White House again delays decision on new Agent Orange diseases; is decision delayed for "late 2020" election impact?

Comment: To me, this decision, promised since the Obama administration and repeatedly promised by the Trump VA, seems timed to the election. Mulvaney seems to have even raised the bar for coverage. Previously, VA acted when Institute of Medicine studies revealed a statistical impact for Agent Orange on a disease: Mulvaney now demands "compelling evidence" for VA to act. Or...to avoid acting at all? And why wait until the election?

The clear problem is his term compelling = conclusive, convincing, decisive, effective, forceful, persuasive, satisfying, strong." That's a new, much higher standard. Science and medicine will find it almost impossible to establish "compelling" proof. Very few other exposures have "compelling" evidence for diseases. Tobacco, asbestos, radiation, perhaps only exposures like these fall into that category. The original 1991 laws for Agent Orange exposures forced VA to act when IOM showed an increase for the statistical odds of a disease. Mulvaney wants more. Very, very much more.

by Patricia Kime,

The day President Donald Trump signed a funding bill including a provision ordering VA to announce its plans to add four conditions to the list of Agent Orange-linked diseases within 30 days, VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said the decision wasn’t likely to come until at least “late 2020.”

In a letter to Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, dated Dec. 20 and obtained by Military Times, Wilkie said he would not make a decision until the results of two long-awaited studies are submitted to or published in scientific journals.

In March, VA officials told members of Congress that the decision would be announced within 90 days.

Then Wilkie said he was just awaiting the results of the studies — the Vietnam Era Health Retrospective Observational Study, or VE-HEROES, and the Vietnam Era Mortality Study — expected in 2019.

But the requirement that the results be analyzed, peer-reviewed and in the publication pipeline could add months to the process. VE-HEROES results are currently “being analyzed,” while data from the mortality study is “expected to be available for peer review and publication in late 2020,” Wilkie wrote in the letter.

It’s unclear whether VA plans to comply with the new law that requires it to announce its plans on a decision within the 30-day requirement.

For the 83,000 veterans with one of three conditions under consideration, including bladder cancer, Parkinson’s-like symptoms or hypothyroidism, as well as an unknown number of Vietnam veterans with high blood pressure, the wait continues.

VA Fails Another C-123 Veteran's Claim

Veteran's VA Experience

Not again!

But yes, VA has screwed yet another C-123 claim beyond all recognition. In this case, an aeromedical evacuation technician from Pittsburgh's 33rd AES died while his claim was in process, so his widow continued the application.

It took quite a bit of detective work, but enough documentation was uncovered to establish the veteran's AFSC, his unit, and flying status with the 33rd during the years the C-123 was in service at Pittsburgh. I had the opportunity to provide a supporting statement, the VA Form 41-2138 to explain enough of the facts that the claim should have succeeded.

But that was not to be. For some reason, the regional claims office disregarded all the veteran's supporting documentation and also disregarded my own input, calling it "unqualified lay input."

We were lucky in this case to get support from the National Veterans Legal Services Project, and they rebuilt the claim for submission to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Once again, VA pretended everything in the claim was inadequate to satisfy their critical eye. BVA denied the widow's claim on two reasons. The judge wrote that the veteran was assigned to the 33rd AES, but VA forms explaining the C-123 program only specified the 911th AES.

Somehow, it got past these "experts" that the 33rd is the same as the 911th! Some years after the C-123 era, the squadron's name was updated to the 911th.

The other thing that got past the "experts" was the veteran's AFSC of 90210 and 90250. VA's various C-123 publications failed to list enlisted aeromedical evacuation technicians' AFSCs, and had only flight nurses listed. Ordinarily this isn't a problem because all C-123 claims are supposed to be processed by the VA St. Paul office where experts can drill down to the real facts.

Unfortunately, this claim drifted to some other regional office and there, was denied, and then prepared for resubmission the the Board of Veterans Appeals. The BVA also denied, and we found about it by reading the monthly BVA decision summaries.

The BVA errors were obvious and fatal to the claim. It was wrongly denied, for the two reasons named above. The last few days we've tried to alert every contact we know at VA to see if reason can prevail, to get the claim reconsidered without having to await the next higher level of appeal, the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Will it work? There's a chance, and we've succeeded before when VA's mistakes were so glaring. NVLSP has continued their involvement and won't let this go unchallenged. We sure could use help from Pennsylvania's legislators to pressure VA to reconsider the denied claim and to update the publications that caused these problems.

Stay tuned!

Attn: C-123 vets with Agent Orange claims before June 18, 2015

Read the old VVA press release below! In early 2015 the President of the Vietnam Veterans of America, John Rowan, insisted VA treat C-123 aircrews and maintainers as VETERANS with full Agent Orange disability benefits. But the best VA would do is cover claims from June 18 2015 forward, not back to date filed. A partial but welcome victory.

Now we finally have two possible approaches to fix that and recover what is due. That's why I've been trying to get the name, telephone and SSAN of everyone who filed claims for Agent Orange illnesses prior to June 2015. VVA is helping by putting the word out on their web site. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO HELP YOU: CONTACT WES CARTER IF YOU'RE ONE OF THESE VETS, and get the word to our crewmates to do the same. A major law firm is providing pro bono help to us.

The lawyers are doing this for free, just as they did the C-123 claim settled on October 12 that awarded our comrade over four years of his 100% disability the VA owed...you can do the math!! (P.S.: $2,950 x 48 = $141,000.)

Spread the word, please. All I need is the name, year the first claim was filed, email and phone, and Social Security or VA claim number.

YOU CAN DO THIS – it wraps up six years of my hard work on your behalf and I want to do something else with my life!

Air Force Times Publishers Demand VA Recognize C-123 Exposures – "VA CALLOUS & TONE DEAF!"

The editorial staff at The Air Force Times took a principled stand stand last week.

The Times, published by Gannett, and in allied issues of the Navy Times, Coast Guard Times, Marine Corps Times and Military Times, published what is always recognized as an editorial statement when they used a full page for their overview of the C-123 and our exposures. This could have been a single column review of facts and a couple quotes...a few column inches, but instead the Times went deep into reporter Patricia Kime's investigation. That full page is a statement of the editor's appreciation of the problem.

Remarkably, that editorial emphasis continued to page 36. I missed this at first, but veteran Paul Bergeron is a more careful reader. Today on learning of Paul's retelling of the editorial, I got a copy and quickly came to appreciate what's been done for us: The Times took a stand, and that stand is in support of us, and proclaims the need for VA to do the right thing. No need for Congress to step in, however...the VA has enough evidence, and has enough interest in justice for its veterans, that it should come to the realization that presumptive service connection is precisely the correct choice to make. Folks at VA will realize that constructing time delays, such as the interesting but claims-irrelevant Institute of Medicine C-123 study, form both intrinsic and extrinsic ethical failures.

AF Times, 31 March

There is no legal or moral or scientific reason not to receive a complete C-123 veteran's FDC today and process without the C&P automatic orders for denial. 

There must be a moral condemnation of any VA employee who takes such an delaying action knowing it is only to prevent access to medical care by a fully eligible C-123 veteran. 

There should be, perhaps, an even stronger, more formal action taken by authorities – and not just authorities in the VA itself –  addressing the full range of actions by VA staffers who engineered these delays once the full price in C-123 deaths and suffering over the period 2012-2014 is known.

Air Force Times, 31 March 2014, page 36