PLEASE ADVISE AS TO HOW RESTRICTED CLAIMS FILES ARE

[Otrgypsy]

My C&P report was so F'd up that the doc has disciplinary exposure with the State medical Board and even a civil action. I am offering her a chance to avoid any complaints. I want to honestly tell her how hard it is for anyone not working on my claim to access the claim file. Please advise.

I would like to be able to tell her that there is a snowball's chance in hell that anyone (particularly her supervisors) on the West Coast will find out she has owned up to and corrected her errors. Is this true? Citations to controlling regs would be great.

Thank you.

[Berta]

You can find out if this lawyer is actually "accredited" by the VA here:

https://www.va.gov/ogc/apps/accreditation/index.asp

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Berta
added more

[broncovet]

Since you apparently are a retired attorney, you obviously know way more about this than I do.  Mostly, for me, I would rather go to the dentist and get a root canal (without pain meds) than be involved in litigation.  Sorry if I offended you.   I had no idea you were a retired attorney.  

I know " a little" about Va benefits but nothing about being an attorney, so obviously you should disregard my advice.  

[Carl the Engineer]

Back to the original question;

"If I coerce my C&P examiner to go back into the system and change my exam report will her superiors see that she changed it?"

I say, give it a try and get back to us!

Good luck,

Hamslice

 

[Berta]

If this lawyer was "accredited" with the VA, this email addy in email I received from Office of General Counsel, VA, on another matter, not long ago ,would be the place to ask if you should file a complaint with them.

"Our office is understaffed and continues to have a large back log.  We are currently working remotely and are continuing as many program functions as possible.  We ask for your patience and that you continue to make your submissions to our office via email (ogcaccreditationmailbox@va.gov) rather than through the postal system."

I did all of my submissions and evidence via email and pdf to them that way.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Berta

[Otrgypsy]

Buck, It appears that you have a great deal of legitimate information about how the VA works that could be very, very helpful. I was hoping to find a way to communicate with you more directly and ask you some specific questions.  Are you currently working for the VA?

However, it is maddening to read a lot of what you write. I didn't come here to try to impress people with my background. I came here because I don't know shit about VA regs and procedures and I know it. By procedures, I am referring to codified rules (And I really need advice on those). But not on lame excuses by people supporting the status quo. The status quo in VA claims is SNAFU – SITUATION NORMAL ALL F*CKED UP. I don't think I ever mentioned my background until people started to tell me things that I know are just wholly unfounded and totally incorrect, unsupportable lay beliefs. Clearly, you are someone that likes to support authority and doesn't like to see authority, or the status quo challenged, which is very common with career military. You and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum on that one. It truly does take all kinds. I do not begrudge you your personality traits.

I thought this place was called Hadit, for people who have had it with the VA.  A lot of what you have to say about being quiet and just accepting the incompetence is just defending VA incompetence and trying to convince other others to acquiesce in it. That is highly inappropriate if one wants to change things.

For decades I have told clients that taking legal advice from a cop is no different than getting surgical advice from a butcher.  Your unfounded, uneducated opinions on law are butchering truth. You clearly have strong opinions, that you state in ways that are offensive to me about things that you don't know. It is the promulgation of false statements about law that could harm other vets that offends me. Very few laymen understand that litigation, suing people for doing things without considering the rights of others, can be a very positive force for societal change. And it can change the way things are done, big time.

Do you know why cars get destroyed in accidents so easy? It is because of product liability litigation. Lawyers suing car companies for their BELIEFS AND OPINIONS, put into practice as to how cars should be designed. I know a lot of morons piss and moan about cars not lasting the way the used to, but countless lives have been saved and millions and millions of maiming and disabling injuries have been avoided by forcing the companies to design them so the cars collapse and get totaled easy – because it saves the lives and bodies of occupants.

In '85 I took on a case that no one else in a town with many "good lawyers," and even many more big fancy ones. They wouldn't take a certain case on because no one had ever done anything like that before and no one believed a person could have a "right" to a heart transplant. Fresh perspectives are often what is needed to fix things. I got that guy his heart within just a few months, I didn't even have to litigate. And, when I got that guy his heart, the insurance company had to admit that they covered heart transplant for all their insureds (when qualified and accepted at a heart transplant faciity). I literally saved a great many lives with that one. BECAUSE I WOULDN'T (AND NEVER DO) accept the lame ass excuse that "that's not how it’s done around here." Kaiser now has it's very own Heart Transplant program.

You can't even (or more likely chose not to) tell the difference between a fantasy identified as a fantasy and a threat. You put a disclaimer on your posts stating that you are not a lawyer and then, while occupying a position of "authority" as moderator, which will cause a lot of young vets without much life experience to trust you, You pontificate about things that you know absolutely nothing about and have many false beliefs on..

It is a basic rule in American law that everyone owes everyone else a “duty of ordinary care.” That is true for everyone not just doctors. Ordinary care means you need to be reasonable careful, exercising reasonable prudence not to injure others. In civilian life you can not sue the defense whore doctors that specialize in lying about injuries that people have received in accidents. The only reason you can’t is because there is a judicially created rule that has proclaimed they do not owe a duty of care to the injured party on the other side. That has no applicability in the VA setting because the whole theory of VA claims is that everyone is looking out for the Vet and is supposed to help the Vet, even being paternalistic and trying to protect and take care of the Vet. Yes, I know what a crock of shit that it, but it is the theory.

