Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

How To Report Retailiation By Varo Due To Veteran Whistleblowing?

Rate this question


TiredVeteran

Question

Hi,

My husband has been retailiated against by the Nashville VARO since he reported the illegal activity and malpractice at the VA hospital. His claim is 11 years old. The BVA found it to be malpractice. He has a R rating.

The VARO is refusing to pay his retro, he only had a few months backpay.

My source says the Nashville VARO has a policy in place to do this to patient who are victims of medical malpractice. He is likely not going to live long enough to go through another BVA appeal.

Employees of the hospitals are protected. Who protects the veterans? We proved our case. Shameful delays, addicted doctor, even the Augusta Spinal Cord hospital tried to cover all this up.

Any ideas appreciated!

Debbie

Edited by TiredVeteran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

"The PVA said that VARO witholds payments to veterans who report and win malpractice claims."

That is not true. They can try to deny these claims and they can be aggressive and they will definitely manipulate the facts if they can,
but once you succeed in getting an actual 1151 award ,they send the cash. If cash is due.

My experiences in my RO trying to refuse to pay me retro ,for my DMII AO claim, regarded the fact that I succeeded in getting the first and maybe still the only FTCA./1151 offset refund in VA history.

It was a lot of money and that is one reason why the RO gave me a hard time......

"I read on another topic here that the NOD was not enough to keep his original claim date? That there had to be an appeal? I have a certified letter we sent to PVA and stated for them to appeal the case. I get more confused with this every day/"

So do I. Your husband obviously had an timely NOD filed for his successful BVA appeal.(if that was his case I put link to here at hadit)

When the RO got the BVA decision they gave him what appears to be the wrong EED in a decision.

Hundreds of us here over the years (maybe thousands of us) have received inaccurate EEDs and fought them.

A proper EED has to be based on proper rating of established medical evidence.that the VA had .

You mentioned your husband had AO disabilities and also was 100% with SMR R at some point,under 1151.

What I dont understand is why the BVA didn't mention any of that in their decision.

They wrote the decision as if it was the sole claim he had filed. They granted the 1151 and gave the 2003 as the EED.

It sounds to me like the VARO did not go back to 2003 in the decision or if they did, they stated they found nothing to rate, except for the disability and the EED they stated in the decision.

Since there was conflicting medical evidence in the decision perhaps that is why there was not the retro you expected.

The PVA has the decision, and they have the BVA award.

Perhaps you could get them ( The PVA) to, in email to you, explain the decision as to the ROs reasons and Bases (maybe they could scan it all themselves into an email to you, )and it would be a good idea to get a dated copy if the NOD they filed

You could then copy their response and paste it here and maybe we could figure this out.

.

Edited by Berta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

For reference:

January 6, 2010

Director (00/21) In Reply Refer To: 211B

All VA Regional Offices and Centers Fast Letter 10-02

SUBJ: Implementation of Board of Veterans' Appeals Decisions

Purpose

This fast letter provides clarification of the existing procedural guidance for GAF_VeteransBanner_art.gifimplementation of Board of Veterans' Appeals Decisions. The instructions provided in this fast letter supersede all prior guidance on this issue.

Background

It has come to the attention of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) and the Compensation and Pension Service that there is inconsistent processing of claims involving implementation of BVA decisions with partial favorable findings.

It was determined that some regional offices (ROs) were delaying implementation of these BVA partial grants until expiration of the 120-day period within which a veteran may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Delayed implementation of favorable BVA decisions is inconsistent with the Department's long standing pro-veteran position and unnecessarily delays payment of benefits to the claimant.

Procedures

Complete Grants and Partial Awards

ROs are required to review all files returning from BVA to determine the type of action to be taken. ROs must expeditiously implement favorable decisions rendered by BVA in all cases, including those decisions that may also contain unfavorable findings subject to appeal with CAVC.

For processing purposes, a partial grant or an increased evaluation less than the schedular maximum available is considered a "favorable decision." Partial grants rendered by BVA are subject to expedited processing.

Although a claimant may elect to appeal the evaluation assigned by BVA and continue to pursue an increased or total evaluation for the same disability before CAVC, the partial grant should still be implemented immediately.

In many instances, the claims file will not be required to complete the grant or partial grant of benefits ordered by BVA. If a decisionmaker needs the claims file to accurately comply with the BVA mandate, he or she should follow the instructions regarding locked CAVC files provided in M21-1MR, section I.5.J.48.e.

Denials

Denials of entitlement to benefits rendered by BVA should continue to be processed in accordance with the procedures outlined in M21-1MR, sections I.5.G.33.c and d.

Questions

Questions concerning this fast letter should be e-mailed to VAVBAWAS/CO/21FL.

/S/
Bradley G. Mayes
Director
Compensation & Pension Service

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The smc R rating was the result of the spinal cord injury. That is what he got a few months back pay for.

Yes, there was conflicting medical records as the VAMC's lied and falsified his medical records.

Carlie, I am trying to figure out how to apply the post you made to Jimmy's case. Thank you :)

Berta, the PVA has said over and over that VARO will not be objective with this case and they will not approve his NOD. So, there must be some truth there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use