VARO–LATEST PLOY TO DELAY/DENY

Posted on October 20, 2012 by asknod

We have been treated to shredding, misconstrual, interminable delays, ignoring our filings, phantom disappearances from the mailroom of unregistered mail, and innumerable other mysteries on our claims. I have told you the bag of tricks is endless and a constantly evolving phenomenon.

LawBob sends me this latest involving his filings. In order to enjoy it in it’s original state, I include a perfect copy and paste reproduction of his transmission.

The latest ploy in the ongoing effort of VA to be more creative in monkey wrenching benefits claims comes out of the Detroit VARO.

 Detroit was center stage in Shredder Gate.   They are watching the shredders and elevator shafts.  A new plan is needed.

 Why not send the evidence back to the veteran or attorney?   Yeah, that’s the ticket.   Send it back!  Send it back!  Send it back!

 We had two submissions sent back over the past few months.

 Today we got a call from DAVE (from Detroit VARO).   Dave told Shawn that “I have 300 pages of medical records but you did not specify what claim they go with.”

 Shawn: “Huh? Say all after what claim they go with?”

 Dave: “Claim. You did not tell us which claim they are for.”

 After having a circular discussion for 5 min. with Dave, Shawn put him on hold and told me what was going on.

 Shawn: “If you don’t want to cooperate with the NCOIC, I can let you talk to the CO.  You won’t like the result, but I can let you do that.”

 Soooooo. . . . . I got on the line with DAVE.    He spelled out his position.   I told him that evidence was evidence and NOT to send any back to me.

 He said he was going to send it back. It was making the file too large, and that I needed to say what issue it should be associated with.

 But. . . he would or could not tell me what veteran it was for so I could look at the file.

 I told him if it came back here there would be an investigation.   He said I was being unprofessional and I raised my voice and he was going to hang up on me and it was not a very nice way for an attorney to behave.

 LawBob: “Oh, you are knifing my client and destroying evidence from his claims file and I am supposed to be happy?   Since it was 300 pages of recent medical we may infer that it is new and material to the case?”

 I told him once again that there would be an investigation and hung up on him.

 I will sent this evidence to Thomas.  He can take it over to Big Red and drop it on her desk.   Maybe she can find a way to get it in to the claims file.

 Of course we will NOT get a refund for our postage and certified mail costs.   And I won’t call on the VA OIG pukes.  I will ask the FBI to look into it.

 So beware pilgrims. Make sure you go to Office Depot and get one of those self-inking rubber stamps with your name, rank, airspeed and tail number along with your last known heading. Ask them to put a happy face at one end of it so the Intake boys and girls will know you aren’t upset.

WE DON’T CARE

WE DON’T HAVE TO

WE’RE THE ONLY

GAME IN TOWN

Posted in SHREDDERGATE, Veterans Law | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

BVA-STRETCHING THE TRUTH

Posted on October 20, 2012 by asknod

I spotted this decision and was struck by the reference to Dr. Cecil. I have many who arrive here without a medical nexus asking for help. I generally ask them to send me their medical records from service in order to ascertain whether there is some seminal event to point to that might be the smoking gun. When this happens, I invariably forward them (and the Veteran) to Dr. Cecil for appropriate action.

Some Veterans either “disremember” the past or have a rosy recollection of it at odds with reality. The government is nothing, if not anal, in recording every utterance about anything medical or having to do with drugs and alcohol. This is their signature trademark.

I have often told those I help to obtain those medical records to “wake up” their memories and to spot any problem areas that might rear their ugly heads when filing. One, obviously, is any drug or alcohol abuse during service. This can often be ameliorated by addressing it far in advance. A single infraction with a small UCMJ hand-slap in 1968 is far easier to deal with now than when it appears suddenly in the denial. Similarly, if you sought alcohol counseling or rehabilitation, it can be phrased in a much better light than to have vA come down on you like a new suit.

