Thanksgiving 1970

Posted on November 23, 2011 by asknod

Isn’t it funny how old people can remember something in the past but they can’t remember how to copy and paste? Wait. I’m old so I can’t go there yet. It is true, or seems to be, that we can remember what was afoot in the world 40 years ago but draw a blank when asked who our President is…

I can remember getting a CARE package from my stepmother that had all manner of goodies about Thanksgiving time in 70. It had spray cheese that didn’t need any refrigeration. The A-1 sauce was worth 3 cartons of Marbs. Mostly, I remember the Fig Newtons. I saved them for T-day. We had no turkey. We were located 349 klics away from anything resembling turkey. It was designated T-11 in a small city in NW Thailand. Our component was called Operating Location Charlie, 1980th Comm. Sq. We had a US Consulate with an APO, but no American base- just a short laterite runway. There were several spook outfits there. One guided SR-71s into Russia for overflights. Another Army outfit had an antenna farm that looked into Laos and North Vietnam and picked up stray radio transmissions. We provided them with communications to the outside world via cable, TRC-35 LOS  Microwave and MRC-98 Tropospheric Scatter. Our sum total was a combined 45-50 Army, Air Force and an alphabet soup of CIA functions.  Langley had 3 permanently assigned, not including the AirAm personnel.

That Thanksgiving evening, I decided to share my stash of Fig newtons with some of my friends who had come over for a big chicken dinner in lieu of turkey. In the late dusk I started handing out the cookies by passing the package. Shortly after my first cookie, I felt something on my neck and brushed it off. Moments later I felt more and did so again. About that time, my friends all started experiencing the same thing. One turned on his flashlight and observed that the Fig Newtons were covered in ants.

Repair order? Why, blow on each cookie as you took it out of the bag. Nobody was willing to throw these puppies away.

The best part of all this was the discovery of spray cheese. I made a killing on that for the next 16 months. I also sold scotch and stereo off-base for a 400% markup. Getting the money out of the country without Uncle Sam putting you in jail for black marketing was the trick. One of my AirAm buddies solved that. They all flew down to Bangkok and opened Swiss bank accounts at the Embassy there to avoid paying taxes on their income.  I joined them one trip and followed suit. When I got to the States, my first stop was the Swiss Consulate in L.A. They graciously converted them from Swiss francs into US. currency for me, too. Happy Thanksgiving.

Posted in General Messages, Humor, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Compensation % vs. $

Posted on November 23, 2011 by asknod

I was looking up the percentage for compensation for 50% today and noticed something that got me thinking. 100% is $2673.00/mo. for a single Vet. Now look at 90%.

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Rates/comp01.htm

The problem is glaring. A Vet totally disabled is just that, but a Vet 90% disabled ( and unarguably on the cusp of 100%) is given what can best be described as a nonlinear payment. There’s a $1o69.00 difference. We do know from looking at the Diagnostic Codes and rating percentages for diseases in Part 4 that very few, if any, have a linear progression. The norm is 0, 10, 20, 40, 60 and 100 %. Alternately, we see 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, and 100%. There are many that only rate as high as 60. Tinnitus offers 10% maximum. So one can logically assume that a 90% rating encompasses some of these other, smaller percentages.

Utilizing the tables in 38 CFR § 4.25, we see the difficulty and futility of attaining all these smaller ratings when it will require large ones to attain 80 or 90%.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/4/25

Personally, I think this is asinine and inhuman. You can have a plethora of ills, none of which is completely debilitating, but when taken as a whole, render you incapacitated. Relying solely on TDIU is your ticket, but you are still not technically 100% on paper. The IU will get you the $2673 eventually, but it seems like VA is demeaning you to get it.

The sheer effrontery in offering $1604.oo/mo. for 90% with $2673.00 being assigned for a mere 10% more beggars the imagination. Just who was the compensation scientist that assembled this construct? Perhaps we could examine his copious notes on how he arrived at this. Is he the same one who figured out the pay scales for all the rest of the VA employees?

