it the form of a formal request.

Interested, I think you have been dealing with veterans for a long period of time. You also know that when a Veteran Feels short changed by the VA the reaction is often negatively based.

Lets put this thing to bed and move on.

Thanks

Basser

Edited September 22, 2011 by Philip Rogers

[jbasser]

A Little History on the subject:

PR dont take it the wrong way. The Baiting Tatic I mentioned was not meant to be harmful. It was bait to get an opinion from interested, much the same used by another member (RAK Warrior). I feel for you in your situation and Hope it gets cleared up soon.

Perhaps we can ask Carrie who to contact during the first SVR show in October. Anyway We do need to confirm this issue but who to confirm it with is quite the quagmire.

Another avenue with possibility is to ask Bob Filner. Given his position, he may be able to get an answer. Send me a PM with an exact question to ask him and I will see what I can do.

J

[Berta]

Philip- I got burned out about this issue months ago here BUT only because there has been NO definitive answer to your question from the VA or from anyone else-

even the VBM does not clarify this issue.

I don't think any vet has ever pushed this issue far enough as Bradley V Peake involved an entirely different aspect of SMC.

I think maybe only a BVA denial appealed to the CAVC would resolve this issue.

"I'm prepared to go all the way to the court." GREAT!!!!!!I would do that too if I were you.

Have you called or written to Bart Stickman or Ron Abrams about this?

I suggest writing to them because in 1995 (my relationship with NVLSP started in 1991 but they never have represented me)

I had a long discussion with one of their top guns as to an FTCA question on what they had written in the VBM.

He said I was wrong in my interpretation of something there. We had a long discussion because the FTCA info in the VBM is limited and they always suggest getting an FTCA attorney for help with torts.

I didnt know if I clearly asked the question by phone ----and might have left out something that would have changed his opinion.

I think now -had I written him a letter instead , his answer would have been different.

My interpretation was right- based on my refund offset letter last year (which was quite a battle to get)

But I do believe he was stuck on a specific reg ,correctly interpreting it and I was stuck on how to overcome that reg.

So I feel I should had written to him instead to explain it all.

Then again NVLSP doesnt get involved with specific claims- they are interested in any legal aspects however that could impact other claimants as in your case.

No one ever raised the legal issue I had raised with them in that phone call.And the issue would involve a very limited portion of FTCA claimants.

And had never been tested before as far as I know.

I am checking the 2011 edition in a minute of the VBM to see if they have ever clarified their point in the FTCA section.

If not I will send them a letter.

I think this is a proper discussion here at hadit.

I hoped someone out there in hyperspace would have posted that they succeeded on SMC S due to multiple additional SCs like yours that put them to the S criteria but no one did.Yet.

And we have not had a CAVC case yet to decide this issue so you might be the first CAVC case and you could potentially win and ,if the decision is precedental -

you would alter the lives of MANY veterans.

[Philip Rogers]

John - I'm completely knowledgable on the history of this subject, and this is not even about my claim but is more about how the VA handles these claims. I only used my figures because I am familiar w/those numbers. A BVA /lawyer/judge made a favorable decision on one, that I found, but the numbers came up 60% either way it was figured. My feeling about this is that the VA is using tactics much like when they deny, quoting 38 CFR 4.16(a) but don't quote 4.16(b). They just keep pointing to the CRT, even tho it "appears" completely wrong(my interpretation), thus avoiding the real issue. The problem is I can't find a VA insider to explain how they decide these claims. While it is true I would receive about $6k, in retro + the monthly increase, I'm more concerned w/other vets who may be being wrongly denied.

If you'd PM me I'll respond "politely," as usual. ;-) Hey, maybe I am being to sensitive? I haven't figured out how to start a PM, here, but do know how to respond. I've even tried but failed a couple of times. Thanks!!!

pr

A Little History on the subject:

PR dont take it the wrong way. The Baiting Tatic I mentioned was not meant to be harmful. It was bait to get an opinion from interested, much the same used by another member (RAK Warrior). I feel for you in your situation and Hope it gets cleared up soon.

Perhaps we can ask Carrie who to contact during the first SVR show in October. Anyway We do need to confirm this issue but who to confirm it with is quite the quagmire.

Another avenue with possibility is to ask Bob Filner. Given his position, he may be able to get an answer. Send me a PM with an exact question to ask him and I will see what I can do.

J