38 CFR §3.301 (c) (2)  states:

If, in the drinking of a beverage to enjoy its intoxicating effects, intoxication results proximately and immediately in disability or death, the disability or death will be considered the result of the person’s willful misconduct. Organic diseases and disabilities which are a secondary result of the chronic use of alcohol as a beverage, whether out of compulsion or otherwise, will not be considered of willful misconduct origin.

Similarly §3.301(c)(3) says

The isolated and infrequent use of drugs by itself will not be considered willful misconduct;

With that said, if vA gets there first and plants the flag, it can be fatal. You will spend the rest of your life and your claim trying to overcome misperceptions of impropriety. Here, LA Johnny is at a tactical disadvantage because he has made statements in the past that he probably thought would help his claim. Someone uninformed might mistakenly believe listing a transfusion automatically entitles them to service connection. If it occurred after service and before 1992, it will be used as proof against you unless it occurred in a vA hospital.

It is clear on its face that, the more Johhny studied this, the more he realized he needed to revamp his pronouncements and fine-tune his theories. I do not know how many Vets have faced the Risk Factors Questionnaire and answered something incorrectly or with much less candor than required. When unmasked later, they scramble to alter their history to comport with what’s needed to win. It  doesn’t work.

Johnboy has made medical pronouncements that the hepatitis is due to a transfusion. He discounts his post-service tattoos as a risk but is tripped up by trying to move the tattoo timeline forward to protect his diagnosis. Piehole diarrhea ensues because its evident visually that he had them prior to his 2001 diagnosis. Rearranging your timeline after a partial construction is always fatal to any credibility assessment. vA is a past master at demolishing them as I mentioned earlier.

What is of more consequence is making the medical assessment that you did not have a transfusion after service- after you read up and realize that will work against your claim. It is a waste of time to opine on your conditions medically if you have no medical training. Here, it’s not only futile but fatal. vA will use this from now on through any future appeals to the CAVC as evidence that Johnny LA is a liar and a welfare queen on the hunt for free money.

Vets do not realize that the vA views us as scam artists looking for a free ride. Plain and simple, we are suspect from the outset. They like to point to the 85% denial rate as proof that this is true. Reality shows that with over 60% overturned on appeal for egregious violations of judicial regulations, the real number of legitimately injured Vets is astronomical.

The bottom line is underscored when someone uses legitimate resources like Dr. Cecil to further their agenda. This puts him in a bad light and compromises his usefulness to all of us. vA considers him to be a fly in the ointment. Since he works for vA part time, they cannot very well discount his credentials and nexus letters. However, when a Vet purposefully sets out to deceive the good doctor, it impugns his credibility because he was duped into providing a favorable medical opinion. Under the best of circumstances, this is a difficult endeavour. Attempting it with the vA increases the difficulty exponentially.

Read this decision to understand what deception looks like and the ultimate effect it will have on your outcome. Read it also in the context of what you may do to Vets who follow in your footsteps. I have often spoken of the mirror test and its significance in your claim. I have spoken of timelines and continuity. What I have never spoken of is using my theories in a manner to achieve a result illegitimately.  Quite honestly, I never considered anyone would. Apparently I was wrong.

Posted in BvA HCV decisions, Frivolous Filings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

DR. SALLY SATEL–VETS’ NEMESIS

Posted on October 19, 2012 by asknod

I received this missive from LawBob. It appears to be a 2006 headline but I find it intriguing for its message. Nothing has changed in the Army’s or the vA’s modus operandi.

Dr. Sally’s New Kidney

By Hugh Cox

from The New Hampshire Gazette Vol 250, No 15,

April 21, 2006

[The author of the following piece, Hugh D. Cox, is a Greenville, NC attorney “Proudly Representing the Disabled for Veteran’s Benefits, Social Security and Workmen’s Compensation.” He served in Vietnam in 1968. Mr. Cox forwarded the item to us under the suggested heading, “Second Thoughts about Dr. Sally Satel’s Personal Kidney Transplant.”-The Ed.]

