Bva Ruling

[toimi]

8/4/05

With regard to your veterans benefits, my claim, (search)VA violation of 38 USC 1722a, I had asked, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 38 CFR 20.900 “© Advancement on the docket. (1) Grounds for advancement..A case may be advanced on the docket..may be granted only if the case involves interpretation of the law of general application affecting other claims...appellant is seriously ill..severe financial hardship..other sufficient cause..administrative error resulting in significant delay in docketing the case or the advanced age of the appellant…defined as 75 or more years.”

In a letter, dated 7/27/05, from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals my request for early adjudication, because, as they suggested, of severe financial hardship, was denied. I made no such claim! My 6/20/05,request for advance, I wrote, “My claim, VA violation of 38 USC 1722a, involves 1.1 million veterans’ co-payment over-charges. It is evident that a clear and unmistakable error’ based on RO ’statement of the case’, i.e., “interpretation of law of general application effecting other claims,” and “sufficient cause shown” has occurred. Subject to Sec. 7107(2) motion for early consideration.

Where the BVA got the ‘financial hardship’ from,..I guess, they saw the reference to the problems of 1.1 million veterans over-charges as the ‘financial hardship’. And any question regarding illegal over-charges of 1.1 million veterans therefore carries no weight. Nor does interpretation of law effecting other claims, administrative error, or delay, as to any early settlement of 1722(a).

Justice delayed, is justice denied, again. On the back of the VA billing statement, it states, “When a notice of dispute is received..suspend further notices..while we resolve the question.” My property (over-charges held) was seized without explanation or due process rights (5th, 14th Amendment Rights). To reach the Board, and VA to recognize my 1st Amendment Right, to redress grievances, has taken over 3 years. Now more delay. Is this the “administrative error resulting in significant delay” mentioned in 38 CFR 20.900? Apparently not.

I, as a Korean War era veteran, when you die, this claim dies with you. However, this is were they have it wrong. Because this claim, filed on behalf of all veterans. It is about every veterans’ right to benefits. This is where you veterans, many returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, take over. It will then be up to you, to fight the VA.

I need your help, and it’s now all up to you veterans. I can’t do no more. So that the VA understands, “interpretation of law of general application affecting other claims” and what this fight is all about, every veteran reading this message who receives pill medication that requires splitting (and those that do not), I want you to write, using a .23 cent post card, for a copy of, “How Do I Appeal” from.... Department of Veterans Affairs, Board of Veterans’ Appeals, 811 Vermont Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20420. It’s free, and you do not have to file. We need to show them these “other claims“.. YOURS! Something they may understand.

It seems the “clear and unmistakable error (CUE)” based on interpretation of a law effecting approx. 1.1 million veterans is not sufficient cause to advance, and settle 1722, i.e., illegal taking of hundreds of thousands of unrecoverable veterans’ much needed dollars. That is what is behind this denial. You know, and I know who.

Will the “interpretation of law of general application affecting other claims” , in veterans medication costs, be upheld? It’s your duty to see that a question, regarding your veterans’ benefits, before the BVA, is answered. Even if your understanding is vague. Request “How Do I Appeal”. Veterans will be counting on you. Reunion? Spread the word!

REPLY TO BVA

Mr. Charles Hogeboom 8/20/05

Deputy Vice Chairman

Board of veterans Appeals

810 Vermont Ave. N.W.

Washington DC 20420

Dear Mr. Hogeboom;

Re:0141NT/13

The BVA went against my docket advance request, and their own criteria. As you had explained to me, in part, “Interpretation of law of general application. This exception contemplates a situation where the interpretation of a question of law in your case would affect other claims and is of widespread interest and application…a motion submitted under this exception should clearly identify the specific legal question presented and explain why a board decision on this issue would affect the claims of other appellants.”

You read, because I had requested that illegal over-charges in violation of 38 USC 1722a, be returned to me. You then denied my request, because of ‘severe financial hardship’. I did not say in my request, or indicate, I had a severe financial hardship. I said, “Upon a favorable decision, I request all monies secured, in the violation of 38 USC 1722a be returned to me.” I was asking that money taken from me, illegally, be returned. You made it a severe financial hardship! I had no idea when a favorable decision would be made? After which, in my 3rd paragraph, I then asked that my case docket be “moved forward as to a decision, for the following reasons.”