We often hear tales of woe from civic types in our universities and school systems that we cannot attract proper talent if we do not remunerate them appropriately. Hence the phenomenon of University presidents and their higher echelon cohorts getting mid 6-digit salaries with untold percs. Politicians are especially fond of this. I’m sure this argument is polished prodigiously every spring when the budgets are  being assembled. VA seems to be similarly infected. I agree. I don’t want some $45,000/year bozo doing my claim in a hurry. I feel much more secure in the knowledge that several 89K/year seasoned professionals are going to take lots of time and perform due diligence in correctly deciding the claim. They’re better in touch with their inner self and know true worth. They can sense credibility and honesty just like my goat.

I find it odd to see 90% anyway. Almost anyone worth his salt will apply for IU the moment he crosses over 70%. In case he forgets, VA is now required to ascertain if he is indeed eligible anyway! They might as well retire the 80 and 90 percentiles as they have done with the DC ratings. They can probably find a way to draw a graph showing how they can save money if they adopt this method. Just remember, you heard it here first.

Posted in General Messages, Humor | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

CAVC–McNAIR V. SHINSEKI–Presumption of Regularity

Posted on November 22, 2011 by asknod

This decision was just released yesterday or I just found it. Both are possible with my addled brain. The decision is important for only one reason- that it clarifies and in some ways redefines the presumption of regularity.

VA pushed this concept further and further the moment they got a win on it in Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 214, 218 (2000). This  hinged on a  Supreme Court decision when God was young in 1926 (cf. United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1).  In VA law however, every case is decided “de novo” which is lawspeak for brand new. That concept is a win-win for Vets because the BVA has a spotty track record for being able to figure out the law.

I discussed the concept of the presumption of regularity as it applies to the mailings of VA to claimants in Rios v. Nicholson, 490 F.3d 928, 930-31 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

https://asknod.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/cavc-rios-v-mansfield-2007-presumption-of-regularity/

The VA has taken this to put the presumption onto everything it does as evidenced after Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 214, 218 (2000);. The problem, as we all know, is that the VA is horribly inefficient and one could, in good faith, assign the “presumption” clause to mean it can be presumed that if VA can screw it up, they will. I guess I don’t need to re-illustrate the old “construe” argument when it comes to their ability to figure out what it is you are trying to claim.

Andrea M. McNair had some issues with her “upper endowment”. It seems Mother Nature was very generous to her. She had one reduction surgery in 1989 before service and another post service nine years later at a VAMC in 1998. Apparently, things didn’t go as planned and there was much pain described as neuralgia following the latter surgery. Andrea filed an §1151 claim alleging that the doctors didn’t discuss all the possibilities of complications that might occur post-surgery. The VASEC has chosen, among other arguments, that the presumption applies to everything- including a doctor presumably telling her about what might happen. He added, inter alia, that even if the doctor didn’t tell her,  it could be inferred. I think “inferred” may be one of those buzz words for construe or interpret that VA is so fond of bandying about on appeal.

Rizzo v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1288, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2009) held that the presumption of regularity applied to the competence of VA examiners. I don’t know how that one got by. I think we as Vets can say that isn’t the case 100% of the time, but it’s too late to change Rizzo now. VASEC has simply used McNair to open the umbrella a little wider and bring doctors under it. The Court put their foot down and told him to quit using those impossibly large umbrellas soccer moms employ. Some doctors can be expected to step on their neckties at some point in their careers. This is why we have malpractice insurance, right? That the VA gets a “bye” and is judgement-proof in a lawsuit in no way excuses dumb doctors or their mistakes. This is why we have the §1151 claims mechanism in the first place. Some of us don’t discover VA has screwed up surgically for several years and this prevents a Federal tort action (statute of limitations-two years).

