New Ssoc Proposed

[Berta]

"SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its

regulations regarding the time limit for filing a response to a

Supplemental Statement of the Case in appeals to the Board of Veterans'

Appeals (Board). We propose to change the response period

[[Page 14057]]

from 60 days to 30 days. The purpose of this change is to improve

efficiency in the appeals process and reduce the time that it takes to

resolve appeals while still providing appellants with a reasonable" etc

I fail to see how this can possibly improve "effeciency" as the VARO-unlike the olden days- ignores these responses in many cases-responses which could alter their denials-

You can make public comment at

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

Has anyone else here made Public comment on VA 2007- VBA-0013-0001 ?

This was the ancilliary bill that has been proposed.

I asked the feds to change the Bonny V. Principi regulations.

They are unfair to Section 1151 claimants.

They are unfair to any veteran's survivor if the veteran died due to VA health care prior to Dec 16,2003.If VA killed the vet after Dec 16, 2003 the survivor gets all accrued benefits-if they malpracticed and caused death before that date-the survivor does not get all accrued benefits.

Section 1151 claimants do NOT get the same ancillary benefits as others do.

CHAMPVA does not come with a Sec 1151 death award-nor does Chap 35-nor does the survivor get the Mortgage Guaranty Certificate.

It seems to me that when VA commits malpractice to the point of causing a veterans death- the survivors should equal rights as other Direct SC survivors- to all appropriate benefits.

I get CHAMPVA and Chap 35 because Rod was 100% SC P & T before VA caused his death-CHAMPVA told me many Sec 1151 survivors are astonished to find that they are not eligible for CHAMPVA under Sec 1151 deaths.

This is unconscionable when you consider the pain of knowing that a death was caused by the US of A in the form of VA medical care.Yet Section 1151 survivors do not get equal treatment under the law. That has to change.

Has anyone added comments on the other parts of this proposed regulation?

[Vike17]

I remember seeing this proposal a while back also. Maybe it was proposed earlier and due to the feedback, it was never made omplemented?

The rational behind this proposal is to try and speed the appeals process up and ultimately reduce the pending backlog of appeals, while still affording the claimant every oppurtunity to submit "new' evidence and being heard at the local level before the appeal is sent to the BVA where the 90 day rule comes into play.

The reason why there is time limits is because if there wasn't, appeals would drag on even longer than they do now. You would have veterans submitting new evidence months or even possible years after the fact causing VA to go back and visit the issue again and make them reneder another decision, which would further clog the sytem. Of course, then by some veterans view, it would be VA's fault it took so long! The VA has the most liberal appeals policy and system when it comes to disability compensation. I know of no other system where one can keep submitting "new" evidence until the cows come home and still be able to retain the orginal effective date if the appeal is approved based on that new evidence.

Again this proposed regulation is just to try and speed the process up without denying the claimant any further opportunity to submit new evidence.

Vike 17

Edited April 1, 2007 by Vike17 (see edit history)

[allan]

That will get you quicker up to the BVA?

Hello Terry,

my appeal docket# is 9819625

That means my appeal was sent to the BVA in 1998. The BVA has not even began to process the claim. It has only been remanded.

These new Vets coming home, face 10 or 20 yrs of bullsh*t denials, twisted & fraudulent evidence to deny their claims, JUST LIKE WE DO.

Unless the widespread "unethical" practices of VA adjudicators are stopped, it doesn't mean squat what kind of time saving measures is implimented.

Why doesn't the VARO's pay for C&P's out of their budget? Why do the VAMC's have to pay for C&P's ordered by the VARO, DRO or Court out of health care funding?

This screws a vet from the begining if you ask me & is contradictory to VA manual.

You end up with a budget like Nicholson came up with to opperate under, so they provide a candystriper, or NP to provide a definitive diagnoses & determination as to wether your "neuromuscular disorder of unknown cause" is or isn't service connected. All, according to the manuals, codes & regulations with the highest regard for the veteran?

This crap is so obvious, even the dain bramaged can pick it out after the decades it takes to process a claim.

[betrayed]

The reason why there is time limits is because if there wasn't, appeals would drag on even longer than they do now. You would have veterans submitting new evidence months or even possible years after the fact causing VA to go back and visit the issue again and make them reneder another decision, which would further clog the sytem.

Vike 17

I think you missed the point maybe not your pretty sharp, but its a good question why am I limited by time limits and the va has none, if they want to wait 15 years to issue a soc then so be it.

[Berta]

I dont see this as saving the VA time at all-

except to type "denied" faster-

A response to a SSOC can turn a claim around-

In the 1990s they fought me with many SSOCs- and my rebuttals kept knocking down their rationale-

"You would have veterans submitting new evidence months or even possible years after the fact causing VA to go back and visit the issue again and make them reneder another decision, which would further clog the sytem"

I dont feel I clogged the system- I feel that by consistently drawing them out in SSOCs-with evidence- I was able to succeed at the RO level.

