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

[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

[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.