Showing posts with label attorney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attorney. Show all posts

22 September 2014

Compensation & Pension Service Orders ALL C-123 Claims Denied

Assurances from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Senate, and assurances by the Under Secretary for Benefits, that "C-123 veterans' claims will be considered on a case-by-case" basis have proved to be empty promises.

Every veteran has the right to have a disability claim considered on the merits of the situation, and not dismissed by some broad pronouncement of a VA official's personal agenda. Falsely, C-123 veterans are assured on VA web pages that our Agent Orange exposure claims will be evaluated on the facts and the law.

But in four separate situations VA has clearly demonstrated how they denied us due process, and blocked medical care needed by our veterans. We claim protection under the Due Process Clause because we've established that we are veterans, that we have Agent Orange-recognized illnesses and we have a large body of evidence to persuade. At this point, according to Cushing and other decisions, Due Process applies!

1. In 2012 the VA's Agent Orange consultant summarized the perspective of Compensation and Pension in his report, "Investigations into the Allegations of Agent Orange/Dioxin Exposure from Former Ranch Hand Aircraft." On page 25 he confirms VA's decision to order all C-123 claims denied, writing, "The Compensation Service recommended that such claims associated with Agent Orange exposure be denied service-connection." Then he reveals the contradiction VA created by concluding that paragraph with VA's own empty promise, "Veterans who believe they have exposure- related health problems may file a claim for disability compensation. These claims will be decided on a “case-by-case basis”  These statements are at opposite ends of the logic spectrum.

2. The VA arranged to have post-Vietnam Agent Orange issues reviewed by a contractor (Contract VA-101-12-C-0006.) That contractor was already of the firm opinion that our claims for service connection were without merit. In 2011 he described those of us seeking VA medical care as "trash-haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman."
His contempt for us was reflected in the effort he and VA spent, with his unique sole-source no-bid $600,000 contract resulting in four separate reports attacking the basis of our claims, plus his appearance before the Institute of Medicine on June 16 to detail the VA's basis for refusing our claims. Nothing wrong with him getting business wherever he may find it, but completely inappropriate for VA to use this particular prejudiced individual's services against us.
All six major veterans service organizations have complained to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, objecting to the relationship between VA and this contractor.
The contractor is welcome to his business wherever he can find it, and he certainly has an unequaled historical grasp of Agent Orange issues. His previously-expressed distain for C-123 veterans, however, makes his input completely unacceptable as regards our VA health care.

3. As shown in VA training materials released via our lawsuit to enforce Freedom of Information Act requests, Veterans Health Administration instructs claims officials that no amount of scientific information supporting C-123 veterans' exposure claims will be permitted to weigh against VHA's decision that it is insufficient. Dozens of experts from other federal agencies, universities, medical schools, schools of public health and state governments agree that C-123 veterans have been exposed and harmed...but VA prefers the opinions of its Agent Orange contractor and the two scientists sponsored by Dow and Monsanto.

4. BVA attorneys have been successful fighting Agent Orange appeals by somehow convincing the administrative law judges that VA regulations forbid recognizing exposure claims other than Vietnam, Korean DMZ, certain Blue Water ships and Thai base perimieter. Statements like the following, used by BVA attorneys to keep veterans out of VA hospitals, are just plain false!
 "Citation Nr: 1413377: there are no studies that VA is aware of showing harmful health effects for any such secondary or remote herbicide contact that may have occurred."
"Citation Nr: 1337387: note, the Department of Veterans Affairs did address residual Agent Orange exposure concerns by post-Vietnam crews that later flew C-123 aircraft that had previously sprayed Agent Orange.  VA's Office of Public Health is noted to have thoroughly reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces.  It was concluded that the potential exposure for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained the aircraft was extremely low and therefore it was concluded that the risk of long-term health effects was minimal.  (See www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange.)  Otherwise, other than his unsubstantiated allegations, there simply is no evidence that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides based on his contact with any military vehicle that may have once been used in Vietnam 

30 May 2013

VA Ignores Latest C-123 Veterans's Freedom of Information Request

Our guarantee of information, to help keep us free
VA people.

They must feel like very, very special people. Equal, perhaps, but far more so from their perspective. Exempt from the law, even. Able to decide which laws they will cooperate with, and which they benefit more by ignoring. Yes, very special people, dedicated public servants...at least, dedicated to insuring C-123 veterans are kept away from vital Agent Orange medical treatment.

C-123 veterans filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding all VA materials about the C-123 and Agent Orange...VA correspondence, reports, scientific reviews, emails...and meeting notes from the two occasions in which C-123 vets met face-to-face with VA officials.

Initially VA took no objection as to the scope of the request...meaning they did not challenge the FOIA by exercising any of the nine exemptions in the law (privacy, junior persons's names, classified
information, etc)). However, VA tried to keep the FOIA blocked by demanding over $4500 for the requested materials. We appealed, and at their suggestion reduced the scope of the request to bring the cost down.

Surprise, surprise, surprise! Eventually the VA responded, but denied that any materials exist at all, anywhere. Not even the materials obviously on their Internet pages. So now the VA denies our claims and bases their actions on evidence which VA insists doesn't exist. VA copies language to their regional offices to use in denying C-123 claims...language and instructions to regional offices which doesn't exist.

What I find troubling is the signature on the final VA correspondence assuring C-123 veterans no VA materials exist. It is the signature of an attorney, the VA's assistant general counsel.  Over her signature as a government official, we are assured that our government's guarantee (that's the word the FOIA law uses) of access to information has been kept. Over her signature, we are assured that the Freedom of Information, which the President, Supreme court and the Congress all say is an important element of American democracy, has been complied with in response to our request. This makes me so very concerned, because what is going on to lead these VA officials to take such a stance against us?

Next step, United States District Court in Portland Oregon.

02 May 2013

C-123 VA Claims Approvals and Denials Needed!

C-123 Veterans and Survivors!

The two law firms helping us fight the VA's pretense that we are not entitled to Agent Orange benefits need to have copies of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange claims approvals and denials. So far, we only have a few copies of denied claims, and some overturned at Board of Veterans Appeals levels.

Please: if you have applied, been denied or been approved, WE NEED COPIES OF WHAT WAS DONE! The various reasons VA picks to deny claims, even only when the rating officer denies for meaningless reasons such as ruling all evidence unacceptable, is important as the attorneys helping our Association form our best approach.

While we obviously are moving forward on the lawsuit, we also need to develop a logical "cookie-cutter" package for our members to follow. This will insure as perfect as possible a claim put forward, with all evidence that we've gathered, with targeted rebuttals for what are the expected VA objections. This cannot be developed with any accuracy without YOUR denied or approved claims being provided.

We have a handful of widows who have also pressed survivors claims and I only have a couple of those - if you are a survivor, please do what's right and give us copies of your claims.

Delete your names and personal info if you wish, but get them scanned and emailed, or send snail mail copies to Wes at 2349 Nut Tree Lane, McMinnville OR 97128.