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

[john999]

If you sign a contract for 20% of retro then you have to cough it up, but it is worth it if you get an effective date 20 years earlier than your current date. I am asking for a date of 1971 instead of 2001 for my TDIU/100%. I will pay for professional guidance. When we file claims with the VA there is a learning curve. If you hire a lawyer there should not be a 3-5 year learning curve. To me that is worth paying the lawyer 20%. With SSD almost everyone hires a lawyer. Seems to me the VA is ten times worse than SSD.

John

[broncovet]

I agree, John, but, if the court finds the VA position "substantially unjustified" they will likely order at least part of the fees to be paid by EAJA. (I hear Vets say if the Vet wins, then the court will usually say the VA was "substantially unjustified". So, you may wind up paying less than 20%, and in some cases even zero. The court approves attorney fees, and if they think they are too high, the court can "cut" them.

In other words, if you won 100k retro, and the attorney documented 5 hours of his time, then the court is highly unlikely to award $4k per hour to the attorney. They will look up the prevailing atty fee for his level of experience, and multiply that times the number of hours. You can appeal awards of attorney fees, but it would not be recommended unless you are certain you are overcharged.

[john999]

Bronco

Well, that is good new because if I win the VA is going to owe me a lot of money..

John

[broncovet]

Yes, you can probably look some of this up, but I dont think the court will award BOTH EAJA AND the 20%. Its much more likely to be an offset to the atty. Back to the 100 k retro example, if EAJA paid 5000, then you would only be liable for 15,000, and, even then, only if the court approves the attorney fees. If you look at CAVC case law, there are quite a few attorney fee disputes. The court must approve the attorney fees.

Here is ONE case of disputed attorney's fees, explaining the "offset". This was a bit more complex because the fee covered CAVC and it wound up in federal court.

http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/0d79aea7-a726-48d0-87ec-7979ea1180e8/1/doc/

[Chuck75]

My personal opinion (as a veteran) is that the EAJA should be used to offset the 20% paid by veterans, and any "reasonable expenses".

If the VA and or the EAJA had to pay the legal expenses encountered by veterans obtaining benefits they are entitled to by law, I'd think that the number of flawed denials and needed appeals would drop.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Chuck75