Violation of law, i,e., an infraction or breach of the law; a transgression. Is this not a question of law? A inter-pretation of law issue? “..a situation where the inter-pretation of a question of law in your case would affect other claims and is of widespread interest and application…” If someone accused me of a violation of law, the first thing I would do is look up the law, and see if they know what they are talking about.

If the BVA were concerned with ‘Interpretation of law of general application’, you would have read my entire letter. I mentioned the, “..alleged violation of VA law, pigeonholed while penalizing thousands of veterans in illegal co-pay over-charges, which continue to this day. Over-charges many veterans can ill-afford, in the years awaiting a decision. Over-charges that may not be recoverable.” This you avoided, or ignored, and failed to consider! But you

invented, ‘severe financial hardship’. Having nothing to do with my request. In a follow-up letter, I wrote, “..involves 1.1 million veterans’ co-payment over-charges. It is evident that a ‘clear and unmistakable error’ based on RO ‘statement of the case’, i.e., ‘interpretation of law of general application affecting other claims’ and ‘sufficient cause shown’ has occurred.” Is this not ‘sufficient cause’?

Federal Register 9/12/03, 38 CFR part 20. (c.) “Advancement on the Docket. (1) Grounds for Advancement…Involves interpretation of law of general application affecting other claims,.. severe financial hardship.. shall include.. administrative error resulting in a significant delay in docketing the case of advanced age of the appellant. For the purpose of this rule, ‘advanced age’ is defined as 75 or more years of age. This paragraph does not require the Board to advance a case on the docket, in the absence of a motion, of a party to the case or the party’s representative.”

First of all, I am not seriously ill. And not, contrary to your ruling, under severe financial hardship. Not, at the advanced age of 75 years, yet. This case is a question about a violation of law. Second, this is about 1.1 million veterans affected by this violation. The problem is, a favorable VBA ruling, regarding the mis-appropriation of illegally collected co-pay over-charges of 1.1 million veterans, would be a victory for veterans.

Of this 1.1 million veterans’ affected by this claim before the VBA, how many seriously ill veterans, would be affected? How many with a severe financial hardship? How many veterans of the advanced age of 75, or more years? It must be assumed there are many. Is this “other sufficient cause shown”? We know that there may not be veterans that do not fall under these considerations, but they are all affected by a violation of law.

Law, as explained and referenced in Black’s Law Dictionary, “All law is the law of a group of individuals or of groups made up of individuals. No one can make a law purely for himself.” Does law mean,.. all individuals (veterans)?

If I bring up, a violation of law, any law, this is not just about one persons law. This is in everybody’s ‘widespread interests’. A law basically includes, or is ‘general application‘. Does it not? Which the VBA refuses to recognize. You chose to ignore, the illegal co-pay charges affecting the ‘widespread interests’ of 1.1 million veterans. It is obvious why this is, and not hard to figure out.

I’ve been at this for over three years, all the while the VA has fought against, but forced finally, allowing me to bring this to appeal. If it was about me, I would have given up long ago. Add 1.1 million veterans to the VA claims backlog. Veterans have a right to their benefits law. You state, “While these criteria are strict, please remember that there are other appellants waiting for the Board to issue decisions in their appeals..,” I agree. You must also agree, there is the possibly many, of the 1.1 million veterans, that fall under this criteria. They will have to wait, and be purged. And this is exactly what the VA counts on, either the veteran gives up, or the death of the veteran, in order to expedite and purge the huge backlog of claims.

I want to know why, you substituted ‘severe financial hardship’ as my claim, and why ’interpretation of the law of general application affecting other claims’ was not considered.

Sincerely;

William H. Heino Sr.

P.S. Where I said, I would have given up long ago, that was a lie.

Cc: Senator Durbin

Senator Obama

Rep. Gutierrez

Veterans file

file

[etihwr]

The reason you were given for your denial of financial hardship is because you made a political statement that had nothing to do with your issues and they misread it. Since you abuse the system, you should not be complaining. You wasted the time of the BVA that could have been adjudicating valid claims. People like you are the reason that the VA is jaded. It's people that use the VA for political purposes, who file bogus claims so they don't have to work or even fake their symptoms to get a higher rating.