My claim was sent to the BVA in 1996 I believe- but then a rebuttal to another SSOC caused them to award a few months later at RO level-so no BVA appeal-

These days the Buffalo VARO has A new policy-

they give the claimant 60 days (this reg would drop it to 30 days) in which to respond to the SSOC-

the Buffalo VARO Does NOT read the evidence anymore anyhow-when a veteran responds-

I can get another IMO in a week-

my other IMos needed at least about 3 weeks preparation time-

how does a vet respond at point of receipt of SSOC within 30 days with an IMO if it is the only way to succeed in their claim?

They might as well get rid of the regs that support sending an SSOC-

in the first place-

A SSOC- A Supplemental Statement of the CAse is prepared when a vet has questioned the adequacy of a SOC denial.

Also a SSOC is prepared when the claimant has sent additional evidence after the SOC was sent out-

SSOCs cannot address new issues per a new reg (67 Fedeg Jan 23, 2002).

Also BVA remands require often that a SSOC be prepared.

The claimant only has 60 days now as it is to argue if the remand SSOC is incorrect.

This new reg would only allow a response by the claimant in 30 days.

The VBM (NVLSP) mnakes the point that it is the I-9 that can expand the argument on appeal.

In Jan 2006 the VARO decided to send my claim to the BVA.

I have a full phone log of movement of the AO claim for 6 months and nothing indicated at all it would be sent to the BVA.

I thought they were finally addressing my medical evidence.

I clearly stated that they had failed to do that on the first page of the I-9.

In all the years I have dealt with the VA- (2 decades)

I thought the Ros actually read the I-9s.

They dont.

They even added to the appeal a claim they had not decided yet.Even this fact I put in the I-9 did not trigger the VA or my vet reps to question this transfer to the BVA.

It only took a brief letter to the BVA pointing out their errors to get my claim back to the VARO-

My POA would not support the remand request at all (documented) and I told them BVA had confirmed the remand some rep (the same one who buggered my claim in 2005)took credit for the remand--when he heard it had occurred-

he then sent the RO a 4138 and told people he got this remand for me- but the BVA files were already back at the RO.

I see this reg as one more right that claimants will lose-

If the VA does not consider bonafide medical evidence from a real doctor-and totally ignores that evidence in a SOC-

and then is issued an SSOC that also fails to address the claimant's bonafide medical evidence- the claimant has only 30 days now and not 60-if this succeeds to rebutt and reply to the SSOC.

If it takes additional IMO , how can most claimants get one in 30 days?

We wait for months or years to see what we have to rebutt-

and now are going to be limited in the time we have to rebutt?

Bull crap-

I have not even been given Benefit of Doubt in 4 years-

NONE of my evidence to include 3 IMOs has been put on my side of the scale.The evidence I had from VA medical records even without the IMOs was superb-none of it has been acknowledged by the VA.

I have a letter from the Director of my POA saying that my most recent IMO could get the same response-

MY POA has determined what medical evidence the RO sees.

This POA might well be doing this to other claimants too-

It is only the VA, with a full medical rationale-who can determine the value of medical evidence.And the evidence has to remain in the c file for them to do that.

I have reported my POA problem to the Governor, my Congressman and my State Senators-

Maybe you are right-

let POAs decide that our evidence isnt any good,

let them make sure the VA never sees that evidence and therefore does not weigh it-

take away our right to even supply an expanded opinion to rebutt any VA crapola-

get a letter from a Director of a state vet org that suggests the determine of an additional IMO has already been decided- by the POA-----NOT by the VA-

and then limit our rights as to having enough time to rebutt an SSOC with another IMO-

That will all certainly save the VA time-

it only takes seconds to type 'denied'and to fail to read and consider the medical evidence.

And have a POA who stands by and watches this all occur-for years- and does not do anything about it.

My POA has to answer for all their screw ups-in my regard-and they will-

they hold the POA of countless veterans in this state-

and although I am aware of complaints from vets they have advised

no one has questioned their incompetence by writing to the

people who pay them-as I have-with proof.

I feel this reg is one more right we will lose to the detriment of veterans-and I will make public comment at the Fed Register on it for all above reasons.

Edited April 1, 2007 by Berta (see edit history)

[Vike17]

I don't have any idea why I even lend my assistance here. Everyone has already made up their mind that VA is out to screw them from the get go when this simply isn't the case. Everyone seems to think everytime VA proposes to do something, they are up to something sinister to promote their grand sceme of screwing a vet any chance they get.