On November 22, 2005, Dr. Sally Satel, M.D., issued a deeply personal account of her need of a kidney transplant because of the “no-fault” failure of her own kidneys. She wanted a normal life rather than dialysis due to convenience and she was not critical of any potential donor. Her writing was very moving. All can empathize with her and wish her a speedy recovery now that she has a new kidney.

But this Dr. Satel is the same anti-veteran physician on the payroll of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) who openly criticized military veterans making claims for disabling PTSD after they were assigned to duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and past wars. Satel accused veterans of using “an underground network [that] advises veterans where to go for the best chance of being declared disabled.”

Dr. Satel believes that PTSD is not a medical diagnosis of any social consequence. Those who seek VA benefits for PTSD were recently labeled by Dr. Satel in a New York Times op-ed of March 1, 2006 as, “[b]ut it’s also very likely that some of the veteran baby boomers who have filed claims in recent years did so not out of medical need but out of a desire for financial security in their retirement years.”

In the same op-ed, Dr. Satel stated, “it is often hard to know which applicants can be helped with short-term psychiatric care, which are seeking a free ride and which are truly deserving of the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and thus long-term care and payments of up to $2,300 a month for life.”

Dr. Satel appears to view many disabled veterans as “welfare queens” seeking a “free ride” and unjustified “financial security”.

There is more disturbing information about Dr. Satel to consider.

Dr. Satel works for the AEI, and appears to be the Bush administration’s “go-to” physician for denial and reduction of rightful health care and veteran benefits.

Satel is also a “go-to” physician for the tobacco industry. She has stated that second hand smoke is not as harmful as most medical experts think.

Likewise, Satel is also the “go-to” physician for the silicone gel-filled breast implants industry. She assures women that breast implants are quite safe.

Interestingly, breast implants are linked to kidney failure.

Her credibility as an expert was once demolished in a reported court case. In the case of Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F.Supp.2d 873, D.Md. [2001] (the case is a reverse racial discrimination case seeking to allow white applicants into medical school over minority student applicants with lesser MCAT scores. Satel was expert for the white applicant), the court found:

“The Defendants have filed a motion to strike Dr. Satel’s report on the grounds that it lacks the necessary indicia of reliability required under FRE 702. The Court agrees and will, by separate order, grant the motion. Satel offers little more than her personal opinion of Farmer’s application and the weight that … should have [been] placed on his MCAT scores. Satel has no familiarity with [the school]; she lacks an extensive background in medical school admissions; she reviewed a total of only five applications; her work has not been subjected to any peer review; and her opinions are not based on a methodology that can be tested. Accordingly, her views lack the indicia of reliability required … ”

The Court found that Dr. Satel’s credibility and so-called expertise was so unreliable that her findings had to be stricken by law without waiting for opposing evidence or cross-examination. Dr. Satel appears to be a “mouthpiece” for sale to any neoconservative cause.

Based on Dr. Satel’s current lobbying and speculation, the VA now places great emphasis on “combat” exposure supported by almost non-existent documents because VA officials know that it is a convenient method to deny or lower PTSD benefits. If there is no confirmed documentary combat stressor-the veteran is denied the claim for PTSD. As a civilian, Dr. Satel apparently believes that military clerks are taking detailed notes on wi-fi computers right there on the battlefield during a firefight or IED explosion.

Dr. Satel advanced that “civilian” theory in her 2006 New York Times op-ed: “As the department tries to distinguish among these groups, verification of exposure to trauma is vital. The inspector general’s office found that for one-quarter of Vietnam veterans claiming post-traumatic stress, the department could not confirm any incidents of traumatic stress. A study in a leading psychiatric journal last year could not verify such history in 59 percent. True, military personnel records are not perfect-a cook who endured a terrifying rocket attack on an airbase at which he was stationed may be unable to produce documentation of it. However, such records could indeed disprove the fabrications of a cook who claimed he was traumatized by a firefight on infantry patrol.”