Andrea’s case has been remanded for a de novo decision again at the Board. What happens there will be of interest to all of us who got the short end of the scalpel. It will probably be narrowly interpreted to be a case where the outcome was a foreseeable eventuality, but it shouldn’t be. The consent to surgery should be a well-informed one with a detailed discussion of all the possibilities for catastrophe. VA gave me two surgeries that had “unintended consequences” (e.g. peritonitis/septicemia/short bowel syndrome). Their theory is forewarned was forearmed. It missed one tenet- medical misadventure at the hands of an incompetent surgeon(s). The following paragraph is a synopsis of what is wrong with McNair :

Here, the Board essentially found that the preponderance of the evidence was against Ms. McNair’s assertion that she was not informed that she might suffer from neuralgia as a result of the surgery, but the Board’s statement of reasons or bases in support of its determination is inadequate. Its only stated basis for this finding is the bald statement that “based upon the evidence in this case a reasonable person could assume that the surgeon’s detailed discussion addressing possible residual scarring includes associated neuralgic pain.” No rationale is provided for concluding what a reasonable person could assume, frustrating judicial review. Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995) (holding that the Board’s statement “must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board’s decision, as well as to facilitate review in this Court”) McNair v. Shinseki (2011)

I wager this will appear here again like a red and white fishing bobber resurfacing after a strike. I don’t see Shinseki backing down on such a big finding as this. Hundreds of VA malpractice attorneys will be all over this like white on rice if she prevails. The costs to VA are incalculable because they make mistakes-big ones with attendantly large consequences I might add.

http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/McNair_09-1813_published_opinion_11-18-2011.pdf

I promise to keep you apprised of any developments on this one. No, not the inbred cat.

Posted in Important CAVC/COVA Ruling, Presumption of Regularity, Tips and Tricks | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

AMVETS Extinct?

Posted on November 21, 2011 by asknod

When I was viewing the  BVA statistics in an earlier post the other day, I was struck by the abysmally small number of claims filed by the AMVETS. In the 90’s they were the go-to Vet’s VSO for filing claims. Hell, I ought to know. I was one of their victims.

When I started to file for Hep in 1994, several Vets “in the know” told me these guys were red hot and had a win record like Seattle Slew. How could I go wrong? I met my rep., Bob Talbott, in the bar at the Tacoma AMVETS, and after a few adult beverages, moved into his office for the POA signing ceremony. Once accomplished, he was free to “discuss” my claim with me. I’m serious. We could talk about how the Seahawks were doing in their division. We could talk about La Nina and El Nino. We could solve global warming if we’d known, but he and I could not discuss the particulars of the claim absent the magic paper.

He became a regular font of info once that transpired. He wasn’t a Vet, but had extensive training in the art of claims. In retrospect, I think it may have been automobile accident claims. I saw him again when I was denied. We had a few more brewskis, wrote up the the NOD and submitted new evidence to rebut VA’s insinuation that I hadn’t been in Vietnam and never had Hep. That was the last of old Bob. He left to become a used car salesman several weeks later and neglected to tell me. I called them up several times in 1995 and asked what the progress report was. “We’ll get back to you” was the response. Oddly, those were the exact same words the VA used before they went AWOL for 12 years.

Here we are 18 years later and it appears AMVETS has focused their profit margins on food and drink. I assume they rent out the auditorium for weddings and wakes. They have a huge building (>5,000 SF) in Tacoma on about an acre. The restaurant portion is handsomely appointed, too. With only 265 claims accomplished nationally in 2010, and assuming an equal distribution over the contiguous lower 48 states, this means 5.52 Vets filed there last year. How can they pencil this out and stay in business? The restaurant industry is in the throes of starvation and many are folding weekly. Theirs is not on the verge of getting a Michelin 5 star rating any time soon. Any ideas on how they perform this magic act?

The area to the left behind Dang was where I sat. It wasn’t so much a seat as an afterthought for a second person. Notice the black throttle lever on the side? Yep, I could control the airspeed but had no stick. Mic Jagger was right. You can’t always get what you want.

Posted in General Messages, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

WHO SPEAKS FOR THE TUNA?

