Bva Report Card: Attornies Still Beat Vso's

[broncovet]

The Report card is here:

http://www.veteranslawlibrary.com/files/Board_Chairman_Reports/BVA2012AR.pdf

Percentage of claims "denied" is the important number, much more important than remands or awards. Reason: An "award" can be zero percent, and a remand, also, may or may not "win" benefits, but a denial always means the Vet loses that round.

Attornies had a lower "denial" rate than any of the VSO's, again this year, at just 15.7% of cases represented by an attorney were denied.

Next best was the "Agent", who were denied 16.9%

Its not too suprising that those who got paid for representing claimants did better than the VSO's who receive a salary so they dont care if you win or lose.

Here is how the VSO's did:

MOPH 17.7

PVA 19.8

VVA 20.3

DAV 20.5

Am Legion 21.7

VFW 22.7

Am Vets 23.7

"other" 24.9

State VSO 25.6

[jbasser]

That would be a rounded 22 percent average. I would flat say that sucks. Oh well you get what you pay for.

Wake up and smell the Coffee Vets

J

[broncovet]

"Incentive" plans, that compensate people for good performance "work" in places other than the VA, because the VA rewards poor performance.

Just ask millions of sales people who get paid commission. They are motivated to make a sale, just like the attorney/agent. A denial means "no paycheck" for the attorney/agent, since almost all of them are on commission.

If I had it to do over, I would have hired an attorney earlier, and trashed my VSO. Now, my attorney is battling fixing mistakes made by incompetent VSO's. Mine was a "state" VSO..the worst of all. They are government employees and dont give a rip wether YOU win or lose, just when their payday is. When your paycheck depends on "winning" then you do what it takes to get er done.

[71M10]

My take on these numbers is that it sure shoots a hole through the claimed accuaracy rate VA uses. 78% of appeals result in an award, remand or other action. Statistically speaking this shows huge issues with VA decision accuracy. It is interesting that the VA allways seems to keep back data points that would allow for more robust statistical analysis. I wonder what percentage of veterans disagree with the decision they receive and do not appeal due to dissatisfaction with the process (whats the point, its a rigged game attitude) or what percentage of veterans with VSO representation express dissatisfaction with the decision, but are steered away from the appeals process by the VSO's representation? Additionally if we had the number of appeals that were not allowed for technical reasons (not timely ect), a statistician could figue out what the realistic error rate was/is.

Best regards,

[broncovet]

Keep in mind, that attorneys get the toughest cases, mostly after their VSO failed them. The VSO's get the "easy" cases, because people dont pay an attorney if they could get good service for free. So, the real difference is much greater than the stats would show. The attornies are the "NFL" while most of the VSO's are "high school football". The very best high school team would be humiliated by the worst NFL team, in a similar way that a good VSO would be humiliated by an experienced Vets lawyer.

[john999]

If you have a CUE and your asking for 40 years of retro are you going to hire a lawyer, or use the local DAV guy who rolls his eyes when you mention "CUE"? If the lawyer takes your case he/she thinks they can win. The DAV guy takes the claim regardless. I did have a VSO roll their eyes when I mentioned I had a CUE claim. The VSO looks scared and bewildered when I brought up "CUE". I think I have mentioned it before but a VSO from VFW did argue that I had a personality disorder and that is why I was disabled.

John

[broncovet]

Your chances with an Attorney vs the DAV are about 30% better.

DAV 20.5

Minus atty: 15.7

That a difference of 4.8% divided by 15.7 = 30.5% better chance with an attorney

than through the DAV.

Also, remember, oft times you pay nothing for an attorney because their fees are often paid, in whole or in part, by EAJA.