Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
Our picks
-
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability ratingPicked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Welcome to hadit!
There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not. Try reading this:
https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in What is the DIC timeline?
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Good question.
Maybe I can clear it up.
The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more. (my paraphrase).
More here:
Source:
https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
rigo
Dear Josephine and boar members, this is quite long so I`m going to doit in 2 parts
This is a correspondence between a Winston Salem Regional Office Adjudication Officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs dated after December 27, 2001 appears to approve alteration of a disable veteran`s medical records so that the claim is denied. ( I call them the memos of death ).
Green Nancy, VBAWSAL
To: Blake, John, BVAWSAL
Subject: QTC examination on COVA case
The case of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is on remand from COVA for evaluation of the right knee. He is represented by none less than Hugh Cox, attorney at law. Examination was done by Dr Stabler on 12-27-01. Dr Stabler foun pain, stiffness, occasional swelling, flareups, use of brace, limitation of flexion to 90 degrees, "fair" weightbearing with use of cane, and x-rays evidence of traumatic arthritis called "moderate" by the radiologist.
Dr. Stabler concludes: "There was no disability of the right knee at this examination." "Disability secondary to the Knee condition is slight to none." As per our discussion, I can rate on the evidence and ignore the conclusion, as I would certainly do except for COVA and Hugh Cox. In this case, though, I think we cannot do that without triggering another remand. Can QTC fix this end furnish a medical statement correlating the conclusion with the findings? Thanks.
N. Green M.D.
This VA message raises disturbing questions about the integrity of medical compensation and pension examinations by QTC medical officials who examined veterans at the direction of the Winston Salem Regional Office of the U.S. Depatment of Veterans Affairs. Both Dr.Green and Mr. Blake were officials of the Adjudication Division of the Regional Office at the time of the incriminating e-mail.
Because, the this message, the QTC physician named above (Dr Stabler) issue an Addendum" to his original report. The addendum-change was even less favorable to the veteran than the original QTC medical report. The claim was subsequently denied.
There is an appearance that Dr. Green used Mr. Blake as a clandestine communication means to influence the QTC physician to tamper with the original evidence so that the veteran`s claim could be denied. Because Dr Green and Mr Blake worked at the Adjudication Office of the Winston Salem Regional Office, they were agents of the U.S. Government with a statutory obligation of duty to assist the veteran with his or her claim in accord with Manio v Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 140, 144 (1991) ("Rather than defending against the claims of veterans, the Secretary has a statutory duty to assist claimants during the course of the ex parte and non-adversarial claims resolution process at the regional office and before the BVA.")
Is Dr. Green`s communication so potentially biased as to obstruct justice for the veteran and his counsel, as to tamper with witnesses without knowledge of the veteran, or as to conspire with others to sabotage the veteran`s claim? Where the veteran`s civil rights violated under 42 United States Code 1983? Dr. Green was not just a physician, but she was a "judicial" and adjudication official working for the RegionalOffice and acting under "color of law for the purpose of assisting the veteran with non-adversarial evidence to insure fundamental fairness as follows,":
"Information in VA records which are used by the Department in making any determination about any individual will be maintained with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the Individual in the determination." Cited from VA Adjudication Manual M-1 at section 9.15.
In this case, the veteran was never informed of the Dr. Green communication with Mr. Blake and its detrimental effect on the veteran`s claim until someone within the RO revealed this "hidden" information in 2003 to the veteran.
The courts have held that procedural fairness in an administrative proceeding generally requires an adequate opportunity to know the evidence to be relied upon and to rebut it. See Wirtz v. Baldor Elec. Co., 337 F 2d 518, 528 (D.C. Cir. 1963).
"We caution, however, that the permanent removal of documents from a claims file without notice to the claimant may raise concerns regarding procedural fairness, particularly in view of the possibility that such documents, including BMAO`s, may be favorable to the claimant in some instances. Accordingly, if the Board considers it appropiate to permanently remove documents from claim files, we recommend that procedures be established to ensure that claimants are given adequate notice of such removal, and to ensure that documents which are favorable to the claimant or otherwise relevant to the Board`s decision are not removed from the claims file." VAOPGCPREC 14-98
Will cont. letter with reply from VA Rigo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
1
Popular Days
Nov 29
2
Nov 27
1
Top Posters For This Question
rigo 2 posts
Pete53 1 post
Popular Days
Nov 29 2006
2 posts
Nov 27 2006
1 post
2 answers to this question
Recommended Posts