Showing posts with label compensation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label compensation. Show all posts

12 August 2015

US Court of Appeals Denies Korean DMZ Veterans Retroactive Benefits. What About C-123 Vets??

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs can expand the group of veterans who are eligible for benefits due to Agent Orange exposure without making the change retroactive, a federal appeals court held Tuesday in McKinney v. McDonald. 
The decision by a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal affects veterans who were stationed in the Korean demilitarized zone between July 1969 and July 1971 and cannot prove actual exposure to Agent Orange. As a result of the ruling, they became eligible for disability benefits on Feb. 24, 2011, even if they were disabled years earlier. That's the date VA published their rule, and VA fought making any benefits retroactive.
The effect on our C-123 quest for retroactive benefits is unclear, but the Court did make an important point: veterans with proven actual exposure are entitled to those benefits from the date a claim is filed. We have that proof...the IOM made its final report citing the Air Force tests over the decades proving the contamination, and scientists Drs. Lurker, Stellman, Berman and Clapp proved the exposure via ingestion and inhalation routes. This mass of evidence should satisfy the Court, and the VA, that C-123 veterans retroactive compensation claims are not blocked by McKenny v. McDonald.
Rather, retroactivity is explicitly provided!

16 March 2015

VA CARES...Agent Orange poster mentions Vietnam veterans AND others exposed to Agent Orange

It is very telling in VA's poster that it mentions not only Vietnam veterans, but all others exposed to Agent Orange.

Last week. Dr. Ralph Erickson in VA's Pre-9/11 Post Deployment Health authored a blog page in which he specified C-123 veterans as among the potentially exposed population.

12 February 2015

NEWEST VA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT RELEASE VERY INFORMATIVE – & Even More Disturbing

There are hundreds of files on the most recent VA Freedom of Information Act document release just provided us by our terrific attorneys at Davis Wright Tremaine.

You can read them all in this Google Docs folder...and you'll find an eye full if you read with your eyes wide open, and consider what was written compared to the Institute of Medicine recent affirmation of our exposures! No wonder it took four years to get to the point today, when VA is only now considering how to care for us. And no promises made yet!

A great many of these FOIA files clearly show VA's unending resistance to C-123 veterans' Agent Orange claims. "Not on my watch," is the motto smearing so many of these files, although not in those words.

Not a single file here, or in any earlier documents we've received, has a single question raised about whether our veterans were exposed. Instead, VA puts its brick wall in front of us and invites head-banging, knowing we would get nowhere. Never was a question raised about whether a way could be found to include, rather than forbid, C-123 veterans from entering their wonderful hospital corridors.

No wonder we had to fight in US District Court to get these papers. No wonder, even with so many obviously vital parts redacted, VA didn't want this record made public.

The attitude of is clear, especially in VBA where staffers look for unflattering references in this blog or in correspondence with VA and take umbrage. From 2011 when the issue first appeared at 1800 G Street in Washington, dedicated opponents rose to dispute any C-123 veteran's claim. VA staffers consistently informs others that the 1991 Agent Orange Act was meant only for Vietnam veterans during the time period allowed, but skipped mention of the multiple postings in the Federal Register by which VA assured Congress that all veterans with evidence of exposure would be treated the same as men and women who served in Vietnam.

VBA also insisted that non-Vietnam exposures to Agent Orange, even if fact-proven and claiming Agent Orange-recognized illnesses, must require proof that the illness didn't result from another cause. VA is of course expert with this issue and cannot have made these statements in ignorance, but rather policy. VA folks know the law and regulations dictate otherwise, but why worry about such niggling details which conflict with policy? Even if that policy was unpublished, unofficial, and in the end...in error.

VA regulations provide for inquiries to the DOD Joint Services Records Research Center if veterans claim on-Vietnam exposures. Many times, JSRRC tried to forward documents from other federal agencies, only to have them dismissed by VBA, Reading these files, I find myself described in words I'd consider unflattering, let's say.

Except for persistent. I see persistent a lot in reading these FOIA files.

