I Emailed Dr. Phil

[broncovet]

As you may recall, Dr. Phil did a show on Veterans issues about 3-4 years ago. It was probably related to slow benefits or poor care at VAMC's. I remember he promised "more" on Veterans issues, but never heard a word from his show again about Veterans issues.

I told him about my issue with shredding and volunteered for the Dr. Phil show PROVIDED my identitity is disguised as I think the VA "threat of retaliation" is very, very real.

I will let you know if he responds. As far as I am concerned, his credibility is at issue here...he is always talking about keeping promises, so where is his kept promise to have another show on Veterans issues?? It need not be me, but I think he owes us one. Maybe I missed the show? I really am not a fan, but do think he should keep his promise to have another show on Veterans issues.

If he did/does do another show on Veterans issues as a result of my email, if I have anything to say about it (I probably dont), then I would like Berta/and or Asknod on the show. Has anyone seen the pictures of Asknod, and what the VA did to him?? I have. The VA almost killed him. I hope I am not reporting this wrong, but I think I recall Asknod unable to convice the VA that he was in Vietnman EVEN tho he had a gunshot wound from nam. (Typical VA/military records foul up).

Edited May 1, 2015 by broncovet

[Berta]

Dr, Phil has said from time to time, "Past behavior predicts future behavior".

He was thinking in psychological terms but that sounds like the MOS of the VA as well.

I was thinking of that when I got angry the other day and emailed not only the director of my RO and Ms Hickey again but I CCed the email to Secretary Bob as well.(I had a specific reason for that)

because I figured if they are working on my NOD, without correcting the CUE claim award, then in my case, past behavior will predict future behavior and they will ignore my legal evidence AGAIN!

They ignored my evidence in every past claim I ever had.

The part in the email for Secretary Bob was:

"I also am CCing Secretary McDonald , as well, because if former VA Secretary Vogel's letter to my husband ( Exhibit A) of my evidence, is again ignored by the Buffalo VA, that would indicate

anything Secretary Robert McDonald might document on a veteran's behalf, on VA's letterhead, would
receive the same callous disregard at my VARO, that former VA Secretary Vogel's letter has received.
so far from the Buffalo VARO,since I filed this CUE request in 2012.".

(This letter was in VA's possession since 1993)

I should have added Dr. Phil's quote too, as applicable to my past claims situations,to that email.

Heck ,I think I will cite it with my legal and/or medical citations the next time I get some BS from them.and have to charge them again with violation of 38 CFR 4.6. ....He He.

[broncovet]

I find the Dr. Phil quote interesting. When you look at investment results for a particular mutual fund they always include a disclaimer:

"Past results does not predict future perfomance". This is because people will say, "gee this mutual fund did 24 percent over the last 5 years so it should get 24 percent over the NEXT 5 years." It is simply not true. Banks do the same thing as Dr. Phil. If you paid your bills on time in the past, then they think you will also do so in the future.

More importantly, let's say you tossed a coin and got heads 10 times in a row. What is your odds of getting heads in the next toss? 10% percent, right, according to Dr. Phil, you should get heads again. However, its been statistically proven that your odds are 50/50 EACH time, regardless of past tosses.

[lcurle]

Ill be the one in the yellow jump suit licking my elbows.

[Berta]

Actually I used this quote from Dr Phil yesterday at the end of a FOIA Appeal I am mailing to General Counsel today.

I had 3 citations from past GAO testimony to include the testimony given to the Senate recently,to support my appeal. They are trying to tell me they do not have the information I requested. Yeah right.

I ended the appeal with:

"Unfortunately my long relationship with my RO has taught me not to accept almost anything the VA says or states on a VA letterhead, at first glance, so I am appealing this 'no records response.' by citing this quote :
: "Past behavior predicts future behavior." ( Dr. Phil)

------------------------------------------------------------

[broncovet]

I think the multitude of examples where VA mishandled Veterans evidence, including Cushman vs Shinseki, demonstrates the VA's "presumption of regularity" is likely misplaced. Still, the VA is given this presumption, OVER Veteran's, when, as you demonstrated, this presumption is in error, especially with VA's, "the record is absent for....".

Pertinent portions from Cushman:

