Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

to any Legal Beagles


Berta

Question

I have a vet who was severely malpracticed on by the VA.

His vet attorney, had a limited amount of work to do, and charged the vet 25 % of the compromise the vet received.

My legal question is this:

"No attorney shall charge, demand, receive, or collect for services rendered, fees in excess of 25 per centum of any judgment rendered pursuant to section 1346(b) of this titleor any settlement made pursuant to section 2677 of this title, or in excess of 20 per centum of any award, compromise, or settlement made pursuant to section 2672 of this title."

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2678

He does not fall ito the 1346(b) criteria He falls into this criteria in 28 USC 2672.ant not 1346 (b) of Title 28, or under Section 2677.

 

He veteran received the fastest malpractice settlement I have even seen. The malpractice had already been confirmed by the VA.Do you see ,in these regulations, why I feel he was possibly  overcharged by his attorney?

Thanks, and Happy Memorial Day everyone! No rush on replies- It is a Happy day but that is because of the sacrifices so many men and women have made for the Great USA! We can never forget that our Freedom has been insured since the Battle of Trenton, !!!!!!!And still is, because of our Nation's men and women, who have always been and will continue to be willing to serve our great Nation.!!!!!

It is a good day to put down the VA War of the Words BS, and reflect on what we have, because of all our veterans, alive or dead, have done for us all.

 

 

 

 

 

"attorney shall charge, demand, receive, or collect for services rendered, fees in excess of 25 per centum of any judgment rendered pursuant to section 1346(b) of this titleor any settlement made pursuant to section 2677 of this title, or in excess of 20 per centum of any award, compromise, or settlement made pursuant to section 2672 of this title."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2678


 

38 USC 2672

 

U.S. Code 

  1. Title 28. JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE 

  2. Part VI. PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

  3. Chapter 171. TORT CLAIMS PROCEDURE 

  4. Section 2672. Administrative adjustment of claims

 

Any award, compromise, or settlement in an amount of $2,500 or less made pursuant to this section shall be paid by the head of the Federal agency concerned out of appropriations available to that agency. Payment of any award, compromise, or settlement in an amount in excess of $2,500 made pursuant to this section or made by the Attorney General in any amount pursuant to section 2677 of this title shall be paid in a manner similar to judgments and compromises in like causes and appropriations or funds available for the payment of such judgments and compromises are hereby made available for the payment of awards, compromises, or settlements under this chapter.

Any award, compromise, or settlement in an amount of $2,500 or less made pursuant to this section shall be paid by the head of the Federal agency concerned out of appropriations available to that agency. Payment of any award, compromise, or settlement in an amount in excess of $2,500 made pursuant to this section or made by the Attorney General in any amount pursuant to section 2677 of this title shall be paid in a manner similar to judgments and compromises in like causes and appropriations or funds available for the payment of such judgments and compromises are hereby made available for the payment of awards, compromises, or settlements under this chapter. “  Title 28, USC, Section 1436 (b)

t does not appear that he falls under 28 USC Section 2677 either:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2677

 

The key phrase there is 20 Percentum but the veteran falls under 28 USC 2672


 

 

 

U.S. Code 


 

  1. Section 2672. Administrative adjustment of claims


 

The veteran received the fastest malpractice settlement I have even seen. The malpractice had already been confirmed by the VA.Do you see ,in these regulations, why I feel he was possibly  overcharged by his attorney?

Thanks, and Happy Memorial Day everyone!

Edited by Berta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 3
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

3 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Never mind- fter reading the regulations, I realized the VBM by NVLSP might have the answer.

They did- page 299- 2018 edition. I was right- the attorney overcharged the veteran.

Re; Section 2672 .Title 28,USC.

The problem with all of this ,is that the OGC paid the veteran a "litigation Risk" amount that the attorney was paid from. The attorney got 25%.

The veteran was not a litigation risk because he was barred from "litigating".

I already rattled off here many times what the VA pulled on this veteran.

It stinks. Just  like a swamp , stagnant water full of rotting vegetation and dead fish.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Moderator

Well, wait, tho.  

For VA comp benefits, the attorney and the Veteran can agree to 20% to 33% of retro benefits.  

What happens is, the court has to approve the attorney's request for benefits.  

If the attorney charges 20%, that is considered reasonable and those are approved pronto. 

But, if the attorney charges over 20, he can still get it, if the court agrees, but he will need to submit a documentation/rationale as to why he should get fees in excess of 20 percent. 

For example if the claim were particularly complex, if there were attorney extroidinary expenses, such as copying many pages of records, etc. 

One Veteran mentioned Hill and Ponton charged 33 percent.  But, the Veteran needed an IMO and could not pay for it, Hill and Ponton paid up front for the IMO.  This means that the law firm is risking the IMO fee, and wont get paid that back if the client loses.  

And, I think the IMO fee would be justification for higher than 20 percent.  But, I dont really know. 

It sounds like this would be a wonderfull service to many Vets...essentially getting the IMO fee "wrapped into" the attorney fee, to be paid when retro arrives.  

For some Vets, that would be their only option..they simply dont have 2grand or more for an IMO.   

Edited by broncovet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks for the reply Broncovet-but  this situation does not involve retro, or a specific claim, it involves 

a "litigation risk" payment.But as I stated- the veteran was barred from litigation-because of the OGC.

barred- meaning this vet's FTCA claim was denied. The OGC agreed he had been significantly malpracticed on.

There is someone very high up in a Big Six vet org who will be very interested in what I found. He knows the whole story, better than I do , and has found it to be  an absolutely unconscionable way that VA treated this veteran..

"Litigation risk" payments (VA's  cover our butt payments) are one of the ways the VA gets over on vets who have been malpracticed on and they (VA) dont want anyone to know about them.And they tell the vet affected not to tell anyone either.

I recently explained all this to a contact I have at the GAO. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use