Posted on November 21, 2011 by asknod

The other evening, after reading that Atlantic Blue Fin Tuna have way too much mercury in them and you shouldn’t eat a lot of tuna sandwiches in Boston, I got out a can of my tuna. With a sigh of relief, I noted it was white albacore, probably from the left ocean. Of note was the small phrase “Dolphin-friendly”.  Well, that’s good, right? For all you old Flipper fans maybe, but who speaks for Charlie Tuna and his friends?

This would actually end up being another humorous article except for one thing. This is what the President did today when he signed the bill giving a tax credit to employers for hiring Vets. He did a wonderful thing-no doubt about it- but his efforts didn’t float all boats. Who speaks for all the other unemployed non-Veteran souls out there? Where is their jobs preference bill?

America is a resilient Country with a capital C. If we leave it alone, the economy will right itself like a kayak. If Congress and the Man keep trying to artificially alter it, we will suffer far longer. Regardless of who’s fault it is, the jobs have to come back. That can only happen when demand ratchets up the need for production. Giving a tax credit to employers who have no market to sell to is like handing out life preservers on the Mojave desert. Worse, they’re only handing them to people who might employ Vets if they could hire them.

I’ve gone through this feast or famine routine twice. This is the third one in my adult memory. Jobs become scarce and things get tough. You fix it with time. You enact laws that will prevent it from happening again. They never work because the government intervenes with crazy rules. People adapt to them and a new way to fleece us is born a decade later.

I had a construction co. building spec. housing for decades. I can no longer work and, to be fair, I no longer run my company because I collect SSD. Even if I was still in charge, I couldn’t take advantage of this offer. Nobody will buy a new house for X dollars if they can buy a repo for 40¢ of the X dollars. Until that flood of underpriced homes is absorbed and people have jobs again, unemployment will remain flat. Economists say that even after, there will be fewer workers. Geez. That sucks.

Let’s look ahead to the new year as a time for finding new recipes for success. The boys in D.C., be they donkeys or elephants, don’t know what to do other than to spend our money. It’s an incurable disease. We can take the pressure off them by putting them out to pasture and buying a new herd of milk cows that produce without an excessive amount of flatulence and caterwauling. Who, indeed, speaks for the Tuna? We do-all of us- America and her Vets. Let’s not lose sight of the objective by falling for the class warfare argument. Vets are really neat people and statistics tell us that 30% are unemployed currently.

I propose firing a bunch of people in a far away country and start building those products here again with Vets-and Americans. We used to do that, you know. It may come to pass that America can become self-sufficient once more. I represent the Dolphins but also speak for the Tuna.

Posted in General Messages, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

BVA Statistics

Posted on November 20, 2011 by asknod

I found this while roaming around. The fellow who posted it feels that VSOs are the way to go. He pointed out that the 39.9% of pro se claimants lost. Statistics are everything. Let’s look:

We have 4,576 Vets who have chosen to represent themselves. Without digging too deeply, I will wager some are as bright as I was in 1989 and 94. I would do this differently and will explain. A remand is a “win” in that it is another chance at winning, so I will combine wins with remands. This yields 2,655 of 4,586 claims filed (58.1%). The impressive figure is that only 9.3% of us attempt this. There is no magic in numbers. Numbers reveal things they often are not asked to.

AmVets claims  81 successes but they only filed 265 claims. DAV, with 14,594 filed, claims a whopping 4,174 wins and even larger 6,150 in remands. VVA is the clear winner, but only sallied forth  796 times with 220 wins (remands 422). Statistically, I’d prefer to have an attorney, but the thought of giving him 20% of a big settlement sticks in my craw.

These stats would have us believe that  numerically, it is advantageous to hire a VSO. I don’t read it like that. I see a win column that insinuates 25-30% of Vets win their appealed claims in their entirety. I see only 49,127 appeals of what is usually about 1,000,000+ claims filed each year (based on 2009). These are appeals only. If we look at the RO statistics, we’d be stupefied at the win/loss ratios. I’d love to see those figures.