"In April of 1980, the Board affirmed the decision of the Regional Office. Although the Board did not cite any particular evidence on which it relied in making its decision, the Board concluded that “the evidence fails to show the presence of symptomology which would preclude sedentary employment.” The medical record before the Regional Office and Board, however, differed from the medical record on file at the DVA Outpatient Clinic. Namely, one of the doctor’s entries had been altered to change the language “Is worse + must stop present type of work” to instead read, “Is worse + must stop present type of work, or at least [] bend [] stoop lift.” (emphasis added, brackets indicate illegible or stray marks). The altered record also contained the additional entry, “says he is applying for reevaluation of back condition,” which does not appear in the official record on file with the Outpatient Clinic. The alterations appeared in the last, i.e., most recent, doctor’s notes documenting Mr. Cushman’s condition. Mr. Cushman sought reconsideration of the Board’s 1980 decision. In 1982, the Board affirmed its prior decision based on the same evidentiary record. During this time, Mr. Cushman also filed a claim for disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). The SSA requested Mr. Cushman’s medical records from the DVA to consider in determining Mr. Cushman’s eligibility for SSA disability benefits. The DVA sent to the SSA the version of Mr. Cushman’s medical record that was on file with the Regional Office, i.e., the altered version. The SSA denied Mr. Cushman’s claim, repeating in its decision language that appears only in the altered version of Mr. Cushman’s record. Mr. Cushman requested reevaluation and a TDIU rating in 1994. He returned to the Outpatient Clinic for another assessment of his back condition. Based on the 2008-7129 4 medical record of that visit, the DVA found him to be incapable of substantially gainful employment, and granted his TDIU rating. Mr. Cushman has received TDIU benefits since August of 1994. Mr. Cushman first discovered that there were two versions of his medical record in October of 1997. Mr. Cushman went to the DVA hospital to review his records in preparation for another hearing before the Board, this time seeking an earlier effective date for his TDIU rating. He also reviewed the record from his prior proceedings before the Regional Office and Board. He noticed that the medical record attached to his claim adjudication did not match the medical record on file at the DVA hospital. The file at the DVA hospital contained only the original, unaltered document. Mr. Cushman wrote to the DVA about the discrepancy between the two versions of his medical record. The DVA conducted an investigation that confirmed that Mr. Cushman’s medical record had been altered. In response to Mr. Cushman’s inquiry, the Chief Executive Officer of the Portland Regional Office sent Mr. Cushman a letter in which he acknowledged the discrepancy between the two medical records, and explained that the DVA was unable to locate the original (wet ink) record among its files. He also apologized that the DVA was unable to “arrive at a reasonable explanation” for the nonconforming records. He confirmed that the official record is the one without the additional entries. The DVA instructed the Portland Regional Office to destroy all copies of the altered document in Mr. Cushman’s file. The Office of Inspector General opened an investigation for fraud, but closed it three weeks later as unsubstantiated, two days after receiving the DVA’s response to the complaint. 2008-7129 5 Upon learning of the nonconforming records, Mr. Cushman challenged the Regional Office’s 1977 decision, and the Board’s 1980 and 1982 decisions as containing clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”). He argued that those decisions were based on medical records that were improperly altered to understate his disability. In February of 1999, the Board denied his claim on grounds that the 1977 decision was subsumed by the 1980 and 1982 decisions by the Board. The Board did not address Mr. Cushman’s argument that the 1980 and 1982 decisions imported the same CUE. Mr. Cushman timely appealed to the Veterans Court. In November of 2001 the Veterans Court affirmed the Board with respect to the 1977 decision, and found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the 1980 and 1982 decisions because Mr. Cushman did not properly raise a CUE claim for those decisions. Mr. Cushman timely appealed to this court, and argued again that the 1977, 1980, and 1982 decisions contained CUE. He also argued that the process used to adjudicate his claims violated his due process rights. During oral argument, this court questioned Mr. Cushman’s counsel about the consideration given to the merits of his CUE claims below. This court then asked the government’s counsel whether the merits of Mr. Cushman’s claim had ever been decided, and how he could receive such a hearing. The government’s counsel explained that the CUE claims were not decided, and if this court affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision, Mr. Cushman would be free to raise those claims before the Board. In April of 2002, this court summarily affirmed the Veterans Court. In October of 2003, Mr. Cushman moved the Board to reverse its 1980 and 1982 decisions. Mr. Cushman argued that consideration of the improperly altered medical 2008-7129 6 record constituted CUE. He also argued that the Board incorrectly interpreted the governing regulations and failed to construe the term “substantially gainful employment.” In August of 2005, the Board ruled that the 1980 and 1982 decisions did not contain CUE because the decisions gave no indication that the Board relied specifically on the altered document. It was therefore not possible to prove that consideration of the altered document was outcome determinative, as required by the CUE standard. The Board also rejected Mr. Cushman’s arguments regarding the Board’s previous interpretation of the governing regulations and statutory construction. Meanwhile, Mr. Cushman filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon regarding the denial of his social security disability claim. The district court remanded Mr. Cushman’s case for further evaluation by the Social Security Office. Mr. Cushman appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In April of 2006, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded his disability claim for immediate payment of benefits. The Ninth Circuit also found that Mr. Cushman’s medical record had been “fraudulently altered” and remanded the claim to determine whether he was entitled to retroactive disability benefits from an earlier date. Cushman v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 175 Fed. Appx. 861, 862 (9th Cir. 2006). In August of 2007, the Social Security Administration Appeals Council (“Council”) reconsidered Mr. Cushman’s claim and found that he had been continuously disabled since February of 1976. The Council extended his benefits accordingly. "

end of Cushman vs Shinseki quote.

Summary: The VA "fraudulently altered" the Veterans records in order to deny his benefits. Of course, no one at the VA was prosecuted for this, the Veteran had to "pay" in that his benefits were delayed by VA, without any interest compensation to the Veteran.