When I said "You would have veterans submitting new evidence months or even possible years after the fact causing VA to go back and visit the issue again and make them reneder another decision, which would further clog the sytem," I meant this in the context of, for example, having a deadline for submission of additional or new evidence of let's say 90 or 120 days intead of the current 60 days or the proposed 30 days. Having a longer deadline would string out an appeal even longer than what it is now, ultimately clogging the system even more! Berta I wasn't implying you were clogging the system with your appeal, I was implying that in general this is what would happen if if the time frames werer any longer than they currently are. I suspect this is one of the reasons why VA is proposing this regulation change!

There isn't anything criminal going on here, but from the view from the majority of the posters here, one would think otherwise! I'm just banging my head against a brick wall here on hadit. For those veteran's I was able to help undersatnd what and why VA does things and maybe help get their claim approved, I truely wish them the best. For the others that continue to bash me and pretty much tell me in a round about way that I don't know what I'm talking about, I too wish them the best of luck in there endevour with VA, but shouldn't wonder why it may take them 10 years to get their claim(s) approved when it could have been done in one!

Vike 17

[Berta]

Vike-I didnt think you would react this way- I feel I am banging my head against the wall here too-

when I have seen the results of my advise that can actually help claimants-

yet in my case-I cannot get the RO to even read my evidence-

I apologise that my comments were so strong-

I dont have a good vet rep like you- I have idiots and they are adversely affecting other claimants -

that is why I still let them hold my POA-I want to see them get their act together-

I see much of the blame in my situation lies with the POA and not the RO- but then again-

how can a claimant get a denovo review that is verbatim to the initial review? I did-

I had to raise a big fuss on that- and then the DRO-per my vet rep- could not read medical opinions- so she disregarded my 2 IMos-

Now I think the rep lied but at the time he insisted that she could not read my IMOs , therefore they were rejected.

I DO think you know what you are talking about-

but you dont deal with the Buffalo VARO-not many vets here do-

I had a terrible ordeal with them in the past and only by filing for VACO administrative review did I get one of my claims resolved.

and you dont have a POA who has had an established relationship with this VARO for many years and appears to pick and choose who will succeed and who wont.

I am sorry that my anger over what is going on here in NY got to me-

and that you felt I directed it towards you-

That tells me I need a break from hadit- and I need to put a lot more pressure on my state representatives to see why this big state vet org and the Buffalo RO are so quick to send claims to the BVA-instead of reading the evidence.

My evidence of that fact is documented at the BVA.

I already griped here enough and have taken action on this-

but certainly not enough-

to all- please realise that Vike certainly knows his stuff- you all know he does-

I just got angry when I interpreted this reg to be one more step to get claims to the BVA instead of properly adjudicated by the RO.

I need a break anyhow from all this here -

it will give me more time to continue to call this vet org on their unconscionable errors (I am not the only NY claimant they screwed ) and to find out why

Buffalo VARO employs DROs who perform de novo reviews by doing a verbatim Copy and Paste job from the decisions they are supposed to give de novo review to and do not consider the claimants evidence.

[Berta]

forgot to add- maybe this case will show why I was so angry at that proposed reg:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files2/0603687.txt

I looked for my POA in 2006 and the first BVA claim they were on POA that came up-- higher increase for 50% PTSD- that vet died-so no claim -the next two claims- my POA had requested that the appeal be withdrawn???? that always bothers me when I see that--

The above case involves a vet who was on prior remand:

"This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA

or Board) on appeal from a rating decision of the Department

of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Buffalo, New

York, which denied the benefit sought on appeal. The Board

first considered this appeal in October 2003 and remanded the

matter for additional development. In January 2006, the

veteran withdrew her appeal of all issues other than the

single issue set forth on the title page of this decision.

In October 2005, the veteran submitted additional records in

support of her claim. In January 2006, she specifically

requested that the appeal be remanded to the agency of

original jurisdiction for review of the newly submitted

evidence."

Obviously her POA (who is also my POA) did not support the lack of consideration of her evidence-and even her remand request. My remand took less than 2 months and she might STILL be waiting to hear from the AMC.

"Please consider all evidence submitted

since the August 2005 Supplemental

Statement of the Case in conjunction with

all evidence of record and determine if a

rating higher than 10 percent may be

assigned for hypothyroidism. Please

conduct any additional indicated

development. If the benefit sought is

not granted, the veteran and her

representative should be furnished a

Supplemental Statement of the Case, and

afforded a reasonable opportunity to

respond before the record is returned to

the Board for further review."

She is at Buffalo like me-with the same POA I have-

and being:

"afforded a reasonable opportunity to

respond before the record is returned to

the Board for further review"

That time is to be cut down from 60 days to 30 days by the new reg?