Now Dr. Satel believes that if there is no confirmed documentary combat stressor-the veteran should be denied benefits. The infantry battalion cook who holds a dying fellow soldier killed by a suicide bomber in a Baghdad mess hall and then must put the body in a body bag receives no “sympathy” from Dr. Satel.

Dr. Satel’s most recent malice against disabled veterans, on March 1, occurred since she received her kidney.

Perhaps it is time for Dr. Satel to walk in a veteran’s boots. Had Dr. Satel been subjected to the kind of hostile inquiry she believes ought to be used in the VA claims process, she might never have received a kidney transplant. Her own positions could subject her to the following insulting and outrageous questions from the VA suggested by her own anti-veteran positions:

“Dr. Satel, why do you say your kidneys ‘retired early’ and ‘mysteriously’? Have you ever used controlled substances or abused alcohol or had breast implants? Do you have a tattoo? Why should we give you a ‘free’ kidney if you abuse your body? We need documentary proof that you did not engage in reckless behavior causing your kidney failure.”

“Dr. Satel, do you want us to give you a free kidney for your convenience? Thousands of people in the U.S. are waiting for kidney transplants. Why should you break in line in front of them? Your kidney ‘problem’ did not seem to halt your prolific writing and speaking engagements, did it? Where is the financial ‘inconvenience’?”

“Dr. Satel, did anyone on your behalf use any form of ‘influence’ to obtain your kidney match so soon? Did you use an underground network to advise you on the best chance of finding a kidney?”

“Dr. Satel, Haven’t you made use of a system that has coalesced around the idea that deprivation of convenience is the root of all devastation and victimization. You deserve dialysis treatment if it can help, but rarely should long-term or expensive payments or gratuities be justified. Don’t you agree?”

Fortunately, this kind of interrogation will never take place for Dr. Satel and all can wish her a speedy recovery.

One of the most insidious attacks on our military troops and our combat veterans is from Dr. Satel, who apparently believes that combat trauma must be proven with almost non-existent documentary evidence at the expense of battlefield common sense and traditional medicine. The concept that combat PTSD is of little consequence or is quickly and easily cured by quick medical intervention, by return to combat, or by a good hard day’s work at Wal-Mart borders on treason. That is evident every day at military recruiting offices when potential recruits reject military service when they sense that neoconservatives might exploit and abandon them. Our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve the protections of a solemn and sacred contract that our nation will care for “him who shall have borne the battle and his widow, and his orphan.”

Hugh D. Cox, Greenville, N.C.

———————————————————————

Wowser, huh? I thought Neanderthal thinking went out of style on mental health. Even more so with the field increasingly feminized. You notice the Army seemed to be astounded that there could be an assembly line diagnosis mill similar to the way we went through shot lines in Basic.

My inside fly on the wall down at Madigan tells me they want eleven souls a day diagnosed up or down per day. Nurse Beth says more like 3 if you’re lucky and have good service military records, not medical. This allows them to separate the wheat from the welfare queens.

Posted in C&P exams, Gulf War Issues, PTSD | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

MISS BEATRICE–WOMENS ARMY CORPS

Posted on October 18, 2012 by asknod

 Miss Beatrice, a Womens Army Corps Veteran from the second World War, was the church organist. She was in her late eighties and had never been married. She was admired for her sweetness and kindness to all.

One afternoon the pastor came to call on her and she showed him into her quaint sitting room. She invited him to have a seat while she prepared tea. As he sat facing her old Hammond organ,  the young minister noticed a cute glass bowl sitting on top of it. The bowl was filled with water, and in the water floated, of all things, a condom!

When she returned with tea and scones, they began to chat. The pastor tried to stifle his curiosity about the bowl of water and its strange floater,  but soon it got the better of him and he could no longer resist. ‘Miss Beatrice’, he said, ‘I wonder if you would tell me about this?’  pointing to the bowl.

‘Oh, yes,’ she replied,  ‘Isn’t it wonderful?  I was walking through the park a few months ago and I found this little package on the ground. The directions said to  place it on the organ, keep it wet and that it would prevent the spread of disease. Do you know I haven’t had the flu All winter.’

