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
-
Are all military medical records on file at the VA?
RichardZ posted a topic in How to's on filing a Claim,
I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful. We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did. He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims. He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file. It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to 1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015. It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me. He didn't want my copies. Anyone have any information on this. Much thanks in advance.-
- 1 reply
Picked By
RichardZ, -
-
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, -
-
Question
Berta
Contact: dhm2828@yahoo.com
_____
From: Dave M [mailto:dhm2828@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:47 PM
To: larryjohnson@seattlepi.com
Subject: Veteran's pay while politicians play!
VETERANS 63 YEARS AND WAITING! 3/18/07
The DOD programs conducted on "hundreds of thousands" "experiments that were
designed to harm"! [5] Their cause and effects are not in the subject's
Medical History! Their resulting disabilities are not in the VA "schedule of
ratings for disabilities". [4] This Chief Judge's "may not review" [4]
evidence is not available for all past, present and future victim diagnosis
and treatment: 1. By civilian Health Maintenance Organization and Dept. of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Physicians'! 2. For the totality of each group's no
(preventing victim alert) long term "to harm" follow up results, i.e., the
U.S. SENATE Report's [5] from 1944, now 63 YEARS of lost "disabilities"
lessons learned! And 3. For use as evidence during U.S. Executive (DOD & VA)
and Judicial Branch processes! The subjects' never the wiser become, e.g.,
Congress's recent "Veterans Right to Know Act" failures.
Now in YOUR Medical History?
As recorded by the in 2006 established civilian Biomedical Advanced Research
and Development Authority (BARDA)? [7] Under its "NATIONAL SECURITY
MISSIONS" is the advancement of the Department of Defense (DOD) Project SHAD
"Biomedical" lessons. [6] The under the war cover BARDA, also lacks the
Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD) oversight and accountability. In 2007
duplicated is the DOD 50 years of "designed to harm"! [5]
BARDA follows DOD R&D Practice.
Each "to harm" project completes the Research and Development (R&D) process.
Prior R&D is reviewed, e.g., Project SHAD. The resulting Scope of Work
defines what each experiment is "designed" to accomplish. The how, where,
when and who is spelled out. The conducted RESEARCH cause and effects are
closely followed and recorded. From the results DEVELOPED is safe
production, in-the-field use, treatment and protection. AT THE TIME, AND
LONG AFTER THEY ARE DOD OUT-OF-DATE, THIS EXPERIMENT REVEALING CAUSE AND
EFFECTS ARE NOT IN A SUBJECT'S MEDICAL HISTORY.
The 1994 U.S. Senate Report's NOTES (No.'s 72, 168 & 169) cite, "The Nazi
Doctors and the Nuremberg Code, Human Rights in Human Experimentation." [5]
Not addressed by the U.S. Congress and U.S. Courts are the many conducted in
direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary's 1953 'Nuremberg' order; "The Nazi
Doctors" pages 343-345. [2] With the Secretary's of all U.S. Military
Services and the DOD R&D Board then known! This ignored order was TOP SECRET
until 1975, 22 YEARS LATER. The subjects are prevented from finding out, by
its "need to know." As under the in 2007 BARDA "NATIONAL SECURITY MISSIONS".
The 1994 Report noted that rights be restored. To-date not done!
The 12 July 1973 National Personnel Records Center fire destroyed "to harm"
service records. Congress's 12 December 1974 Privacy Act censored the names
of all witnesses from surviving and future records. "The court may not
review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying
the schedule.", i.e., the needed for treatment "designed to harm" results!
[5] The Veterans Court Chief Judge's statement during 17 & 18 Oct. 1994. [4]
His severely restricted 12/18/88 established 'no teeth' court is Congress's
oversight and accountability 6/25/87 STANLEY response. One of the U.S.
Supreme Court decisions on: 1. The 1950 FERES Case that prevents recourse on
DOD "harm" as "incident" to service. [1] And 2. The DOD STANLEY 1953 order
disobeyed 1958 confirming Case. [3] The 1st an "incident" and the 2nd an
"experiments" decision. Made very clear is that UNLESS CONGRESS CHANGES IT,
BY REASON OF MILITARY SERVICE VETERANS' LOST ARE PRIOR TO CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS. Thought is that the DOD and VA "disabilities" coverage provides
remedy.
H.R. 4259 [109th]: Veterans Right to Know Act to establish the Veterans'
Right to Know Commission bill (A now 63 years later STUDY!!) was proposed in
the 2005 & 2006 Congresses. At the end of each session all proposed bills
that haven't passed are cleared from the books. This bill never became law.
Will BARDA's needed for treatment evidence be part of YOUR Medical History?
A politically contrived justice denied for the greater good, end justifies
the "to harm" means. Make the checks and balances within and between our
branches of government work! Only when you hold your members in the U.S.
Congress responsible will this happen!
REFERENCES:
[1] Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950)
[2] DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment's
Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, "The Nazi Doctors
and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation" (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992). In REFERENCE [5] as NOTES 72, 168 & 169.
[3] U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY, 107 S. CT. 3054
(VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). In REFERENCE [5] cited in
NOTE 169.
[4] Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual
Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994.
<http://www.goodnet/> www.goodnet. com/~heads/ nebeker.html
[5] December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research Hazardous to
Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century." Hearings Before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. With
NOTES 1 to 170.
[6] "Project 112 (Including Project SHAD) Home"; www1.va.gov/ shad/ Starting
in 1962 DOD chemical and biological experiments.
[7] Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Became
law 19 December 2006.
_____
Sucker-punch
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49981/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailb
eta/features_spam.html> spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49981/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailb
eta/features_spam.html> Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages
"Keep on, Keepin' on"
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/
GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !
When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief
Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was
simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."
Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
Mar 19
1
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 1 post
Popular Days
Mar 19 2007
1 post
0 answers to this question
Recommended Posts