The Trick Of Clearing The Back-Log

[kevin4998]

Well it seems they know how to clear the back-log. No surprise, but by just claiming errors in the claim process.

In my case that would be, after checking E-Bennies, that they have basically closed all because I did not submit my prescribed medication in time (2 years I think). I did not submit this information, because ALL my prescribed meds are via the VA. That information should be readly available to them when they recieved the paperwork from the VA (which I know they did recieve it).

I do not know if I can "fix" this, but I plan on going up to the RO in Indy (good thing I am only 30 minutes from it) this coming week.

I thought maybe I would at least get a C&P for at least one of my claims where I could possiably "straighten" out anything that maybe "not be properly" filled out or missing. Guess they do not want to even do exams to avoid the costs of that all togather.

I am sure in time I will get this straighten out, just po's me that they are looking for the short cuts to clear the backlog!

I say this is part of clearing backlog because my claims have been in for over two years (I know many here have or are waiting longer, just going by what they are saying). And, they just closed these claims out on the 13th of this month.

Edited May 17, 2013 by kevin4998

[free_spirit_etc]

I agree the Indy VARO is not the best, but it is not the worst. Chicago, Baltimore and Pittsburg come to mind....

(Nod) My RO is Chicago. They seem to be particularly good at twisting everything in circles in order to deny claims. And they lose a lot of stuff.

Edited September 21, 2013 by free_spirit_etc

[63SIERRA]

I agree the Indy VARO is not the best, but it is not the worst. Chicago, Baltimore and Pittsburg come to mind....

(Nod) My RO is Chicago. They seem to be particularly good at twisting everything in circles in order to deny claims. And they lose a lot of stuff.

That is why I believe there is internal training, from higher up to deny the claims the way they do. There is a pattern. someone is teaching them to do it. Thats why im encouraging people to read the claims very carefully. A woman in a gubment position here in texas just got arrested for tampering with government documents. It is a state jail felony. If we can start documenting instances where the RO are changing the doctors diagnosis and rewording them to deny claims, it is possible that they could be criminally charged.

[63SIERRA]

Don't you mean Whacko?

Go ahead and add Houston also.

It doesn't look too good tor the Lone Star State.

J

its no the lone e star state, ees the lose e stoff state .. amigo.

[COOL BREEZE]

Phoenix is another one. They are lazy & arrogrant. My claim does involve a bit if research, they don't have time for that or to carefully read all attached paper work submitted. So, now I have a new DRO coming up with 2 that have been collecting dust since Noah's Ark arrived!

[Computer Tech]

Cool,

Los Angeles and San Diego are bad for not reading evidence, it wasn't until my claim got moved to Nashville that anybody read my evidence proving AO exposure in Thailand, I first submitted the evidence in 2009 and my claim was finally decided in my favor this past June.

Rick

[free_spirit_etc]

That is why I believe there is internal training, from higher up to deny the claims the way they do. There is a pattern. someone is teaching them to do it. Thats why im encouraging people to read the claims very carefully. A woman in a gubment position here in texas just got arrested for tampering with government documents. It is a state jail felony. If we can start documenting instances where the RO are changing the doctors diagnosis and rewording them to deny claims, it is possible that they could be criminally charged.

Good luck with that one! In my son's Social Security Survivor claim the decisions kept saying my son was not living with my husband when he died. I objected to this because - GEEZ - they reduced my son's SSI on the basis that he received in-kind support from my husband (i.e. room and board). So how could SSI reduce his benefits because he was living with my husband, but SSA deny his claim because he was not living with my husband? He was either living with us or he wasn't. It seemed rather odd that two branches of the same agency (kind of sort of) could each make different decisions on the matter.

Anyway - when I went to review the file before my son's hearing - I noticed an amendment to his application. The amendment stated that my son was reporting that he was NOT living with my husband at the time of his death. The amended application was "electronically signed" by my son (supposedly). It also stated that he had 10 days to disagree.

I filed an objection with the judge and stated that as this was the first instance that we even knew my son's application was amended, and that it was amended without his knowledge or consent, that we requested the 10 days to object be waived, as we were objecting within 10 days of our knowledge of the document.

I also added that to my discrimination complaint that we filed with the General Counsel. I noted that for a SSA employee to amend my son's application, and electronically sign the amendment without my son's knowledge or consent, while he was adjudicating my son's claim, was fraudulent. My complaint also showed that we were not aware of the amended application until immediately prior to the hearing, and that we objected to the amendment within a few days of discovering it.

The General Counsel's response? It wasn't fraudulent because the amendment clearly stated we had 10 days to object from the day it was signed, and we did not object within the time-frame.

They have people all the way up the chain that will cover for their dirty little deeds....

Edited October 5, 2013 by free_spirit_etc