Posted in Humor | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

CAVC–PROCOPIO v. SHINSEKI- AO SPRAYED FROM INTREPID?

Posted on October 17, 2012 by asknod

downloadThis one sure didn’t need a panel to figure out. A pair of witching sticks would have led to the water purification device and a quick check of its machinations.  Similarly, a cursory examination of the squadrons assigned to the A/C carrier would be equally dispositive of who’s been naughty and who’s been nice.  Either way its going to come up VA-5, Procopio-0.

Alfred Procopio is reporting what some might politely call incredible here. He insists he worked on and maintained spraying equipment for Agent Orange on specific aircraft launched from the USS Intrepid’s decks. That would be one of the aircraft carriers on YankeeStation in the Gulf of Tonkin (north end of the bathtub), or Dixie Station to the southern end of the So. China sea adjacent to the Republic of South Vietnam where they were launching airstrikes on Hanoi Jane’s BFFs. Every aircraft right down to the name of the pilot, rank, airspeed and tail number is a matter of record. Call sign? You bet. Mission profile? Check.  Ordnance and quantity? Roger that. Nobody is going to be able to fudge the make and model of the aircraft and there is no need to.

While the record does not specify what particular time period he was there, Alfred’s service folder reflects he was in the Navy from  1963 to 1967. Since history teaches us that we didn’t begin terraforming the Democratic Republic of North Vietnam (DRV) until March 2nd, 1965, I feel we can presume Almeister was there about then. What is problematic right off the bat is how much spraying was done

a) in North Vietnam

b) by the U.S Navy and;

c)  specifically by large, tank-equipped US Navy aircraft launched from the decks of the USS Intrepid.

Herein lies a big problem with history yet again. Very little AO or other rainbow flavors were sprayed directly on the DRV. The majority was sprayed in the former Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and Laos. Cambodia got its fair share along its common border with the RVN around the Ho Chi Minh trail. We won’t go into Thailand, the Philippines, etc. because that isn’t germane to this discussion. Operation Trail Dust sprayed twenty million gallons on the trail. Operation Ranch Hand, a strictly USAF-operated spray program, sprayed the other 95% in theater. So the Alster is asking us to believe the USS Intrepid was involved in this and he was assigned to the outfit charged with AO air ops.

Back the boat back up to the dock, Gilligan. This should be a no-brainer. The records of large displacement hulls are extensive. If we want to know what was served for dinner   on-board  March 2nd, 1965, it would be annotated. Similarly, every squadron or air detachment assigned on board needed space for their birds. You don’t spray AO with F-4s and A-7s. Storing AO below decks would compete with valuable space for munitions and aviation gasoline. By rights, others would be exposed as well. Air America did some tactical spraying up country when I was there with a PC-6 Porter. That was a prop job with a max speed of about 120 knots. It was terribly inefficient but great for pesky little hilltop applications. The Navy had other fish to fry like SAM sites and interdiction-not to mention all those tempting bridge targets in downtown Haiphong. The allegation that this transpired on the Intrepid is, to say the least, incredible on its face but I wasn’t there. I’m opining. Given the Squadron name and number  of this spraying outfit, assuming it wasn’t the 709th Flying Orkins,  should be easy to ascertain, and to find others similarly employed who can corroborate Mr. Procopio’s claims. AO wasn’t exactly a classified operation.

The next problem isn’t Mr. Procopio’s. We all know the Haas decision fenced out the Blue water Navy from AO. We also now know that VA and the military have been less than forthcoming about where this stuff was sprayed for decades-even scores of years. It would not surprise me to learn that evaporator-style freshwater “stills” could, and did, allow picloram and dioxin (2,4,5-T) to pass through into potable supplies. VA would never admit as much. Pigs will fly sooner because if that became a finding, the Blue Water Boys would break the bank. There would go the bonuses and the VA’s legendary Human Resources Orlando Spring Breaks.