That begs the awful question...why does any veteran have to be persistent, any more than completing the FDC and speaking honestly about the claim? Why did this veteran, rated by VA itself as "catastrophically disabled,"  have to spend four of the last few years in my piggy bank of life trying so hard? What about other veterans, other disabilities, other exposures? Are those veterans going to face a VA like the VA which put their brick wall in our faces?

Conclusion about this most recent FOIA release? It is policy that VA was clearly determined to preserve, and that policy was to prevent C-123 veterans' claims.

Compare responses to legislators, governors and state directors of veterans affairs (thank you, Oregon and North Carolina!!) hard with the recent release of the Institute of Medicine C-123 report. Policy, at least the policy of individual players, kept us out of those hospitals for years. We'd be outside still, fingers on the door bell, if not for the skills and care of reporters, scientists and legislators who've stood up for us since 2011.

God bless you all, VA included. Let's take care of veterans from this point forward, okay?

More disturbing facts from the FOIAs:
1. Secretary Shinseki said that Lt Col Paul Bailey's cancer claim shouldn't have been granted and sought opinions on getting it reversed as an error. Some VA staffer asked how Bailey could have qualified as "exposed" with "only two days on Patches." This statement required deliberately overlooking all the flight documents submitted placing Paul on Patches and the other contaminated former Ranch Hand aircraft. Note: Pauls VA award came just before his death...he'd already entered hospice.
2. VA's Agent Orange consultant was persistent (my turn for that word, having noted VA's frequent use of it) in steps to prevent C-123 veterans' claims. He got $600,000 for his efforts through his no-bid sole source contract with VA; we got financial loss, suffering and death.
3. Not a single mention is made anywhere of VA's frequent Federal Register statements about non-Vietnam Agent Orange exposures. VA is held to these publications, but did they feel best to pretend the don't exist?
4. I'm stopping here. You read. You decide if this is how VA promised to treat our veterans. It is depressing to keep writing about.

04 October 2014

VA Argues With Itself Over Agent Orange

Fact: Agent Orange (not all of it) contained a toxin called TCDD, a recognized human carcinogen.

Fact:  Different agencies within VA see it from opposite perspectives: one is from science (VHA) and the other from preventing veterans' claims (VBA)

Here are quotes from the two major VA agencies, VHA and VBA, and the Secretary himself:

-Veterans Health Administration: "TCDD is the most toxic of the dioxins, and is classified as a human carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency"(1)

-Veterans Benefits Administration: "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."(2)

-Secretary Shinseki: "The Secretary remains committed to ensuring Vietnam-era Veterans receive benefits they have earned through their service.  This commitment includes determining presumptive service connection related to Agent Orange exposure when appropriate."(3) "TCC is the most toxic of dioxins. TCDD causes cell damage.  TCDD raises IHD rates.  TCDD damages arteries. "(4)

(1) VA web page "Facts About Herbicides"
ACTUAL CDC-Mandated C-123 Flight Suits. Confirmed by
Joint Services Records Research Center to VA May 2014.
(2) Mr T. Murphy, VA Director Compensation and Pension, "Advisory Opinion," denying a C-123 veteran's exposure claim. Mr. Murphy was modifying for VA's purposes the official finding by which the CDC/ATSDR actually concluded C-123 veterans have a 200-fold greater cancer risk, and that if the contamination on the airplanes had been known when they were in service (1972-1982) CDC would either order crews to wear full HAZMAT or ground the C-123s as a toxic hazard. ATSDR considers TCDD a toxic hazard and nothing in the report otherwise.  VA twisted everything! Mr. Murphy's rewrite, over his own signature of the CDC/ATSDR finding was read back and discussed with him face-to-face as well as in several letters and emails.
(3) VA Fact Sheet
(4) Senate Testimony by then-Secretary Shineski

Gosh...don't you wonder why Compensation and Pension skipped all but the Director's personal opinions and instead took the CDC/ATSDR finding that veterans were exposed and dismissed it, taking a official finding and clearly mistating its conclusions? And ignored the Secretary's "committed" approach?

This veteran considers the twisting of the ATSDR finding by Compensation and Pension to be a clear prevarication. On February 28 2013 it was brought to the attention of the Director of C&P who offered no correction then or since. It is still in the veteran's "C File," his Agent Orange claim denied.

