What over rules what?

[jfrei]

So my visit to the RO was ok she explained to me that she had came there with the mindset of deny. But it then starting turning the other she said she could grant my claim but there is one more aspect no ones every looked at until now or just overlooked it with all of the overwhelming evidence going both ways in my claim. I know now that my license was suspended on top of all the other stupid shit I did. Apparently the suspension was up in less then 20 days it was 90 day suspension not for a DUI. She said she just has to ask General Counsel if the Ignition Switch defect in my car over rules everything so that is my question? Will this mechanical defect overrule the numerous facts that I should not have been driving? I also told her that the good thing about her looking into my claim was that I went to my police department where they notified of a member in the army from the same town a kid I went to high school with who crash 10 months before me and no airbags in his case as well. I contacted his family who knew nothing about this recall and I am meeting up with them next week to talk to a friend whose an attorney that deals with GM and finally get them some closure and help this family who is still in morning 9 years later. He was 18 and coming home from school with a seatbelt it can happen anytime it is a proven sad deathly fact thought Id put that out there for all who are angry at me for filing.

[broncovet]

You posted, 

"You say that GM is at fault but since the government said it was ok we will just take 900 millions dollars to stop the lawsuits."

That is not what I said at all, those are your words, not mine.  I have no idea whose "fault" your injuries are.  However, I "favor the Veteran" and assume if you say the military caused your injury, I take that as a "given".    All I say is that you can not collect from BOTH GM and VA for the same injuries.  If one is "at least as likely as not", then the other is "less likely".  VA uses the 51 percent standard.  If VA says your injury is 

"at least as likely as not" (51%) due to military service, then it can not also be "at least as likely as not" due to a GM switch defect".  The same injury can only be "at least as likely as not" due to ONE, not both.    Please dont shoot the messenger, I simply offered my opinion.  

Statistically, the odds add up to 100%.  So, if VA is 51%, then GM is only 49%, or vice versa.  Yea, it could have been caused by 3 things.  You could have gotten it in service, then got in a car wreck due to a ignition problem with GM, and later you could have gotten in a Ford and the airbags failed to deploy and you were in another accident.  But only ONE of these could be "at least as likely as not" (51% chance) that they caused your same injury.  Sure GM could have caused a broken left foot, VA could have caused a GSW, and Ford a broken right foot.  

You dont have to take my word for it, here is a Veteran who claimed injuries for workmans comp and VA both:

http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/7b1ebfb8-bd1c-4587-9196-e165bfa27466/12/doc/FollisRW_14-859.pdf#xml=http://cavc-isys1.cavc.adir/isysquery/7b1ebfb8-bd1c-4587-9196-e165bfa27466/12/hilite/

I am a volunteer to help Veterans.  I get no compensation from hadit.  If you do not like my advice, by all means don't take it, get a lawyer for Veterans, and get another for GM and sue both of them at the same time.   I simply say that both GM and VA have ways of finding out the other one compensated you for that injury, and you are unlikely to get a favorable result from both.   If you did get paid from GM for the injury, I would not be a bit suprised to see VA reduce or severe your service connection for that injury, arguing that you already got paid for it from GM, and it can not be "mostly" caused by both.      

At my VAMC they ask at the kiosk when I get an appointment, (paraphrase) "Is this injury you are being seen today for a workmens comp injury?"

YOu have to answer yes or no.  If someone answered, "yes", then you can bet your bottom dollar that VA will not compensate for that injury because you already said it was for workmans comp, that is, you got an injury "on the job", and not one that was "at least as likely as not" caused by an injury in military service.  

Edited October 31, 2015 by broncovet

[jfrei]

OK thank you for your advice I am a little confused because I am not looking to collect but things in my claim they have said could have been caused from this accident and since it was determined to them as willful misconduct they deny every claim.I am just looking for service connection for this accident. GM compensated me because it was there fault for the failure to notify me about this recall until 2015. In that meantime over 125 people have died and now over 300 people had injuries due to crashing their chevy cobalt. Had I not been in the military I would have never bought this car as my main source to travel to NC and to PA for work with my base stickers on the vehicle. It just happened to be on a Christmas leave on the 29 of Dec. 

[broncovet]

You posted

.." things in my claim they have said could have been caused from this accident and since it was determined to them as willful misconduct they deny every claim.I am just looking for service connection for this accident. GM compensated me because it was there fault for the failure to notify me about this recall until 2015."

    When you get a denial, they give a "reasons and bases" for denial.  If their denial was because of "willful misconduct", then you need to refute that.   You need to look in your medical records, that is, your cfile.  Did the doctor who treated you say that it is "willful misconduct"?  

1.  Yes.   If the doctor said that, you need an IMO/IME from a doctor who reviews your file and opines that your injury was "at least as likely as not" from xxxx,

but that it was NOT willful misconduct" because (and then the doc needs to give his rationale as to why he said that).  

2.  No.   If the doctor who initially treated you did not say, "this injury is willful misconduct", then you can appeal the claim that the VA substituted their own unsubstantiated opinion for that of Dr. xxx.  (Colvin Derwinski violation).   If the VA decided it was "willful misconduct" you can ask them to prove that, since the presumption is NOT wilfful misconduct..   The VA has to have evidence, not conjecture, to demonstrate willful misconduct.  

     Based on what you posted, tho, once you cashed the check from GM, you are in agreement that it is GM's fault.

    If you read VA case law, you will find that VA wont accept a doctors statment who says, "this COULD have been caused by military service".  It must say, "Its as least as likely as not caused" by military service.  "could have" is considered speculative, and VA does not pay Vets compensation for "maybe", "could have"...but only for "at least as likely as not".  Read the stuff about nexus.   

    

[jfrei]

that's what my attorney pointed out to the DRO who did not deny my claim. She sent it to general counsel because she said she didn't think that she could come up with an answer on her own but the lawyers with general counsel could. Just confused on what they need to see but I just have to play this waiting game.

[Chuck75]

that's what my attorney pointed out to the DRO who did not deny my claim. She sent it to general counsel because she said she didn't think that she could come up with an answer on her own but the lawyers with general counsel could. Just confused on what they need to see but I just have to play this waiting game.

If you were cited for DWI, that might be the basis of the denial.  But, to say that the accident was solely due to that would be an assumption, particularity when you have evidence of  a vehicle defect and later recall. Equipoise goes to the veteran, regardless of how the VA tries to weasel out.  As can a situation when it cannot be determined how things should be assigned relative weight. 

[jfrei]

 

Well officer had to submit my claim to General counsel She said it's been taking long to get decisions from there based on their workload. I have never heard of what there workload is listed anywhere she said and you won't. Anyone have any idea how long claims sit with the counsel?