Mr. Procopio’s claim will run up on the rocks, not for the alleged water pollution claim, but rather for the allegation that spray planes were launched from the Intrepid. Simply testifying that this happened will not put the chicken in the pot. Several buddy statements won’t, either. No, Alfred, the ugly fact is that you, your attorney, or the US Navy will need to come forward with credible evidence this scenario came to pass. This is a fine time to figure this out. VA operates a two-way street apropos the duty to assist. They are not going to find anything to support your claim. It behooves you, if indeed you are legitimate, to start rounding up the usual witnesses and sober them up before testifying. DD 214s proving service aboard the carrier will need to be anally specific about MOS and duty description  If your MOS says you were a cook, this dog won’t hunt.

Due diligence by VA might have put paid to these kinds of claims one way or another long before expensive, scarce judicial resources were brought in. I don’t question Mr. Procopio’s belief he is right. I question the propriety of continuing to insist on producing the evidence when it would appear there is none to bring forth. Were it there, it would be glaring and exculpatory to one party only. It may come to pass that this will end up in the Frivolous Filings folder. That would be a shame. Equally shameful would be a complete whitewash on VA’s part by failing to give credence to his contentions and not even calling in the bloodhounds.

I know only too well how many times I cried WOLF! between 1989 and 1992 to no avail.  VA has a miserable track record in that regard so I will not denigrate Mr. Procopio’s claims.  This is an excellent time for him to beat feet back to town and start looking for New and Material evidence to convince them.

We have reached the perfect storm at the vA. Everything is plausible-but not proven, Everything is too speculative so let’s defer it for a decade until he dies. The claim is credible-but he/she isn’t. Grant if you can-but you don’t have to because the M-21 Adjudications Manual gives you a perfect denial reason virtually every time. The Vet has a viable nexus letter from his doctor-so let’s run to the VHA and get our “expert” to rebut his. Naturally ours is more probative and had the Veteran’s records to base his reasoning on. Et cetera.

Justice was not done here today. Justice was deferred for a year. The necktie party is still on the books for 2014 when he comes back to 625 Wagonburner Ave. NW. That much is preordained. Fox Mulder said the truth is out there. Your mission, should you decide to accept it Mr. Procopio, is to find the records yourself to prove your contention. Simply sitting on your hands and claiming you won because they have not disproved your allegations, or conversely, haven’t helped prove you right will not win the day. We witnessed this phenomenon in Mr. Wayne Theofrastou’s CAVC decision when he demanded vA come up with the lot number and batch of the Gamma Globulin shots he was given in Basic-40 years ago, Helloooooooooooooooooooo?

We have not heard the last of Alfred.

Posted in CAVC/COVA Decision, Veterans Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

FLAVORS OF FALL

Posted on October 17, 2012 by asknod

Last Saturday Cupcake and I attended what is considered by most in our neck of the woods to be the premiere event of the year.  Friends, neighbors, and captains of industry congregate for hors d’ oeuvres and dinner at our local Civic Centre. Silent, as well as live auctions, are the order of the day.  Donations flow freely and camaraderie is the order of the evening.

For the last twenty or so years we have been  engrossed in raising children and running several businesses . This left us little time for introspection or our community duties. All that has changed. With the advent of my diseases and decline in health, I have had more time to farm, help Vets and contribute to the less fortunate on the Key Peninsula.  Farming is a new avocation and I have been seeking a grant for a greenhouse from the VA as many know.

I took pictures of some of the harvest yesterday to send in to my Independent Living Counselor to tip the scales in my favor. Whether it will have any positive influence in his decision is debatable. Nevertheless, here are a few food-for-the-soul snapshots.

I was introduced to the carrot pit by my father-in-law over a decade ago. I had no idea you could preserve them all winter simply by ensconcing them in dirt. Importantly, it’s necessary to bury them sufficiently deep to protect against moisture or freezing. I discovered this problem when I had to move them in the middle of winter several years ago. One of my employees came by, dug them up and moved them to a new locale. In spite of my asking to carefully mark them, he didn’t. We spent a day digging about looking for them a month later. Daniel only buried them about six inches deep. Between the deer and inclement weather, they disappeared. I strongly suggest burying them at least 18 inches deep and carefully mapping their locale. You can dig them up all winter and have delightful, fresh coleslaw if your kohlrabi holds out. In lieu of that, cabbage may be substituted.

