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
carlie
I am posting this for Terry Higgins.
carlie
Metro/State news
Star Tribune
Tuesday
October 25/1988
|fets'|iarne activist wins $200,000 in
Jury finds that 3 officials ignored law
suit
By Dennis Cassano
StrfT Writer
Terry Higgins, a .resident of the Minnesota Veterans Home who for years has battled administrators in adv<> eating residents' rights, won a $200,000 jury verdict Monday against three current and former state officials for a,busc and failure to follow state law.
i> .
"I'm elated!" Higgins said. "The fact
that I've been diagnosed as a paranoid doesn't mean that they weren't out to get me!"
The Twin Cities Veterans Home has been criticized for health and business mismanagement in several stale audits in recent years. The' home temporarily was removed from the
jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs by Gov. Rudy Per-pich in the summer of 1987. It recently was placed under supervision of a board that is in the department but independent of the commissioner, William Gregg.
member Henncpin County jury against Gregg, Charles Turnbull, former administrator of the home whom Gregg fired in 1984. and Er-win Peterson, a state special assistant attorney general who represents the department.
torncy general who represented three men in the trial, said his o has not decided what steps wil taken next or 'whether to api Because the state is representing three men, they personally will have to pay the award.
Gerald Lauric, an attorney who resented Higgins, said, "This been a long, personal battle to pro
Higgins won the verdict from a six- James Barone, a special assistant at- Vets homes continued pn page 4E
Vets homes
his rights. He feels vindicated by this decision."
Lauric added, "We will try to collect this money for Mr. Higgins. It
couldn't happen to a nicer guy."
The jury found that Gregg negligently inflicted emotional distress on Higgins. It also found that Gregg violated state laws that require rules on the procedure for admitting and discharging residents and which prohibit the Veterans Home from retaliating against veterans who voice grievances about the institution.
The jurv decided that Turnbull vio-hu-d the Vulnerable Adults Act, which protects such people from conduct that could resuli in mental or emotional distress. It decided that Peterson participated in wrongfully evicting Higgins from the home.
The jury did not allocate the amount '• '. each man should pay, but said the '< damages total $200,000. It deliberat- ' . ed Friday afternoon and most of yes- ,. tcrday after a nine-day trial before '-District Judge Delila Pierce. '
Higgins, 33, served in the armed forces in West Germany. After his discharge and treatment for mental illness, he moved into the Veterans Home in 1982. A 1983 dispute over whether Higgins or the home should control the funds he received from the G.I. Bill was the first in a series of disputes that led to his unsuccessful eviction four times, Lauric said.
Higgins became an advocate for residents of the home and for their right to criticize without retaliation. One of his principal criticisms was that , the home has no written rules or
regulations with criteria on who can be admitted and who should be discharged or evicted.
In 1986, Higgins, who has been diagnosed as paranoid and having a personality disorder, started the suit without a lawyer. He filed his own motions and responded to the state's motions until earlier this year when he hired Laurie and another lawyer, Andrew Tanick. Higgins, who still lives at the home, said yesterday that he wants to go to law school.
Laurie said that officials of the home aggravated Higgins' mental illness, Laurie said that Edward Rico, a former assistant to Gregg, testified that Higgins "was considered a pest and •Hnt/s why they wanted to gr1 rd of him." Rico has filed a suit claiming • that Gregg improperly fired him. Laurie said.
He said that Higgins testified before the Legislature in 1983 on a bill to protect veterans' rights and complained about discharge procedures at the home. Three days later, Laurie said, Higgins was again discharged unsuccessfully.
In November 1984, Higgins joined a dass-acfion suit on the home's discharge practices, Laurie said. Officials of the home then attempted a formal landlord-tenant eviction that was rejected by a judge as retaliatory, Lauric said.
In 1985. Higgins went to his room di the home to discover that 1m belongings hnd been removed and another man had moved into the room. It was a forcible eviction that was overturned by another court, Laurie said.
Staff writers Paul Gustafson and Kevin Diaz contributed
Carlie passed away in November 2015 she is missed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
1
Popular Days
Oct 17
2
Oct 18
2
Top Posters For This Question
Pete53 1 post
carlie 1 post
john999 1 post
Popular Days
Oct 17 2005
2 posts
Oct 18 2005
2 posts
3 answers to this question
Recommended Posts