Dro Hearing decision

[jfrei]

Apparently I did not read my DRO decision good enough the first 3 times, but if you read the last page she states that the OGC decision was made with all of the cited evidence in my claim, that cannot be true. They made their decision a week before the engineers report I hired was submited into my claim as new evidence. How can she say all evidence cited in my claim was considered in the decision from the OGC if they never even seen the report it shows the dates when all was submitted and it says she got her answer the 23rd from them but then on the 30th the day she wrote up the decision my new evidence was submitted into my claim? She looked at it the day she wrote her decision and entered it in that day even cited a few things as true but only the bits she used to deny as OGC said to . How can she just use some of the report, if it's all true wouldn't the whole report have to be cited and weighed in? She was nice about deny it saying well there's nothing I can do here but I will help you with the appeal and saying they can approve the things I can't.
 

[jfrei]

I was assuming they never say it because in the adjudicative actions it says the DRO got here response from OGC on 11-23 she wrote her decision 11-30 the same day I submitted the report. She states the last paragraph that she agrees with the report in saying my car had this defect but then agrees with OGC that two reasons why I should never have been driving. But if the evidence was cited about the defect and she agrees with one part then how when the report also states it could have happened at any moment of the 2 years I owned the vehicle and drinking could have played no role where he states in police report never states why I ran off the road but he gave a list of reasons why I was not at fault for this accident along with the 400 known admitted defects by GM one of those was mine. And was seen in a caucus in front of the white house speaking against manufacturers about my accident.

[FormerMember]

You cannot receive a medical settlement from the DoD and then collect VA comp. You have to pay the DoD back if you file and prevail at the VA. You may not file a SF 95 and a 1151 claim and collect on both. But you sure as hell can file a claim for service connection on the accident based on LOD because you were in the military when it happened- i.e. had you not been in the military, you would still be in one piece. That's why they call it SC.  There is no conflict with the GM settlement. That is a separate remuneration for a defective ignition switch. It has nothing to do with the military. LOD has to do with behavior and willful misconduct. The car problem is a liability issue and has to do with a defective product. Two entirely different legal concepts and not a case of "double-dipping."

[jfrei]

Sorry if I worded it wrong 2006 was my accident. I have never received anything other then medical treatment for my issues with the DOD but they were entitled to some of my settlement in 2008 because they did pay over 300,000 in keeping me alive Medical Care Recovery Act 42 USC.2008 they got some of their money back. But my treatments didn't stop that year I was still seen for the next four years to follow after my crash because of my militaries formal LOD.

[broncovet]

This is a similar situation to a divorced couple, where both mom and dad try to claim the child as a dependendent.  Only ONE parent contributes "over half" of the support, and only one parent can claim the child as a dependent.  Normally, the divorce decree will decide who that parent is.  The IRS does not "split" dependency claims, and VA does not either.  This is why VA is so anal about the nexus..they have to document your injury was at least 51 percent caused by military service.  

In a similar way, your accident can not have BOTH the military, and a defective GM vehicle as the primary cause.  Either your military service caused your malady, or, it was caused by a defective vehicle.  If you have cashed a check, and signed a settlement agreement with GM, then you have admitted that GM was the PRIMARY cause of your injury.  

If your settlement with GM was such that GM admitted it was "25% responsible" or even 49.98% responsible, then this is something else.  

But if you signed a settlement with GM where GM admitted they were responsible for your injuries, then you just let the military off the hook.  Its possible to have some sort of "joint settlement" but I have not seen that happen with VA.  The VA doc has to say your injury was "at least as likely as not (51%) caused by military service".  Anything less than 51 percent probablility will be denied.  Now, if GM admits to the other 49 percent, and pays you for that, fine.  

Edited February 15, 2016 by broncovet

[jfrei]

Gm only admitted it could have been a defective switch not that it was for sure.And it happened while on active duty I got the money for the car because I was working in the military I signed that paper. Which said I would not sue GM in the future which I couldn't even if I wanted to because my crash happened before the bankruptcy which was already shielded by a judge from the hundred of other cases. No military no money no car! I was contacted by Mr. Ebert by email he emailed me saying they are trying to get my appeal moving after he read the forensic report and that he is  optimistic about it happening.I called the appeal status line and they said someone submitted a motion to advance by email. I didn't think an attorney could email this motion? I did receive this when I asked both my attorney and the head of the GM fund back in January of 2015

Jamie:

 Thanks for the email.  You should definitely consult with your own attorney concerning the scope of the release you must sign.  But, I am confident that your release will have no bearing on your ability to recover compensation from the VA.  Nevertheless, this is a personal opinion and you would be wise to check with your own VA expert attorney.  All my best.

Ken Feinberg

Edited February 15, 2016 by jfrei

[broncovet]

Ok, so GM says it "could" have been their fault, and they give you money.  Good.  Now, has a VA doc said your issue(s) are "at least as likely as not due to this accident while in the military"?  

This is called a nexus, and VSO's sometimes send claims in without them.  They just dont get approved without the big 3:

1.  Current diagnosis

2.  In service event or aggravation.  If this accident is documented while you were in service then you should have that one.

3.  Nexus, or link between your current diagnosis and the in service event.  If a doc did give you a nexus, and the doc gave a medical rationale as to why/how the military caused your (current condition), then they may well service connect you.  

     If your doctor is unaware that GM has already compensated you for the injury, then he may write a nexus statement, or, if you check your cfile, maybe he has already done so.  

     I do not recommend hiding from VA the fact that GM already paid you for the injury, if you have not already disclosed that.  If they find out later, and they tend to do that, they could ask you for all the money back.  If you disclosed the GM settlement, in full, and VA compensates you, you should be fine.  

     It sounds to me like this turns on the nexus.  (It often does).  You should check your records and see if you have a nexus.  

     VA wont compensate you if a doc says "your condition COULD have been caused by an accident in military service".  "Could" is a deal killer with VA, as it is considered speculative, that is, less than 51% likelyhood.  "May have been caused by military service is another SC killer", also speculative, just like "could".  

     Its actually good for you that GM said they "could" have caused your accident.  Its plausable that GM "could have" caused it, but a doc gives you the nod, and says its "at least as likely as not" your injuries were due to military service (and not a gm defect).  

    In the preceding paragraph, it may fly.  

Caution:  Dont believe what VA tells you.  Alex had a judge who gave him a (verbal) "Hey, it sounds good to me" type thing and then denied everything.  

Edited February 15, 2016 by broncovet