Obviously Buffalo did not consider her 2005 evidence and they might not consider it again-

No where does it show that the POA even sent a 41-2138 in support of her evidence.I never got one in support of my 2004 IMOs.

Does anyone see my point?

An Air force vet last year raised hell too because she also was sent to the BVA , with my same POA, and the VARO had totally disregarded her IMO.

She too had to request the Remand herself.

[Guest jangrin]

I don't have any idea why I even lend my assistance here. Everyone has already made up their mind that VA is out to screw them from the get go when this simply isn't the case. Everyone seems to think everytime VA proposes to do something, they are up to something sinister to promote their grand sceme of screwing a vet any chance they get.

When I said "You would have veterans submitting new evidence months or even possible years after the fact causing VA to go back and visit the issue again and make them reneder another decision, which would further clog the sytem," I meant this in the context of, for example, having a deadline for submission of additional or new evidence of let's say 90 or 120 days intead of the current 60 days or the proposed 30 days. Having a longer deadline would string out an appeal even longer than what it is now, ultimately clogging the system even more! Berta I wasn't implying you were clogging the system with your appeal, I was implying that in general this is what would happen if if the time frames werer any longer than they currently are. I suspect this is one of the reasons why VA is proposing this regulation change!

There isn't anything criminal going on here, but from the view from the majority of the posters here, one would think otherwise! I'm just banging my head against a brick wall here on hadit. For those veteran's I was able to help undersatnd what and why VA does things and maybe help get their claim approved, I truely wish them the best. For the others that continue to bash me and pretty much tell me in a round about way that I don't know what I'm talking about, I too wish them the best of luck in there endevour with VA, but shouldn't wonder why it may take them 10 years to get their claim(s) approved when it could have been done in one!

Vike 17

Vike17,

I don't know of one person here on Hadit that does not hold your opinions and your help regarding claims in the highest esteem. I for one did not think for one moment that Berta was insinuating that you or your advise was ill recieved.

If anything we all agree with you. We all want to help VA get the claim backlog "unclogged". This is something we are all interested in seeing happen.

I do think however, that the veterans already pay a huge price for the backlog of claims. Primarily, in the loss of health while waiting for rating determination as well as some loose thier ability to work, loss of income, loss of homes, etc, etc. Not all vets, but certainly some, because of SC illness this has happened.

Is the loss of income the VA's fault? "I'm sure each of us has an opinion about that". To me the bottome line is, I don't mind having tighter controls and time limits for response regardng the claim, but in all fairness, don't you think that the "big government with all the money should also be held to some time limitations?"

I am not being disrespectful of your qualifications and your experience. You do tremendous work within the system and I respect you and commend you for that. BUT, the VA, The "system" can expedite these claims by hiring more people RIGHT NOW, in prepparation of the Vets comming home from IRAQ. Also the VA, can incorporate new time limits, once a vet signs the VCAA stating no more evidence, the VARO has "x" amount of time to process and rate. Why should it fall to the veteran to be held accountable but not to the VA System and the VA employee who's job it is to process these claims. Two or three years wait for an "initial claim" rating is just showing to everyone that the best the VA has to offer is not very good.

The vets have penalties if they fail to respond in a timely manner, but not the VA. In a perfect world don't you too think that the VA should have to respond in a timely manner?

The VA could and should implement a "fast tract" system for any veteran who is unable to work and it is verified by SS or MD or VA primary care doctor. I believe there would be a lot more support for the system if the system would put in some basic humanitarian principles and applied them to those in dire need.

I think that is a very NORMAL way for a person to feel. I don't think it is meant to be a personal attack toward you as you are one of the few that seem to be trying to find solutions to the problem.

I look at you as one of the solutions to the backlogg of claims. Your being here and helping Hadit members with thier claims is certainly helping to relieve some of the backlog as your advice does help veterans prepare and submit a stronger claim with medical facts to support the claim. Ultimately, if it is a no brainer then the VA rater will be able to process more quickly and we will all be better off.

I hope you can appreciate my view on this. It certainly is my opinion and not meant to cause or start any type of attact, as you are very much appreciated here at Hadit.

Jangrin

[Berta]

Jangrin- thanks for the comment because I was very upset wondering what I said that seemed to trigger all this-

I have changed my mind-I wont even respond to the Federal register-probably no one else will anyhow and this will become a new reg in 38 CFR.

The responses to the Task Force on vets is only accepting comments for 30 more days-a better way for me to gripe- and I think many vets will surely write to the task force.

I noticed some sarcasm directed to Vike this AM in another post-

maybe with that -on top of whatever I said- he got mad and I dont blame him-

Some of us have a awful time with the ROs and some dont-

and If we have bonafide medical evidence I think we have a legitimate gripe-

But some vets here do not get the answers they want and I think not only my post but someone else's irritated Vike-

I responded to that post too-and

I agree with what Vike told this vet.

