22 May 2017

How VA Obstructed C-123 Agent Orange Claims, 2007-2015


Maybe it was foolish, or maybe too naïve of us to expect that once we had Agent Orange (AO) contamination proof of our C-123s, we would give it to VA and approval of our disability claims would quickly follow.

That foolish expectation of approved claims died a sudden death! As soon VA heard our first inquiries their barriers went up. VHA’s Dr. Terry Walters told the Associated Press, “We have to draw the line somewhere.” This was in addition to VA ignoring its duties under VCAA and the VA’s regulation VAM21-1MR

Those “lines” she spoke of were all firmly set against our claims. VA kept adding to their list of objections to our claims. VA denied every C-123 claim, all while claiming a “case-by-case” evaluation. The Institute of Medicine C-123 report finally moved the VA to do right by us in June 2015!

Let’s look at the many twists and turns VA put us through, the baseless barriers created to block our claims. It only took a small handful of VA opponents …Compensation & Pension in VBA plus Post-Deployment Health in VHA…maybe seven folks at VA who believed it their mission to refuse our claims. 

In the end, only one VA objection threw at us had any merit: they said, as reservists, we weren’t “veterans” and thus weren’t covered for exposure benefits. This point we're still debating in the courts.

VA issued their interim final rule to provide that veteran status and presumptive eligibility in June 2015. That rule finally protected our vets with Agent Orange-recognized illnesses.

VA’s Long List of empty excuses to block our Agent Orange claims:
1. No Agent Orange on C-123s
2. No medical nexus between C-123 residues and our illnesses
3. VA only considers exposure if to liquid Agent Orange, not dust or solid
4. Exposure threat based on only one airplane (“Patches.”)
5. VA studies show insignificant harm to Vietnam Agent Orange spray crews from Agent Orange, so the less-exposed C-123 crews have no basis for claims.
 6. C-123s may have been AO contaminated but was in a form harmless to crews, requiring special chemicals and hard scrubbing to dislodge.
7. No Joint Services Records Research Center exposure event confirmation
Not statutory veterans.
8. VA regulations prohibit acknowledging C-123 exposure claims.
9. VA does not acknowledge C-123 exposures.
10. Post-Deployment redefined “exposure” in a unique way, requiring proof of “bioavailability” of the toxin to acknowledge exposure. They said,  “Exposure = contamination + bioavailability.” “No proof of bioavailability = no exposure.”
11. VBA Compensation and Pension claimed, “most scientists” disagreed with C-123 exposures (“Most” meant Dow, Monsanto, VHA Post-Deployment Health) Opposing them were CDC/ATSDR, NIH, USPHS, NIEHS, Concerned Scientists & Physicians.
12. Post-deployment health already decided veterans were not exposed
13. VA is unable to document which airplanes contaminated & which veterans flew
14. C-123 reservists aren’t veterans (for the period flying C-123s, 1972-1982.)
15. In addition to typical wait of one-two years to decide a claim and five more before a BVA decision, VA opted to not work C-123 claims until IOM report even after JSRRC exposure verifications in 2013 and 2014.
16. Then-Secretary Shinseki “felt non-Vietnam claims shouldn’t be approved.”
17. VA misled Senate Veterans Affairs Committee with error-laden C-123 “Fact Sheets”
18. VBA paid a consultant $600,000 to “investigate allegations” of Agent Orange exposure; that consultant wrote vets claiming Agent Orange exposure were “trash-haulers, freeloaders” for whom he “had no respect.”
19. VHA told Associated Press “a line had to be drawn somewhere” on C-123 Agent Orange claims
20. Per Compensation & Pension Service, VHA had already decided no C-123 vets were exposed and no amount of proof would permit claims to be approved.

…and many more. We had to argue or disprove every one of these and were denied the claims assistance assured us in its Federal Register announcement about non-Vietnam Agent Orange exposures. Their biggest deception:

"VA will assist a veteran in obtaining any relevant information related to a claim for exposure to herbicide agents."
(Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 74/Wednesday, April 16, 2008)


HEY VA: Your “Assist” Never happened!




17 May 2017

Dr. Al Young – paid 55 foot tall stack of $100 bills to block C-123 Agent Orange claims!

Dr. Al Young. Famed Agent Orange apologist. Opposed to C-123 Agent Orange disability claims.

He was paid $600,000 on his most recent VA contract for opposing Agent Orange claims...and he's made millions altogether from VA and DoD...and from Dow and Monsanto. He's doing a contract now for the US Army Public Health Command, even though the Institute of Medicine concluded his input was "conjecture, nor evidence-based." But maybe the Army hasn't heard?

But the question plagued me..."What does $600,000 look like?" I've never seen so much cash. 

So, I checked the internet. A $600,000 stack of $100 bills makes a 55.47 foot tall stack. Used bills are thicker with wrinkles, and would be about 59 feet.

16 May 2017

Reservists Suffering Exposure Injuries Not Eligible for VA Medical Care, Insists VA Official on March 6, 2017!

In his December 2016 and March 2017 presentations to the VA's Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation (ACDC,) Mr. James Sampsel clarified the VA prohibition on reservists and National Guardsmen receiving VA medical care or any other disability benefits for exposure incidents causing illnesses or injuries.