Check this out for brainwashing. VA calls it a Strategic Plan. I call it a Defensive plan with a lot of  polysyllabic words designed to confuse the reader and deflect blame away from their door..

http://www.va.gov/op3/Docs/StrategicPlanning/VA_2010_2014_Strategic_Plan.pdf

There’s 4 million of us disabled Vets out there now. The report says our numbers are shrinking! Have any of you a) been to a VAMC lately and looked for a place to park and b) tried to get an appt. with your PCP in less than a month? The only thing shrinking is their ability to deliver the promises they are tasked with providing. If our numbers are shrinking it’s due to death from lack of proper medical treatment.

My take (and I’m not a good number cruncher) is that a lot of unrepresented Vets appeal their denials and need serious help with them. That’s all I can take away from it. Having a VSO doesn’t seem to be a big help unless you go to a smaller VSO or find an exceptionally good SO. The truth is out there. One thing is certain. No one will worry about your claim as much as you. It stands to reason you will be your own best advocate with some guidance. It’s not for the weak of heart, though.

Posted in BvA HCV decisions, General Messages, Tips and Tricks | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

CAVC–Hall v Shinseki–SJD–Unverifiable Evidence

Posted on November 19, 2011 by asknod

One has to hand it to Mr. Milton L. Hall. He represented himself before the Court in a single Judge disposition pro se– no small feat for someone who isn’t a legal beagle. That he fights them to a draw and a remand is also of note. He probably isn’t going to prevail when this gets a new trial because he picked up the hep. sometime after service or it would appear he did. Since this is a single Judge decision (SJD) we can’t use it for precedence, but it illustrates something we all can benefit from-to wit,unverifiable events. Milt had a love affair with all things drug related and a proclivity for the suds.This caused enough problems that he took the “cure” at a VAMC for the ETOH issues in 1985. During his convalescence, he got the diarrhea of the mouth disease and bragged about his 15 year  history of shooting up junk with shared needles. His treatment cure didn’t take and he tried again in 1988. This time he disremembered some past history but averred it was probably 12 years of IVDU as opposed to 15.

Milt ‘s drug and alcohol abuse started to catch up with him and he discovered the Hep. C problem in 1998. Being the eternal optimist, he filed for SC on the hep. in 2004. After much denial and NODs, the BVA elected to have him fill out a VA Risk Factors Questionnaire in June of 2007. I would have thought that happened in 04. Maybe VA wasn’t taking him seriously. At this time they also asked for the Dog and Pony show to see if it was SC. Nobody at the RO bothered to do any of this before it was appealed. It would seem that they didn’t see a need to waste any money on a burnt out junkie. I sure wouldn’t and I apologize for that sentiment. The BVA likes to make sure they have all the facts before they summon the Firing Squad and that is why they did this. As expected, they denied and he appealed to the Court.

Which brings us up to date. The Court has found a interesting wrinkle here to enunciate. What happens when a Vet recites his version of history and the VA then uses it against him? They have shown over the last decade that when a Vet offers lay testimony, it is simply his rosy version and uncorroborated. Now we have the shoe on the other foot and his lay testimony is the primary reason for the denial. It’s still unverifiable by his medical records, but now it is believed and used as the primary reason for denial. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Read this one for what it discusses on this subject and I guarantee you will discover a rich vein of cites from precedent to buttress you cases before the BVA. For instance:

It is not the function of this Court to speculate on the relationship between an appellant’s military service and his current disabilities; rather, it is the function of this Court to decide whether the Board’s factual determinations on the issue constitute clear error. See Shoemaker v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 248, 254 (1992); Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 53. For the Court to determine whether the Board’s factual findings related to hepatitis C are clearly erroneous, the Board must ensure that its findings are adequately explained and sufficiently supported by the evidence of record. See Shoemaker, 3 Vet.App. at 254.
Here, the Court agrees with the Secretary that the Board’s reasons or bases are inadequate,  particularly in light of the fact that the Board discounted the available medical evidence as based on “unverifiable” events. See R. at 9; Secretary’s Br. at 10-14. As conceded by the Secretary, the Board fails to point to any legal authority or regulation that requires an independently verifiable event to award service connection for hepatitis C. See Secretary’s Br. at 13-14. Indeed, the law establishes that entitlement to service connection may be based on lay evidence. Davidson, 581 F.3d at 1316;
Caluza, supra. Accordingly, because the Board’s inadequate reasons or bases prohibit judicial review, remand is warranted. Milton v. Shinseki 2011