[john999]

Just a good look at the quality of decisions coming out of the St. Petersburg RO would make anyone wonder what they are doing up there besides reading comic books.

The decisions are usually awful and illogical. They ignore medical evidence or twist it to their own ends to deny claims. I have had to appeal every single decision coming out of that office for years and years.

[Ricky]

"I don't have any idea why I even lend my assistance here." Your advise is sound and well taken by all. However, if this is your feelings then maybe you should stop your assistance. You fail to understand that all is not well in Kansas my good friend. Not all RO's are equal and not all RO's churn out valid claims such as the one you are dealing with.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. Why are you so pro-VA? I am pro VA also for I understand that the VA was established to provide a much needed service to America's best - the veterans and their families. HOWEVER, come to Alabama and submit one of those well grounded and fully documented claims and you will see very quickly where some of the veterans and widows on this site are coming from.

Is every action conducted by the VA a conspricy? NO! But but some of the veterans on this site, just like a battered person that fully understands what is going to happen when they hear loud voices become distrustful and begin to become suspicious and fearful from every action.

If you check out, and I certainly hope that you do not, then I guess that you just failed to fully understand the veterans from across the nation. It is easy when you are dealing with a group of veterans from one area but when you take on the advice and assistance role for veterans nation wide then a little bit more understanding is needed on your part. Just remember, you and your assistance to veterans on this site is wanted, needed and respected, however, not all VA offices are equal. The same holds true for regimes in charge of the VA. Maybe Principi was a good guy but this Sec Nick is a real snake and there is no telling what he might do before having to turn the reins over to someone else.

Vike - the bottom line is chill a bit and dont let this stuff get to you cause we love you and would hate to see you go.

\Ricky

[Stretch]

My SSOC said about the same thing as the SOC. One thing that was included was that I had a truck in my Nose. To answer this statement took several weeks to figure, because I did not know how to prove that I did not have a truck in my nose. Finally I just simply said that I have never had a truck in my nose in my entire life and sent the NOD.

Have you ever hear of someone with a truck in their nose?

To some this might sound like a reasonable statement, from the VA, but to me it was kind of out of place.

[Berta]

I regret that when I took a stand on the proposed reg for SSOC responses that all this happened-

I changed my mind on it- but then I realised this AM- NO- my letter to the Fed register Public comment site might be the only one they get-

and this is another reason I am concerned-

the female vet on my POA I mentioned-

say the VA uses her IMO and then gets a VA "expert" crapola opinion to go against it-

how does she respond with an additional IMO in 30 days?

If she cant -she is set for 2 years of waiting for a remand-

the ROs and many POAs are only too happy to get a claim off to the BVA- because for 2 years nothing happens with it and of course-if the vet dies in the meantime- the VA saves money.

ALSO- I have seen this happen here- vet gets SSOC that is so bizarre they call their SO or vet rep-for appointment-

they might have to wait over a month for the appointment-

A deficient Supplemental Statement of the Case is something a good vet rep should question-and respond to (or the vet- because if you buy what they are selling- you have accepted their errors)

How many vets can get a POA appointment within 30 days and then file the response too within thirty days?

I had a Buffalo vet who got a ridiculous decision and it took over a month for me to tie up with him to prepare the response to the SSOC because he had been hospitalized for

the very condition his claim was for.

Finally after years and years and years he succeeded on his claim at the RO level-it had been remanded from CAVC to BVA etc before I met him-but he almost died waiting for the decision.

I got one once (SSOC)that stated in a VA medical expert's words that my husband's death was DUE TO COCAINE! No medical rationale at all- and it was one more attempt to deny DIC.The final attempt- this is what the Buffalo RO VA can do to widows-say anything at all and deny the claim.

I had sent the VA a complete 7 page autopsy many times- and certainly the only drug in Rod's system was his HBP med-well not his- they had mailed him someone elses meds by mistake-

In any event I had 60 days and re-sent the autopsy and by then had requested VACO review-telling the VA lawyer who received the VACO review request (he called me when he got it as they dont see many of those) that I couldnt find anyone at the Buffalo VARO who could read so I figured the VA lawyers in WAshington were more literate-

that was proven to be true-

What if I needed to get another copy of the autopsy from the Medical Examiners office?

They take their time on getting their mail out-even in 60 days it would have taken time-

The VA already had numerous copies of it so that this crap wouldnt happen and I get that unconscionable SSOC.

If a vet or widow only has 30 days to rebutt an SSOC-

how can they rebutt with more evidence in this time frame of 30 days?

I appreciate all of Vike's advise-I dont always agree- but he is on the ball-and we all know it-

But I dont appreciate feeling that my statements about Buffalo RO might sound like just a big gripe when I have documentation to back up how lousy some of their work is.