"As to whether somebody actually got exposed to Agent Orange, that's a different matter. There's a presumption of exposure for Vietnam veterans. It goes back to the Agent Orange Act of 1991. That is codified at 38 United States Code 1116."

"We have presumptions for certain groups and, then, we have individual case-by-case-acknowledgments." C-123 veterans know from four years' experience that his promised case-by-case evaluations only meant four years of blanket denials100% – and his instruction to ROs' that VA would not "acknowledge" any C-123 disability claims.
"Reservists do not qualify under VA law for Agent Orange long-term benefits," he assured the committee.  "That's a statutory thing. If you're a reservist, any disability you get has to occur, be directly related to your period of active duty or training, because that's what their service is called. 
Under VA law, that doesn't count for some disability that occurs 20 years later, 30 years later." 
 Or even two weeks, as I learned in 2015 from VA Office of General Counsel. No protection at all for exposure injuries wth delayed onset of symptoms.

The general topic at ACDC was Agent Orange exposure but the same VA answer applies to other biohazard exposures. Reserves and guard are on their own when an on-duty exposure of any sort (toxins, bugs, smoke,  POL, whatever – known or unknown) leads to a subsequent illness after release from duty. For any VA protection, the exposure injury must be evident before taking off the uniform.

Example: an Air Guard unit flies a humanitarian mission to West Africa and the crew returns to CONUS and goes back to civilian status. Two weeks later they develop Ebola. VA will refuse them medical care and deny their families survivors' benefits as well.

Why? Because VA only cares for veterans. It may care about all of us, but it only permits care for veterans meeting statutory definitions.

Guard and Reserve time usually don't convey statutory veteran status so because the law clearly states "veteran," the time of exposure is not a time during which the person isn't serving as a veteran, no benefits. One might have qualified as a veteran before or after the exposure but that might permit only medical care, not disability compensation or family benefits. 

There's an easy fix for this: the military service involved can issue a simple line-of-duty determination when an exposure event occurs. Only the exposure is specified, and it may or may not lead to subsequent illness. VA respects the LOD for the exposure event and should an illness develop in the normal course of the exposure, statutory veteran status is established: 
LOD (as proof of exposure) + illness ("more likely than not" diagnosis as caused by exposure)
= veteran status necessary for benefits.
Why would the military want to go along with this? Because they recognize that line of duty regulations serve largely to protect the veterans benefits due a servicemember. Also, the pure and simple justice of caring for servicemembers exposed on duty who otherwise are left to bear the burden of the environmental hazards they encountered. 

There is no "freebie" in this, but rather only the government properly caring for those injured in service whose exposure injuries are manifested only in the course of time after exposure.

In the Air Force line-of-duty regulation (AFR 36-2910) key items stand out:
1. "The Secretary of the Air Force, or his or her designee, may revise any determination made under this instruction." 
2.  "An LOD determination protects the interests of both the member and the United States Government"
3. "Veteran Benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may use a member’s official military records, including any LOD determinations when determining veteran benefits (38 U.S.C.)
4. "ARC only. After release from active duty or IDT, members have 180 days to ensure any illness, injury or disease that was incurred or aggravated while in a duty status is reported for LOD determination consideration." "The only avenue for addressing previously unreported illness, injury or disease is through the VA.Medical determinations relating to the etiology and onset of a disease or condition may constitute clear and unmistakable evidence when supported by the weight of medical literature."

How can we make this happen to protect reserve and air guard personnel? Have the Secretary of Veterans Affairs give the Secretary of Defense a phone call. 

Let the two of them duke it out. Until then reservists volunteering for duty where a bioenvironmental hazard might exist must consider the medical and financial consequences when the VA abandons you. Get sick, or even die, and the VA says, "You're on your own."

Whatever happens, just don't let Compensation and Pension Service wade in to do what they do best: Deny Claims!

Note: 38 CFR § 3.301 "Line of duty and misconduct."
("a)Line of duty. Direct service connection may be granted only when a disability or cause of death was incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990, the result of his or her abuse of alcohol or drugs."
ANSWERS:
1. Were our exposures in the line of duty? Yes.
2. Was there misconduct, drugs or alcohol? No.

10 May 2017

Lack of Oversight Promotes VA Claims Mismanagement at Highest Level

"Lack of Oversight"

 For more than four years, James Sampsel got away with it. Mr. Sampsel was (and still is?) working from his home as manager of the VBA Agent Orange Desk. That's a key position in the Compensation and Pension Service with duties spelled out in VA Adjudication Manual M21-1MR. Every non-Vietnam veteran claiming Agent Orange exposure faces Mr. Sampsel's scrutiny.


What did Mr. Sampsel get away with?
• Improperly blocked every single C-123 veteran's Agent Orange disability claim that crossed his desk. That denied vital medical care and disability benefits. Unless otherwise eligible, vets with cancers and other deadly ailments were locked out of VA hospitals. 