The VA and, by extension, the Court are eager to remind us in decisions that they do not subscribe to the Federal Rules of Evidence and are not bound by them. One of those rules states that discussions between an individual and his doctor are inherently credible because the patient has a vested interest in being healed. It follows that he/she would not give false information to obfuscate a correct diagnosis. With that said, the credence to be accorded a drug addict in the throes of delerium tremens would be low. To use that information to deny him based entirely on this self-reporting is against the law. VA knows this yet they tried to slip it by Judge Farley. He wasn’t buying it.

I hope some here can find value in this when they put their claims together. VA will try anything on the assumption that they either won’t get caught or you won’t appeal. This is apparent in almost every contested decision. When unmasked on appeal, the VA will  nod their heads sagely, agree the Judge is right and ask for a do over. This allows them to give it more attention and deny properly the second time.

Old Milt has no chance in Hell of winning this, but his new denial will be properly arrived at and his “unverified” risks will be stricken from the record. The proper reasons will be correctly assembled and a new decision crafted that is appeal-proof. This is as it should be. Regardless of whether your claim has merit, the law must be followed. This is why Congress wisely inserted the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims into the process to curb VA’s propensity to run roughshod over the judicial landscape.

Hall v. Shinseki  

Posted in Important CAVC/COVA Ruling | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

9th FED. CIRCUS TO DO EN BANC ON VCS V. SHINSEKI

Posted on November 18, 2011 by asknod

Back in May, I wrote about this seminal decision  VCS v. Shinseki wondering how long it would be before a) this was granted en banc reconsideration or b) it was appealed up to the Supremes. Yesterday the 9th Fed. Cir. spoke. They have decided on option A. This is good. It will create more back pressure to force our compromised federal agency to start doing what it should have been accomplishing all along.

It may come at the expense of other federal programs that have nothing to do with Vets, but we comprise 8% of America and are allotted a very small piece of the pie. A $27 billion a year budget may seem like a lot to you and me, but the government spends that in a day or two.  We are used like a broom throughout the world to clean up messes. Yet oddly when the time comes to repair or refurbish the broom, we are given excuses as to why that will take time. Lots of time. VA has lots of this time stuff. They measure time not with atomic clocks, but with trees. A tree can grow 30 feet in the time it takes to adjudicate a claim. I’ll take a picture of the six foot tall live Christmas Tree we planted after my son’s first Christmas in 1989. That was the year I first filed for my back. It’s in CUE status in D.C. right now. My son is twenty three and in law school. The Adjudication Officer (AO) who did my claim in 1989 and ultimately mailed me my denial was named Wallace. When I filed in 2007 again, his name was at the bottom as being the manager of the Seattle RO. He retired in 09.

The tone of the judges on this is refreshing even if they’re inherently liberal progressives. I admire them for hitting the nail on the head. Too often the Government types try to do the moon walk backwards off the stage and leave without concluding business. These fellows certainly can’t be convicted of this crime. Read this intro:

We are presented here with the question of what happens when the political branches fail to act in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution affirms that people have rights that are enforceable against the government. One such right  is to be free from unjustified governmental deprivation of property-including the health care and benefits that our laws guarantee veterans upon completion of their service.Absent constitutionally sufficient procedural protections, the promise we make to veterans becomes worthless. When the government harms its veterans by the deprivations at issue here, they are entitled to turn to the courts for relief. Indeed, our Constitution established an independent Judiciary precisely for situations like this, in which a vulnerable group, that is being denied its rights by an unresponsive government, has nowhere else to turn. No more critical example exists than when the government fails to afford its injured or wounded veterans their Constitutional rights. Wars, including wars of choice, have many costs. Affording our vets their constitutional rights is a primary one. 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2011)

This decision tells of things similar. It tells us that VA is broken and needs to be rebuilt like an automobile engine. Procedures need to be revamped. Whole processes of judicial procedure need to be overhauled. In fact, the May decision concluded that it may be unsalvageable and perhaps should be subbed out to the civilian judiciary to sort out the mess.