I cant say it is all lousy because some vets succeed and others dont even get a legal VCAA letter.

One of my Senators-who I recently wrote to regarding another matter-

has contacted this VARO's director twice recently regarding an Agent Orange claim-

A county service rep (dont EVER use them for claims) lost the veteran's initial claim.

The vet re-filed the claim-DMII due to AO in Nam and was DENIED!

Let me re state that-

The veteran, an AO Nam with no known etiology but AO for his DMII was DENIED by the Buffalo VARO-SOP for this VARO-

Senator Schumer's main concern in his second letter to was the lost claim for a proper EED but the vet's claim is on appeal because -with no other etiology- this AO NAM vet has diabetes and his claim was DENIED!

Senator Schumer wrote to Donna Terril Director of the VARO (who refused to answer my letters)this is funny -they were about the IMos that VA failed to use-so I copied the IMOS on the back of my letters to her as well as attached them to the last letter to her)and STILL they remained ignored-and this RO still claimed in Dec they never got them-

Senator Schumer wrote-a few months ago to this RO director-MS Terrill,that " The VA's decision in this case was unwise, unfounded, and unfair."

I have recently contacted him on another matter referring him to errors at this VARO that my POAs stood by and let happen.

I am one more case of "unwise, unfounded and unfair" at this VARO-

and have years of documentation to prove it-

While the VA might not be arbitrary as Vike suggests-

that only goes for some of us and not all of us-

and this vet's case is typical of a lot of Buffalo RO decisions I have seen over the years-

just think about it -Vietnam vet-AO exposure, DMII with no other etiology but for AO exposure- and he was DENIED!

The vet got VVA Chap 77 to help him with his appeal-

that could tie up this claim for years when the right decision could have been made already.

The service officer should be sued if this fiasco causes the vet to ultimately lose his proper EED award.

Then again- the decision on his AO claim for DMII was arbitrary, capricious, unwise, unfounded and unfair.

Like every decision I have gotten and had to fight over at this RO since the 1980s-which includes every improper denial of my husband's claims as well as my daughter's Chap 35.

Every single initial decision we ever received from this RO was WRONG.

I am not some isolated case of a widow griping about a system that is broken-I am griping about a regional office who-with the help of certain POAs- picks and chooses what claims will get proper attention and which ones won't.

It doesnt matter if the medical evidence is probative---

Many claims here in Western NY are denied as soon as they are filed.

The veterans rights are violated by the RO and certain POAs in Western NY allow this to occur.That denial is decided by the POA on the very day the claim is filed.

I have no argument with Vike-but I do realise that he sees VA in a much different light than I do-

I regret the broohaha this caused by my post-

But he is not in touch with the workings of the Buffalo VARO-

as- even as I write this post- claims are being denied at this RO without even being read and the veteran will get a generic VCAA letter that is illegal and if they question their POA from the State Veterans Division- they will be told it is a proper notice and all their evidence was considered and yet none of it probably was even touched.

(unless they have heeded my past letter to them on the VCAA)

I WILL fight that reg over the 30 days- I cant even get basic DTA and VCAA rights after over 4 years.

I cannot even get the RO to comply with M21-1.

I have considerable probative medical evidence and it is not even put on the scale and I have been denied even the consideration of Benefit of Doubt.The VA has nothing from me to out on the scale-17 submissions of medical evidence and 3 IMOS-And my POA has allowed that to occur.

My POA destroyed considerable evidence I sent and does not even have copy of my initial claims-

My 2 initial IMOs disappeared right before or during my so-called DRO conference of 2005.

I will fight that 30 days crap on the SSOC because they have denied me all the other rights I have -I am not losing this one.

----and because of the broohaha my post caused-I have a renewed interest to continue to send complaints about this VARO to anyone in our gov who will listen-

the Task force is getting the full story-

Maybe newly returning vets might be getting some exempliary treatment by this VARO now (I dont know) but the fact remains-at some point their future claims will probably be mishandled too-by this VARO-

like that AO incountry vet with DMII that this RO recently DENIED!

Senator Schumer has only heard a little from me-recently-

My COngressman has heard a little from me too-

But I woke up today with a new mission and am telling them -and anyone else in the Gov who might listen to me-the WHOLE story about this VARO -with ample VARO documentation- and how they are failing many veterans in NY by MANY MANY decisions that are "unwise, unfounded, and unfair".

Neither that AO vet nor I am isolated cases. We are typical of the runaway train this RO has become.With the help of vet reps.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Berta (see edit history)

[john999]

Berta

All of us who have been in the system as a claimant for years and years know the VA compensation system is broken and dysfunctional. I cannot even get them to obey their own rules without endless trips to the DRO or BVA. The local RO makes gross errors and I cannot just get it corrected without an appeal which takes years. When the VA decides they don't want to pay they will do anything to not pay. When you get to 100% it gets even worse.

