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?

[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-

[Berta]

WELL SAID Terry-

If the VA was as consistently competent as some think it is-many of us wouldn't be going through years and years of ordeals with the system- only to succeed anyhow.There are very few claims that really arent valid ones.

When I won 3 claims in 1997-1998- I actually got very angry because

these claims were solid the day they were filed and I had to go to extreme lengths to even get the evidence read.

A lot of you know what I mean- you get a retro check and it might be a tidy sum and then you realise it cost you years of frustration- and/or blood sweat and tears-

I had to travel 25 miles or in some cases all the way to Corning-to a law library in those days,to get 38 CFR and pay for xeroxes as well as postage fees-

in order to succeed in my claims-not to mention paying for faxes to continuously keep sending what they lost.

Over three years later and after a DAV NSO as well as the VA had continually put down my evidence-I succeeded anyhow-

when I finally found a VA employee who could read.

"I think on this site here there will be more pressure from outside sources to limit vets comments about VA problems"

I thought I was the only one here picking up on that and feeling that way-

I think it even affected the way I have been trying to help vets here-

I even stopped saying VA Quacks here when the reality is maybe no one- better than me -here knows how truly deficient countless VA doctors were in causing my husband's death.And the incredible lengths the VARO went to -to contain and cover up over 6 years of utter medical travesty.

[sixthscents]

Truthful comments about the VA are always a good thing... in their proper place.

The VA rating system is obviously, and has been in my OPINION:

iconsistent

failing to follow their own guidance

untrained - or poorly trained

understaffed

loses documentation frequently and repeatedly

fails to follow the intent of the law, and often the letter

and just about any other administrative complaints that can be aired...

but...

with all of that in mind, advise about claims, or given to others about their claims should be...

consistent

referenced to regulatory guidance if necessary or requested

in line with what we "know" the process requires

clear

not antagonistic toward the VA (that helps in no way, even though it can be personally satisfying)

legally correct

and follow the rules of common sense...

I.. that is me... Bob Smith was the one (or at least one of the people) who recommended that Terry be banned... and I maintain that opinion... so you can say my name Terry not "some vet"

You were banned from another board not for giving advise but for giving consistently "incorrect" advise.

Hadit is, in my opinion the single best source for information on how to properly document, file and win a VA claim. Yet belaboring the failings of the VA, while allowing the vet an outlet is not advise. Properly that, and this whole line of off-topic discussion belongs in another forum. Certainly it is welcome, but its just not pertinent to claims. Further Terry you have consistently given counsel that is simply wrong.

Perhaps there has been a change in "tone" here in this forum. I have not seen it, but perhaps it has. If so, I think that it is directed toward the comments about VA problems that really do not help someone understand "how" to file a claim. I am happy to jump on the VA for their many failings, but.... does that really belong in this forum? Certainly there is a place on Hadit for it, but the question remains how does it pertain or is germaine to the subject?

In my OPINION... negative comments about the VA that do not directly contribute to the subject at hand and help clarify why or how something should be done are more properly voiced in the other discussion forums here on Hadit, not in the claims section.

Honestly... all of us who have delt with the VA long term KNOW the VA's failings, so voicing them again and again serves no real purpose, unless it is to clarify why or how something is done. I think that perhaps is what you are seeing Berta. God bless we all know they s*ck.. but whats the point in beating the dog here, unless it serves to make a point etc.? Lordy women, I respect and admire you.. and have stated so. I always value your advise and opinions, but then again they are consistent, correct, and pertinent. When you comment about the VA negatively it is to make a point that is germaine to the topic.

Terry, just take your opinions about the VA to the proper forum. I certainly would not complain. Your advise on the other hand... well in my OPINION, is questionable if not flatly incorrect. You offer it as fact, when in all honesty its mostly your opinion, and does not fit observable data or normal guidance. Opinions should be offered as OPINIONS, and fact as fact with proper references. You consistently confuse the two, and your factual refrences are mostly incorrect.

That is my last post on this thread. I WILL NOT start another round of discussion on WHY you are wrong Terry. If you want to start another thread in another foorum and discuss it fine, but NOT here...

Lastly I am sorry that this thread seems to have been hijacked. I dont know what its original purpose was, but it seems to have strayed far afield. I have helped in this through this comment of my own, so again I am sorry. For the record, I have nothing against spouting off about the VA, or the horror stories. We all have them and know them... I just dont think they belong here in this forum unless they help explain the situation, how or why someone is offering a specific tactic, or strategy, and contribute to the overall knowlege about CLAIMS and BENEFITS. Otherwise, they more properly belong in one of the other forums Hadit offers.

[sixthscents]

OK, I am going to post again, sorry, but ON topic this time.

Berta,

You are dead on, changing the 60 day rule is ludicrous, and is something we should address and respond to. Didnt the VA try the same thing, and try to get it lowered to 15 days? I seem to remember this a couple of years ago.

In any case, this needs addressed and I suggest that everyone follow the link Berta offered. Call your representatives and speak out about this proposed change.

You keep posting stuff like this Berta... it DOES pertain, and is germaine to what this forum is about. You are so much better on the national stuff than me. Like I said, I have enough on my plate, and do better one-on-one. Yet this is an example of WHY I admire you Berta. You didnt complain, you clarified, and thats an important distinction. Thats what you consistently do... and what makes sense.

btw... you use "VA Quack" as much as you want... (you obviously dont need MY blessing but you certainly have my support).. because when you do its pertinent to the point you are trying to make...

THATS the difference.

[Berta]

How come you picked on Terry when you should have really picked on me-it all started with my post days ago-

what forum do we have here that limits the topic to griping about the VA?

I seem to be of the same opinion that Terry is- so when I find out where the hadit forum is that limits discussion strickly to discussing problems with VA at hadit- then I will be able to post at hadit again.

in that forum------havent found it yet----

I better find that forum since I always gripe about the reality of the VA a lot because it is that reality of inaccurate claims work and decisions that is causing vets with probative evidence to be denied.

That Reality of the VA is the main reason I am here.

This thread hasn't been hijacked-it has been censored.