And the carrot pit.

Posted in Food for the soul, Independent Living Program | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Army images: HCV extrahepatic manifestations

Posted on October 16, 2012 by Laura

A current online article, Hepatitis C, by Sandeep Mukherjee (et al.) provides a good overview of HCV and is worth bookmarking here.  The images from Walter Reed Army Medical Center Dermatology, slides 7-48, convey potential effects of HCV on skin/mucosa in ways that medical codes, phrases like “secondary to HCV” or words in VA manuals cannot adequately communicate.  You can view them in “Multimedia Library” in the left menu.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/177792-overview

I appreciate the details the authors have provided for clues on/in skin that might point to HCV infections.  For example, unexplained pruritus (itching) is strongly associated with HCV in about 15% of infected patients.  See “presentation/history” for other manifestations that can be easily overlooked as related to HCV.

Another article, Cutaneous Manifestations of Hepatitis C, by Robert A. Schwartz, MD, (et al.) uses the same set of public domain images.  There is mention of new findings such as HCV in epidermis cells.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1134161-overview

Prior to my DH’s diagnosis of HCV, he began to develop painful lesions on his scalp.  Later, neither his private internist, hepatologist, or dermatologist (who biopsied them) knew what they were.  After treatment, the lesions healed leaving scars; they are just called sores in his treatment records.  Not very helpful.  In 2003-2004, three smart doctors did not associate his skin markers to HCV even after the diagnosis.   Hopefully they could connect the dots today.

ed. note: Randy! Read this.

Posted in Guest authors, HCV Health, Medical News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

CAVC–WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW-3

Posted on October 15, 2012 by asknod

After you pass your self-administered mirror test or allow a representative to do so, you will be filing a Notice of Appeal (NOA). You must do it in 120 days. In spite of what the SCOTUS said in Henderson v. Shinseki, I would admonish you to just get it right in the first place. If you are going to attempt to do this yourself, you’ll find your mailbox plumb full of new law dog friends. That’s just standard procedure. You really don’t want to do this yourself, but if you do, you have to do it in a timely manner.

You have now graduated to my style of stationary. No more 21-4138s and Form 9s. You are now on official SF8.5X11 and will be from here on out. I would refrain from putting the Loony Tunes characters or Tickle Me Elmo stickers on your correspondence. Your decorum here is a given and humor is frowned upon. Everyone talks in hushed tones and bows when the Judges go by. Laughter is right out.

Your NOA must consist of a letter that contains your name, rank, airspeed and tail number so they can get back to you with correspondence. You will also need to include the BVA  decision number including your SSN or claims file number.

If you have a representative, your requirements increase but this will become their problem and not yours. All this is irrelevant as I said if you are not attempting to do this pro se (by yourself). An NOA does not have to be the Declaration of Independance and cover every conceivable angle like a Form 9. It is considered sufficient if it expresses, at a bare minimum, that you are unhappy with the parade and party the BVA threw for you down at Vermin Ave. NW.

Most importantly, you are going to need a plausible argument. Arriving at 625 Wagon Burner Lane NW with a basket of “They didn’t give me no respect” will  not prevail. This is called the “Case or Controversy” requirement. You have to have something that is grossly wrong with your denial. It has to be visible such that the Judges can see it when you do your show and tell. It isn’t required up front with NOA but filing without some easy to see egregious error is futile. A classic example of this was Mr. Wayne Theofrastou’s argument that the it behooved the vA to somehow go back and unearth lot and batch numbers for  inoculations he received in service. While the Court did not specifically mention a case or controversy argument here, it was in the wings. The nature of Wayne’s NOA concerned itself more with a CUE and we all know that is a slippery slope with very few perches.