[Done wit this]

Hi,

Just another Game for the VA to throw at the Veterans. Hoping we will give up and Go Away!

***********Macool************ ;)

Edited April 2, 2007 by macool (see edit history)

[Ricky]

VCAA - mine said that in order to succeed I must submit evidence which centered around the reason for denial of my claim. Your claim was denied due to the fact that you failed to show for a VA examination in Feb 2002. Therefore, any additional evidence submitted must be centered around this fact in order for it to be considered new and material." Sooooooo I sent them a copy of the Feb 2002 C&P examination. They then issued the SOC saying that the information submitted was already in the claims folder therefore it was not new and material. Holy cow batman what the hell was I supposed to do. The denial was unjustified in the begining since it was denied for failure to show for an examination. I was at Birmingham VAMC for over 8 hours. The doctors submitted the exam results, which favored my claim, and it was at the VARO (evidenced by the SOC).

Although the SOC did not provide any discussion on the evidence, either against or for, my claim it did list in the evidence section a IMO from Dr. Ricky H. So just to let you guys know, if you are in need of an IMO just email me. I guess I am a Doctor in know all so I should be able to comment on all disabilities.

Now this post included a little humor, however, it is serious stuff. The actions of my VARO can not be read any other way than they simply did not review the claim or they simply wanted me to know they could thumb their nose at me and all I could do was start the long road to appeals land. I am still waiting on the BVA. Now not to say the BVA will not correct this problem but I betcha any back pay that I get the first action will be to remand back to the RO due to an inadequate SOC. Now the first SOC took only 5 months from the submission of the NOD. It normally takes my VARO 12-18 months for action on a NOD so my was faster than a speeding bullet (I wonder why). Wanta bet on how long the SSOC will take? I betcha 12-18 months.

Now the point here is that like I said in my post below, yep the VA was designed to be a good system. However, you have to factor in the people factor. Different Sec's over the years have instructed the VARO's to do things the way they want them. We have today become second string players and if the political climate dictates actions which may save money for use in other areas then that is what will be done. As the movie we have the good, the bad and the ugly. Some VARO's definitely fall into the ugly area.

[john999]

What I think it shows, Ricky, is that our RO's are just totally incompetent and don't give a damn. They have made a mess of your claim and now how do you get it right without waiting a few years?

[Objee]

Ricky,

The crap you're going through is so far off the wall that you might try being off the wall yourself. How about - - - - Sending a Demand Letter as a Statement in

Support saying that they failed to follow CFR procedures (you'll have to look them up) and have admitted such (stipulated their agreement) with the response to your submission of the C&P exam. You now demand that they proceed to properly adjudicate your case with all due haste or you will file a formal protest of denial of due process. Etc., etc.

No idea of what they'll do, but it will be fun to at least tweak their two brain cells into trying to think. Regional counsel may become involved and the fun would only increase. Who knows, they might actually try to solve the problem!?!?!?

Ralph

VCAA - mine said that in order to succeed I must submit evidence which centered around the reason for denial of my claim. Your claim was denied due to the fact that you failed to show for a VA examination in Feb 2002. Therefore, any additional evidence submitted must be centered around this fact in order for it to be considered new and material." Sooooooo I sent them a copy of the Feb 2002 C&P examination. They then issued the SOC saying that the information submitted was already in the claims folder therefore it was not new and material. Holy cow batman what the hell was I supposed to do. The denial was unjustified in the begining since it was denied for failure to show for an examination. I was at Birmingham VAMC for over 8 hours. The doctors submitted the exam results, which favored my claim, and it was at the VARO (evidenced by the SOC).

Although the SOC did not provide any discussion on the evidence, either against or for, my claim it did list in the evidence section a IMO from Dr. Ricky H. So just to let you guys know, if you are in need of an IMO just email me. I guess I am a Doctor in know all so I should be able to comment on all disabilities.

Now this post included a little humor, however, it is serious stuff. The actions of my VARO can not be read any other way than they simply did not review the claim or they simply wanted me to know they could thumb their nose at me and all I could do was start the long road to appeals land. I am still waiting on the BVA. Now not to say the BVA will not correct this problem but I betcha any back pay that I get the first action will be to remand back to the RO due to an inadequate SOC. Now the first SOC took only 5 months from the submission of the NOD. It normally takes my VARO 12-18 months for action on a NOD so my was faster than a speeding bullet (I wonder why). Wanta bet on how long the SSOC will take? I betcha 12-18 months.