You can almost see the smoke coming out of Eric’s ears on this one. Veterans for Common Sense isn’t like a VSO you can make heel like a dog. Their ranks contain all number of law dogs eager to get their imprimatur on the Appeal pro bono. VASEC is facing the possibility that he is going to be emasculated. If the en banc decision goes against him yet again, I foresee him resigning rather than dying on that hill. A spirited defense will go to the Supremes. That is cast in stone regardless of which way the tree falls. One other thing is paramount here, too. Getting certiorari at the Supreme Court is going to be easier for Eric and much harder for VCS. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles. The government, even the much vaunted Judiciary, has a vested interest in America’s pocketbook. They won’t go down in history being the one that broke the bank.

The 9th Circuit, as we all know, sits on the Left Coast. They are not pestered by things such as precedence. Their decisions have a horrible success rate but there is power in numbers. If you throw 10 darts at the board simultaneously, some will hit and stick but  will eventually be dislodged. The damage that ensues has to be swept up, too. That’s what lawyers are for. Lots of them on the left coast, too.

VCS will prevail in this en banc venture- that much is certain. Oral hearings are slated for the week of December 12th.  A 9th Circuit en banc Court overturning a 9th Cir. panel hasn’t occurred for as long as I can remember. How the Supremes will look at it is the important thing. That we won’t see for several more trees.

Posted in Fed. Cir. & Supreme Ct. | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

SHOW ME DA MONEY

Posted on November 17, 2011 by asknod

I read a thread with a number of posts on another Veteran’s Web Site several days ago. It concerned who knows what to begin with, but had degenerated into a sub discussion which had been hijacked from there. One of the fellows posting suggested that VSOs are paid with the funds that the VA pays them  for every POA they collect. Phrased differently, it seemed the fellow was implying that VSOs cannot survive solely on contributions, donations, car washes and bake sales. The VA gives them funds based on the number of Vets they are assisting. This is where the POA enters as that is an indicator that the Vet is using the named VSO for his claim. VSO presents signed POA to VA and voila- funds are distributed. This seems to make sense on it’s face as the VA insists that we take one of two paths. Either we represent ourselves pro se or we hire the VSO (free). The lawyer option is not allowed until after you get your denial and file the NOD.  Pretty screwy system, huh?

This is when the fur began to fly at Peggy’s site. I say “Peggy” because everyone keeps referring to Peggy said this and Peggy told me that. I assume she must own it for her name is bandied about almost hourly. The site is also done in a lovely shade of pink and looks very feminine which would comport with my supposition. She has an 800 number but apparently is hard to get through to. Many of the personnel who are in day to day charge of the site immediately attacked the poor Vet and called him a liar and worse. In spite of his giving the name of the Service officer who divulged this financial practice, even more attacks were forthcoming. Shortly thereafter, the thread was shut down and no further discussion was allowed to be posted.

Being the inquisitive person I am, I decided to research this claim on Bing. Zero. They’re overrated on Vet info, apparently. Next, I called the Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington State (Olympia) and talked with a sweet lady named Colleen. She told me all about how the Washington (state) DVA apportions funds from the General Fund to contract out for Veterans assistance on claims. Many, but not all, states have State and County Service Officers who are paid by the state to provide this service. They make on the order of $47-50 K a year full time and often work from home. Washington State has none. That’s why they contract the service out. Nevertheless, all states have a mechanism based imprecisely on what Peggy’s member Vet suggested and was attacked for.

As for the National Organizations? They , too receive a small stipend from the VA and Colleen emphasized the word “small” to imply they should probably pay more. She said VSOs do get free rent, electric, furniture and phones from the VA. That isn’t actual currency but it certainly saves the VSO a large financial outlay every month. I would hypothesize it could be “construed” as income in that it is a hard cost rather than a soft one.