[Pete53]

All Veterans have a right to have their claim looked at and handled fairly. Making a political statement is also a right of any citizen.

[toimi]

Regarding VA violation of 38 USC 1722a, you'll remember I last left you, advising that the Board of Veterans Appeals turned down my docket advance request. In other words they don't care if this involves 1.1 million veterans who receive prescriptions for pill splitting. I wrote the BVA, Mr. Hogeboom 8/20/05, briefly, "I want to know why, you substitued 'severe financial hardship' as my claim and why 'interpretation of the law of general application affecting other claims' was not considered." No answer.

However, when reading 38 USC 1722a, a short and simple law, people read what they want out of it. But, if you keep it simple, it's understandably simple. Unless you work for the VA. Because of this confusion and mis-understanding, I wrote Senator Durbin, who I keep informed, about this mis-understanding problem. I explained it, in it's basic simple terms, because I wanted to make sure if he is going to defend it, I must be sure he understands it. Writing back, "I have been informed of the nature of your concern and will do my best to assist you.. ..a Senate aide in my Chicago office, assists me in matters such as these and will contact the Department of Veterans Affairs..to make an inquiry...You will be contacted as soon as a response has been received."

Wheino

This is for etihur: You have 2(two) 30 day supplies of 30 pills exactly alike, no difference. One supply, $7 co-pay, but your supply is going to cost you $14. Please explain why?

[Jay Johnson]

All Veterans have a right to have their claim looked at and handled fairly. Making a political statement is also a right of any citizen.

Yes and no. The current administration has done a great job of making any decenting voice look like an anti-american terrorist......makes me miss the good 'ole mcarthy days.

[carlie]

§17.110 Copayments for medication.

(a) General. This section sets forth requirements regarding copayments for medications provided to veterans by VA.

(B) Copayments.

(1) Unless exempted under paragraph © of this section, a veteran is obligated to pay VA a copayment for each 30-day or less supply of medication provided by VA on an outpatient basis (other than medication administered during treatment). For the period from February 4, 2002 through December 31, 2002, the copayment amount is $7. The copayment amount for each calendar year thereafter will be established by using the Prescription Drug component of the Medical Consumer Price Index as follows: For each calendar year beginning after December 31, 2002, the Index as of the previous September 30 will be divided by the Index as of September 30, 2001. The ratio so obtained will be multiplied by the original copayment amount of $7. The copayment amount for the new calendar year will be this result, rounded down to the whole dollar amount.

Note to Paragraph (:)(1): Example for determining copayment amount. If the ratio of the Prescription Drug component of the Medical Consumer Price Index for September 30, 2003, to the corresponding Index for September 30, 2001, is 1.2242, then this ratio multiplied by the original copayment amount of $7 would equal $8.57, and the copayment amount for calendar year 2004, rounded down to the whole dollar amount, would be $8.

(2) The total amount of copayments in a calendar year for a veteran enrolled in one of the priority categories 2 through 6 of VA’s health care system (see §17.36) shall not exceed the cap established for the calendar year. The cap for calendar year 2002 is $840. If the copayment amount increases after calendar year 2002, the cap of $840 shall be increased by $120 for each $1 increase in the copayment amount.

© Medication not subject to the copayment requirements. The following are exempt from the copayment requirements of this section:

(1) Medication for a veteran who has a service-connected disability rated 50% or more based on a service-connected disability or unemployability;

(2) Medication for a veteran’s service-connected disability;

(3) Medication for a veteran whose annual income (as determined under 38 U.S.C. 1503) does not exceed the maximum annual rate of VA pension which would be payable to such veteran if such veteran were eligible for pension under 38 U.S.C. 1521;

(4) Medication authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1710(e) for Vietnam-era herbicide-exposed veterans, radiation-exposed veterans, Persian Gulf War veterans, or post-Persian Gulf War combat-exposed veterans;

(5) Medication for treatment of sexual trauma as authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1720D;

(6) Medication for treatment of cancer of the head or neck authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1720E; and

(7) Medications provided as part of a VA approved research project authorized by 38 U.S.C. 7303. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1710, 1720D, 1722A)

[66 FR 63451, Dec. 6, 2001]

[Pete53]

Pill splitting is wrong. You can ask to get the proper dosage. I was given zocar in 20 mg tablets and don't have to split anymore