Now the point here is that like I said in my post below, yep the VA was designed to be a good system. However, you have to factor in the people factor. Different Sec's over the years have instructed the VARO's to do things the way they want them. We have today become second string players and if the political climate dictates actions which may save money for use in other areas then that is what will be done. As the movie we have the good, the bad and the ugly. Some VARO's definitely fall into the ugly area.

[Ricky]

Just to show you that this was not a one shot deal for this VARO:

Feb 04 had reopened claim for lower back injury that was already SC at 0 percent.

Injury was lower back with spinal spurs. Did not know the code they rated it under at the time cause it was not provided.

May 05 C&P for increase provided that forward flexion of thoracolumbar spine was limited to 45 degrees.

July 05 rating decision provided that 0 percent was continued. "18 May 05 examination provided that forward flexion was limited to 45 degrees etc...... In order to received an increase in rating there must be some limitation of motion. Pain within itself is not a disability." Man I do not know what to think about this one they plainly confirmed the limitation of motion.

Aug 05 Nod Submitted - Jan 06 SOC issued. 0 percent is continued. reasons same as above. This was a paste and cut action. Had to be cause it was word for word with the rating decision.

A few days later received new revised rating. It provided that: "Va examination shows limitation of motion that meets the criteria for a 10 percent evaluation under 5237. This is not CUE and is merely a difference of opinion. An evaluation of 10 percent is not warranted (seems as it was as they just previously stated that 10 percent was awarded) unless there is forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees and less than 85 degrees. Hell I know this 60-85 gets 10 percent mine was 45." It went on to say "An evaluation of 20 percent is assigned whenever the forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees." No crap batman. Then why did you not assign a 20 percent rating since my forward flexion was found by a VA examiner to be 45 degrees. I always thought that 45 was some where between 30 and 60. Maybe I went to the wrong school.

Then to top it off they assigned the blasted effective date as 31 Jan 06 which was the date of the stupid rating decision. Forget about the law, regulations and the court which says in the effective of a claim to reopen is the date of the claim to reopen. Now the way I see it and surely the way the court will see it is that the date to reopen is Feb 04. I have the notice of reopening dated in Feb 04, no dates for nods were missed so where did they get this Jan 06 date from?

This is just another example of this VARO being stupid. They some how, God only knows how, misapplied the criteria for the rating then grabed some date from outer space or somewhere. They provided right there in their decisions the limitation of forward flexion was 45 degrees then quoted the regulation to me which clearly provided that this claim meets the criteria for an evlauation of 20 percent.

What is a vet to think about such actions? incompetence? intentional attempts to deny and delay? Jez I don't have any ideal. I hope during my upcoming DRO hearing he/she can explain. I have no new evidence. What new evidence could one get? The evidence is right there in front of them. Its not an issue of me trying to get a higher rating than authorized by the regulation based on pain loss of work or something like that. Jez it is clear cut in that the effective is Feb 04 and the disability meets the critera for a 20 percent rating.

Once again there are problems within the VA. Are they across the board? I do not think so, so I want make such broad statements. So I do not feel that broad statements as the VA is great and the problem is vets just want to argue and see things their way. I happen to be lucky and have one of those RO that make stupid decisions which are later confirmed by the most senior rating officials within the RO. You be the judge-what do you think the problem is? There is definitely a problem as I have reviewed many other rating decisions issued to various vets from this RO. Man if you think mine is bad you have not seen the wild ones yet. If the issue is really complicated with several expert medical opinions it drives them crazy and the proof is in their decisions. They began to make a multitude of grammar and spelling errors which really throws a loop in the wild decisions. I just lay the blasted things down and shake my head cause there is no way a vet can make heads or tells out of it to argue against it in a NOD or perfected appeal.

This is an example of a vet (me) understanding that all of the VA is not bad but boy some of the RO's are way out there in left field by themselves. The Biggest problem is there is not true oversight. The Va is allowed to interpet the laws and develop regualtions to implement such laws with out any oversight. This "above the law" attitude filters down to the RO's. If you have a bad RO director and service center manager man o man you have problems. They will thumb their nose at you all day long. Now hopefully the BVA will find and correct such problems. However, the problem is - the RO is not taken to task for their errors so they simply continue day in and day out with no fear of any type of corrective action being force upon them.

Am I crazy and just see this wrong? You guys tell me. I can scan and post any of my records to prove my statements above.

[Berta]

Ricky- I totally agree with you that VAROs make stupid errors that can cost the vet time and money-but this is my last comment on VAROs- because apparently Vike left the board because I gave an opinion on a proposed reg-and it turned into a rendition of how the VA is not out to screw any of us.

I guess those of us who get incredibly incorrect decisions-

and the unconscionable so called DRO review that is a word for word rendition of the original decision-

and those here who have their evidence ignored time and time again- well I guess we must all be crazy-