I guess what really struck me as illogical was the attitude the moderators took of bored ennui and snide responses associated with the Vets they purport to help. On the occasions when a Vet ventures a theory or  states anything that casts the VA in a bad light, the siren goes off and the whole place jumps into action like a  Chinese Fire Drill. Moderators are summoned to castigate the individual, dispute his allegations and generally ride him out on a rail. Posts are removed if deemed too inflammatory. This is no way to approach a dispute. I noted that the moderators demanded, rather than asked him, to provide his sources (which he did).  Once he did so, the  Grand Poohbah shut it down. The personal attacks are what floored me. Peggy was nowhere seen or heard during this distasteful display of what turned out to be ignorance.

We as Veterans, must stand together rather than become a fractious group with nothing in common. We are 8% of America. John Adams said (don’t quote me) of the War of Independence : We must all hang together or we most assuredly will be hung individually. Drawing a parallel, to partake in backbiting amongst ourselves and call one another names is a disservice to us all. Some are not as well-versed in this claims process as others. To call one another dolts and question our parentage is counterproductive. It breeds animosity in short order and drives prospective Veterans seeking information away. Incorrect information can be reversed but blind, uncalled for anger simply breeds more of the same.

I personally want to thank all of you for acting like adults on this site. We have never here, or on the old site, had anyone who was rude, racist, or disagreeable as I observed the other day. A fellow member of this site as well as Peggy’s, said it is the norm rather than the exception there. How sad that gentle readers cannot curb their their tongues if not their emotions.  Disparate views on VA’s alleged abuse of Veterans, while impassioned, should be able to be discussed without raising our voices. The VA is no paragon of virtue, but neither is it the wicked witch of the east. I find their attempts at denying us both humorous and sad. Humorous in that they come up with some of the darnedest reasons for denial and sad because so many are missled and discouraged by poor legal advice at the hands of those charged with representing them for “free”. Nothing in life is free. Or, to paraphrase an old parable, don’t look a gift VSO in the mouth. And no, I have no proof that VSOs are in league with the VA in a vast right wing conspiracy hatched by Halliburton and Cheney to deprive us of our rights- yet.

We pause now for Station Identification.

Posted in General Messages, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

For Veteran’s Wives Only

Posted on November 16, 2011 by asknod

In June, my wife had to go to Las Vegas on real estate business. Naturally, I was assigned as her bodyguard. While there, I wanted to express my appreciation to Princess for keeping me alive in 2009 when the VA was doing everything in it’s power to kill me. This was our first vacation since the bottom of the world fell out. I saw a gorgeous purse in what could best be described as electric guacamole green. I had not been informed that the correct color name is “celery”. Up until this time I had no idea that fashionistas named colors after vegetables. I guess I should have figured it out by now. In 2004, while laying pink tile in a foyer of a house we were building, I came to realize it was actually Salmon-colored and added it to my severely compromised default color chart. Men have about six colors and verbally mix them for the benefit of other men. You women have what can best be described as “verbal skills” that make it easier to communicate these various hues.

Shortly after this gift, all the women my wife encountered in her work complemented her on her choice. She allowed as how I was the progenitor which elicited squeals of laughter. The idea that a man could pick this Fall’s most trendy color defies the imagination, doesn’t it?

What happened next is indescribable. Suddenly Honda came out with a metallic green version of the same thing. Then another auto maker followed suit. That was the just the beginning. Next, Cupcake found a gorgeous black raincoat with matching green “celery” collar. Well, when in Rome, accessorize- right?

Who would have thought a Praying Mantis needed to accessorize with her body color? Well, my better half, obviously.  My color library is growing slowly. I hope to encounter red the color of rare roast beef soon. Perhaps I’ll get a wallet that color. It may be the newest trend. One thing is for certain.  Women will not refer to it as Red.

Ladies, I give you… Bug, with matching handbag.

Posted in General Messages, Humor, Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments