"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-
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?
Question
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
9
6
4
3
Popular Days
Apr 1
10
Apr 4
10
Apr 3
9
Apr 2
8
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 9 posts
sixthscents 6 posts
Ricky 4 posts
Stretch 3 posts
Popular Days
Apr 1 2007
10 posts
Apr 4 2007
10 posts
Apr 3 2007
9 posts
Apr 2 2007
8 posts
37 answers to this question
Recommended Posts