• He created a brief to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee that falsely assured legislators C-123 claims were decided on a case-by-case basis, while he simultaneously directed VA rating officials to deny all those claims. This was to block legislative relief for C-123 veterans.
• His friendship with Dr. Alvin Young included supervision of a unique no-bid sole-source unsolicited contract for $600,000, with Dr. Young producing a series of monographs on Agent Orange issues of Mr. Sampsel's choosing. The largest single subject of the monographs was Dr.Young's enthusiastic support for Mr. Sampsel's opposition to C-123 exposure claims. The entire series was designed to buttress VA policies against Agent Orange claims.
• Mr. Sampsel was present at the June 14, 2014 hearing of the Institute of Medicine C-123 Committee at which Dr. Young denied he was representing VA in opposing C-123 exposure claims. In fact, Dr. Young was under his Sept 2012-Sept 2014 Agent Orange consulting contract, receiving $25,000 that month. Mr. Sampsel did nothing to correct Dr. Young's misleading statement to the IOM. Critical because Dr.Young tried to come off as a disinterested expert coming forward to advise the committee. In fact, Dr. Young was a paid VA agent under Sampsel.
• In one email, Mr. Sampsel even sarcastically shared patient information with an unauthorized colleague. He also recommended VA not respond to a different patient confidentially complaint about him as it would only "encourage" the vet.
• He misled the Secretary into signing a deceptive and error-laden letter and C-123 Fact Sheet" for the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

How did he do that?
• Mr. Sampsel insisted VA had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against C-123 claims but there was no such preponderance. Mr. Sampsel told raters there was no basis for honoring C-123 exposure claims, and even provided boilerplate claim denial language to regional offices. 
• Like others in VA, Mr. Sampsel wrongly promised every C-123 disability claim was addressed on "a case-by-case" basis. Amazingly, this is even while writing memos to Mr. Murphy questioning whether they should adopt a case-by-case basis. He directed VA's blanket denial policy while also denying hs policy existed. Some regional offices like Manchester NH took Mr. Sampsel's denials to be regulatory prohibitions of C-123  awards.
• Thus, every C-123 claim was denied from the earliest known in 2007 until June 2015. Tellingly, once free of Mr. Sampsel's twisted scrutiny, every denied C-123 claim appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals was honored because the BVA more closely obeyed the law and followed VA regulations.
• He also drafted Secretary Shinseki's error-laden June 2013 response to Senator Burr and the "C-123 Fact Sheet," thus forestalling legislative intervention by veterans' elected representatives
• Despite VAM21-1MR procedures, Mr. Sampsel refused to act on JSRRC confirmation of C-123 exposures. He received input as early as March 2013 yet for years continued to insist on his "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against C-123 vets. It should be noted that the phrase "overwhelming preponderance" admits virtually no doubt – "there is no reason to believe otherwise"...even with contrary input from CDC, NIH, JSRRC, and dozens of other experts, Mr. Sampsel insisted to vets, legislators and VA itself there was no doubt. He was correct, but only in there was no doubt that all C-123 claims would be denied by Mr. Sampsel's agency.

Who let him get away with it? 
• Mr. Thomas Murphy, at the time Director, Compensation, and Pension Service and now, Acting Under Secretary for Benefits. Mr. Sampsel had a key position under Murphy's organization.

How do we know Mr. Murphy failed to provide effective oversight?
• 
Because Mr. Murphy was personally briefed on these problems by Major Wes Carter. Further, Mr. Murphy was copied on veterans' correspondence to various VA leaders revealing specific failures of the Agent Orange Desk, and was copied by Mr. Sampsel on his internal correspondence. Veterans met with Mr. Murphy at his 1800 office on February 28, 2013 to discuss reasons for VBA blocking C-123 exposure claims. 
• One specific point covered was language in a claim denial that dismissed dioxin's harmful effects. Another was the Agent Orange Desk rejection of all opinions from the CDC/ATSDRNIH and dozens of independent experts.
• Mr. Murphy signed the claim denial in question, and also signed VA responses to Dr. Jeanne Stellman, the Corresponding Scientist of the Concerned Physicians and Scientists. That group detailed scientific errors in the Agent Orange Desk rejection of C-123 claims
• Dr. Young's $600,000 Agent Orange consulting contract produced little if anything of value to VA, and was also pointedly anti-veteran as it obstructed C-123 claims.

What was the impact of Mr. Murphy's Lack of Oversight? 
• Vets were denied VA medical care. Vets were denied compensation for disabilities. Families were denied Champ-VA medical care and other benefits such as educational assistance for children. Veterans without VA certification were denied state benefits. Veterans were denied burial benefits. Overall, a discrediting of the VA benefits system and what one newspaper's editors called "the VA's latest success in embarrassing itself."

What has been done about Mr. Murphy's Lack of Oversight?
• Nothing. Nothing has been done to make right the harm done nor improve VA policies and procedures.

Why still be concerned about this injustice?
• Because vets were denied benefits until June 2015. While there is no recovery for medical care and other expenses vets faced without VA benefits, VA needs to honor claims for retroactive disability compensation just as they do with every other claim .situation...compensation is based on the date of application, not when Mr. Sampsel and company get around to doing the right thing.
• Because nothing has been done to address their failures, and the system is free to do this again to other veterans.