Atlanta Ro Backlog

[Stickman]

The other day I put in a question through iris, about the status of my appeal(3 issues), which started in March-2011. I got back the answer -" We appreciate your patience while we work down our backlog. We are currently working on NODs from Jan. 2010, forward." Wow - I guess that's another year.

I was holding off putting in new claim, since I was told months ago that my appeal was "made ready for decision", as of April, this year, after C and P exams. Now I'm thinking - why not?

[71M10]

I'm in month 22 for a DRO review, they keep telling me the average processing time for a DRO review out of the Detroit regional office is 347 days. I guess the fact I have two contentions on appeal has made it too complicated for them :-)

My neighbor passed away this spring from AO cancer(and was rated 100% P&T), his widow is still waiting for a decision on her survivor benefits.

Keep on, Keeping on People!

[halos2]

Remember these dates are just estimates. Ask the majority of veterans and they will laugh and say "never happens that quick!" I doubt there is one VARO who does get it right the first time around, and timely. Too many stall tatics on their part. Pretty sad when a board certified Dr gives the diagnosis, and the medications ordered for the vet, and the contributing factors involved in the disability of the veteran, and the side effects of the medication the vet takes, and a NON MEDICAL person DENIES IT ALL!! They should hire medically oriented/trained/licensed professionals to determine the disability claim!! Oh well the RO out is the process of APPEALS!! Good luck along this long journey you are going to travel on...halos2

[broncovet]

I agree with your advice. John pointed out the "Cushman" case. The VA altered his evidence to deny him. I wonder how many times this happened but the VA never got caught at it? Remember, about 85% of Vets dont appeal. Why? One reason is that their VSO often recommends against it. (I think VSO's get bonuses for this...it makes the VA's "error rate" numbers look better). Another reason is they dont know how to appeal, are too sick or have even passed away. The VA counts all these reasons as "correct" decisions.

Cushman is not an aberration, like the VA would have us beleive. There are 600 lawyers working at the VA, waiting on their "turn at you".

If they "loose" against a Vet, it looks bad for them. So, for the lawyer, its the VET/vs the VA lawyer. And, they know most Vets will never get to look at the evidence the BVA judge looks at and compare it with what is on file with the VEt. So, the lawyer just makes a few "changes" to the medical reports, and the Vet gets denied and the VA employee lawyer "wins".

I am so glad Cushman fought the VA on this and exposed them.

Bottom line: NEVER trust the VA. They are crooked snakes out to deny you any way they can. They lure Vets into trusting them, by publishing "rah rah" stuff online about how they help Vets. They forget to tell you they helped ONE Vet, and put the other 999,999 in a VERY long waiting list for benefits.

[halos2]

I agree with your advice. John pointed out the "Cushman" case. The VA altered his evidence to deny him. I wonder how many times this happened but the VA never got caught at it? Remember, about 85% of Vets dont appeal. Why? One reason is that their VSO often recommends against it. (I think VSO's get bonuses for this...it makes the VA's "error rate" numbers look better). Another reason is they dont know how to appeal, are too sick or have even passed away. The VA counts all these reasons as "correct" decisions.

Cushman is not an aberration, like the VA would have us beleive. There are 600 lawyers working at the VA, waiting on their "turn at you".

If they "loose" against a Vet, it looks bad for them. So, for the lawyer, its the VET/vs the VA lawyer. And, they know most Vets will never get to look at the evidence the BVA judge looks at and compare it with what is on file with the VEt. So, the lawyer just makes a few "changes" to the medical reports, and the Vet gets denied and the VA employee lawyer "wins".

I am so glad Cushman fought the VA on this and exposed them.

Bottom line: NEVER trust the VA. They are crooked snakes out to deny you any way they can. They lure Vets into trusting them, by publishing "rah rah" stuff online about how they help Vets. They forget to tell you they helped ONE Vet, and put the other 999,999 in a VERY long waiting list for benefits.

Love this posting...

[broncovet]

Thanks Halos...You have to go to hadit to get the truth. The VA publishes only "rah rah" on their website. Unfortunately, the VA "rah rah" is what most people believe. I even believed it before I started dealing with the VA.

The VA "rah rah" lures Vets into doing stupid stuff...like trusting VA. You know, like sending something to VA and assume they got it and wont shred it not keeping a copy and sending it certified mail return receipt requested. Bad idea. It will work until/unless one of those lawyers is hungry enough to trash your evidence to beat you. A crooked lawyer and 30 seconds at the shredder bin will beat years of work on the part of the Veteran.

The VSO's talk about hiring crooked lawyers, and how Vets dont need them. No, because the VA has already hired most of them! 80% of the lawyers dont deserve a bonus, they deserve jail time. With a real judge in a real court, if you destroy evidence this is a crime. With the VA, its a bonus for the lawyer.

You see em all the time, when you read CAVC decisions. The CAVC decision will say, "The evidence of record is absent for the Veteran applying for xyz benefit"...so its denied. Yea right. The Veteran goes to his VSO, fills out the paperwork...waits...and waits...inquires through IRIS and Peggy..and his VSO...and never made a claim...yea right.

[justrluk]

Older thread, but I just heard from a vet that had a meeting yesterday with his VSO: the ATL VARO announced at a recent meeting with VSOs (state at least)that they have moved to the team comcept as is described in other posts. He also mentioned that they are processing new claims first. Other types of claims for those already on award to include dependency are getting pushed to the side for now. I'll do some research to validate this, but think it's worth mentioning. If this is the case, I think those of us that use ATL VARO need to be vocal about this.