Case or controversy also rears it’s ugly head when you die without finishing the claim. Vets tend to do that because it seems to take forever to get these things done. This is all the more reason why I suggest starting as early as possible. Here I am about 5-10 years from punching out and I’m just now getting to the Court. Baaaad idea. Here’s the death argument in a nutshell. Before 2007, they considered a claim for compensation to be different from a claim for accrued benefits. We all know what comp. is but few know if you died without collecting certain things, your spouse had to start all over from scratch at the VARO on the claim just to get anything-such as DIC, any monies still owing, etc.

If the Court found out you had completed the bucket list and moved on prior to finishing your CAVC claim, they vacated and went to lunch. In 2007 the Fed. Circus jumped in and decided to cut us some slack. Some, mind you. If your had finished the submission of the claim, phase two kicked in. That would be the decision of the Court. If they made their decision after you died and didn’t know about it, and if the case or controversy now has been satisfied and  if your spouse has standing (legal marriage etc.) , and if “considerations of justice and fairness” were satisfied, then and only then the Court will leave the decision intact.

In 2008, some of this was weeded out by Congress and a new dawn on claims began. No more did the spouse get hosed and end up with a burial flag and $250 to cremate you. In spite of their poor wording on the new statute (38 USC §5121A) which didn’t specifically encompass the Court, it is accepted wisdom that Congress intended this. Thus the Court follows this dictum-one of the rare times when it goes out on a limb and actually does something without a rule, regulation or statute to support it.

Next up will be the discussion on what happens when they ignore you at the VARO and don’t  do anything with your claim. Oddly, it happens all too frequently. This has resonance with me because it is one of the claims  I am fighting for. You are in a sticky wicket because you can’t appeal it to the BVA (or the Court). You are in judicial limbo and at the mercy of the Court to order the bozos to do it. The BVA won’t touch it without a final RO decision accompanied by a Form 9. Sometimes dynamite won’t produce results as many of you know. I appealed and the BVA simply mimeographed the VARO argument and pasted it onto my decision. The Court will now grab Uncle Eric by the collar and stick his nose in it. The question will be “Why did you do this? Defend your actions.”

 

 IN GOD WE TRUST

VETS PAY $50

NO EXCEPTIONS

Posted in CAVC Knowledge | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

vAOIT–MONEY TO BURN-BUT NOT FOR VETS

Posted on October 14, 2012 by asknod

This will make you wonder about why it takes so long and so many of us get the lowball. vA needs your money for everything BUT Vets. Sorry Virginia, but Santa won’t be here under the overpass this Christmas. He has far more important people to remunerate who only make a pittance of, say, $115 K a year. You can understand, right? Perhaps next year when things settle down and the economy brightens. Pray for hope and change, Virginia.

Posted in vA news | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

BVA–ORANGE FLAVORED ROUNDUP/GUAM VICTORY

Posted on October 14, 2012 by asknod

Legal Bob sends me this forward to him from the AO watchdogs. I look forward to the first case from Laos one of these days. I’m sure vA’s take on that will be that you would have to have been  a military policeman on the perimeter of Lima Sites (documented) in order to qualify. Simply landing or air drops won’t qualify. That will be interesting. I do so hope to be alive to read about it. This one from Guam is the beginning of a tsunami, too. Finally, Vets can see some light at the end of the tunnel. Chuck Palazzo of the AO Action Group indicates this in the eighth victory for them on Orange-flavored Roundup. Chances are there were more Baskin and Robbins flavors  like Blueberry or Pink sherbet but the important thing is our good buddies at the EPA found  2,4,5-T and aren’t playing house with the military or vA on it. Why they thought they could use this stuff and then whistle past the graveyard when called on it is classic military nonchalance. vA simply learned the  behaviour from them.

We cannot wait for the new wave of crap that will emanate from Southwest Asia soon. What am I saying? It’s already begun.

Posted in AO, BvA Decisions, Vietnam Disease Issues | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment