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?

[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.