In your uninformed, uneducated view of things you think it is important that you can not sue a doctor in a VA malpractice claim by putting his name on the suit. 1. I absolutely don’t believe that is true; and its not worth my time to research it, because 2. What matters is the VA having to pay for a doctor’s negligence, that is what causes the problems for the doc. I think you formed this probably false belief based on the fact that it is always the government that pays -as long as it is negligence and not intentional.

It is a fact that you can sue VA employees for all sorts of stuff, under the Federal Tort Claims Act. One example you‘ll find on line is you can sue the janitor for leaving a puddle on the floor that caused you to slip and fall. Your statement that you cannot sue a doctor for a bad opinion is total untrue and totally false.. It doesn’t matter if that opinion comes into play in your medical care or in your claim – because they are supposed to be giving truthful, careful professional opinions, they have no exception that gives them freedom to lie. The questions a court would consider are “Was the doctor acting within the standard of care when he formed (was it boneheaded or legitimately considered by someone qualified to decide) and then implemented that opinion.” That would apply to either reviewing your claim or treating you. It is true that you can not sue a doctor or anyone else JUST because they were wrong. Another important question is were they wrong intentional or because of negligence. A doctor can be wrong without being negligent, one way to explain negligence to a layman would be to say it is a question  of  weather it was a 'stupid' opinion, but that is oversimplified. There are no exceptions to the duty of ordinary care that says anything like; “Because the VA has not agreed to pay you ordinary hourly rates for a doctor, it’s OK to do half assed work and render have assed opinions that screw up a Vets life.” The VA rule that says any doc can render a valid opinion on any subject is a bullshit rule allowing the VA to make bullshit decisions. It is not a rule that allows any doctor anywhere to fall below the standard of care. There is no rule for VA docs that says, “Because you are busy and overworked, you do not have to exercise ordinary care when making important life decisions for other people.” Lawyers are sued all the time for bad opinions. The same is true for accountants, doctors and all sorts of people. Opinions are business for many professionals. It much different than trying to sue some xxxxxxx at a bar for spouting off about stuff he knows nothing about. The question about whether or not you can sue someone for an opinion has a everything to do with who rendered it and why.

It is true that I haven’t researched this. Being stuck in the Peruvian countryside to avoid becoming another homeless vet, I don’t have a lot of research capabilities. However, unlike you I am very well-schooled in the theory and practice of law. I know how laws are made and how they interconnect and how systems of laws and rules are formed. So, while I admit that there is a very slim possibility that there is a rule that says you can’t sue a doc for rendering a bullshit, unsupportable, below standard opinion in a VA case, if that opinion causes you harm. However, there’s really a snowball’s chance in hell that rule exists.

I’ll put my money (from my social security not my Lexus cars) where my mouth is: I will bet you $100.00  that you can’t find an actual statute, federal regulation or controlling case law that says doctors rendering opinions in C&P exams are immune from suit for negligence in rendering such opinions.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I’ll give you a whole thirty days to find such a law or case. And I will post proof of my payment through Pay Pal. If you don’t have paypal, I’ll send it Western Union, if you can prove me wrong. And if you can’t find a specific Federal regulation, or case law saying that doctors doing C&P’s can’t be sued, then you pay me $100 and post proof after 30 days.

There are logistical difficulties with getting Vets to sue scum bag doctors for talking out their asses, but there is no prohibition.

I GUARANTEE YOU THAT IF VETS WERE TO START SUING DOCS FOR RENDERING BELOW STANDARD C&P OPINIONS THAT DOCTORS WOULD START BEING A LOT MORE CAREFUL AND MANY WOULD END UP DECLINING TO RENDER OPINIONS IN AREAS THAT THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED IN – PREVENTING EVEN MORE BULLSHIT C&P’S.

In the meantime, I promise not to run my mouth on VA regs and published procedures  because I admit I don’t know shit about them. I suggest that you make the same commitment to not run your mouth about law as to which you know nothing worth talking about.

 

 

[Otrgypsy]

Berta, as I pointed out in the post that ruffled some feathers, the scumbag lied about being licensed in New York, New York will not do anything because he is not licensed there, even though he was falsely claiming to be.  New Jersey has told me they won't even investigate until my claim is completely concluded because it was a contingent fee proving that New Jersey Bar is just a good ole boys club designed to protect lawyers rather than the public. 

I filed a 25 page sworn complaint with the General Counsel's Office, backed up with 85 pages of documents proving every one of the great many violations of VA regs for attorneys. The Gen Counsel's office has had their thumb up their ass for 17 months on that one. I was told If I need representation I could go with a VSO, what a joke!! That is denial of right to counsel.

What I have said elsewhere about my complaint being so damn solid that he would already be suspended or disbarred in if I he were a California attorney is absolute fact. His violations were many, and clearly intentional, he never even learned or cared about the facts of my case. He really is a mill lawyer (that's lawyer lingo for scum bag lawyer who doesn't care about results as long as he gets a little something)

Edited March 27, 2021 by Otrgypsy
clarification