It stands as another example of how the Secrretary's trust in the loyality and abilities of his staff was misplaced, leading to his resignation as scandal after scandal began unfolding.

03 October 2014

DOD Agency Confirms C-123 Vets' Agent Orange Exposures

Development: Beginning May 2014, the Army's Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) began submitting official confirmation of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure evidence to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a big deal...this should be a game-changer.

That is, if the VBA will permit claims adjudicators to follow VA's own regulations per VA 21-1MR.

Up to now, JSRRC responded to VA inquiries about aircrew and maintenance veterans with an inconclusive, "no records found to substantiate veteran's exposure claim." VA's manual "has the force of law," according to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. JSRRC's military archivists in Fort Belvoir, Virginia research official documentation to help confirm or deny PTSD and exposure situations for all services except the US Marines...including C-123 post-Vietnam claims. JSRRC's empty response satisfied VBA's objective of preventing C-123 veterans' claims. The JSRRC answer, since May, has not been empty any longer...it is instead the final YES answer veterans were seeking!

Thus, because VA21-MR directs claims adjudicators to inquire with JSRRC to get an official thumbs-up or thumbs-down on Provider aircrews and maintainers, the recent JSRRC action means the final hurdle should have been resolved.

Problem: VA regional offices are postponing decisions on C-123 claims, for some reason waiting for the Institute of Medicine C-123 report to come out. We can only hope that repeated official promises, detailed earlier on this blog,  of "case by case" evaluations continuing are honored.

Action:  We think its time for Post Deployment Health to set aside that department's agenda and follow the law, VA 21-1MR, the US Constitution, and the many Federal Register statements that all veterans establishing proof of Agent Orange (herbicide, military herbicide, call it whatever) will have recognized Agent Orange illnesses cared for.

Let us into the hospital, please.

01 September 2014

Our Blog – Disrespectful? Let's Hope Not!

 Carter Blog: "Truth cannot be found, only exaggeration, misinformation and propaganda?"   
Having been challenged to do so, I'm thinking through my blog perspective and re-reading the entries. A suggestion was made that I'd not had respectful comments regarding one individual, perhaps even more.

Obviously we have a pro-veteran perspective here, trying to argue the eligibility of post-Vietnam C-123 veterans' VA Agent Orange exposure benefits. The VA, its consultant, both Dow and Monsanto, and perhaps other veterans with different views argue otherwise...and that's the perfect system for civil discourse. We believe we're right, as do so many scientists, physicians, legal scholars and other agencies who've spoken up for us.

Our opponents have the advantage of experience, unrestricted access to VA and AF documentation, greater scientific understanding, federal funding, the opportunity to carefully word the charge to the IOM, and the final decision-making authority.

We do not argue any science, not having the qualifications for that, but we do try to put forward the various ways in which we believe ourselves eligible through the opinions of others such as the CDC/ATSDR and NIH. At time, this means that we say our opponents are wrong on an issue, or fail to interpret issues in a pro-veteran, pro-claimant manner as required by law,  or seek to implement unofficial policy or personal agendas rather than help us.

Each side has stated its objectives. VA: "We cannot permit any C-123 claims." (VHA.) And, "C-123 veterans have been subjected to long-term/low intensity AO exposure and are due care for Agent Orange-recognized illnesses." (Wes Carter.)

So once again, I'll ask for comments, corrections, anything. If I have erred in facts, I'd like to correct those facts because otherwise the value of our entire effort is diminished. If I have erred in a more subtle way, perhaps over-emphasis or sarcasm, I welcome suggestions for improvement there as well.

The fact does remain, however, that VA and its consultant actively oppose every argument we put forward. We have never had a helping hand offered us, other than three quite polite conferences at which we were told none of our claims would ever be approved. Great sums have been spent by VA to insure our claims remain denied and to influence the IOM report. Our requests for VA assistance in research are all denied, and VA even recently reserved the right to redefine "exposure" to prevent exposure claims such as ours.

Of course, VA personnel and their contractor have always been very courteous, but courtesy does not make up for locking VA hospital doors against us.

We've been asked by VA's contractor, what's our agenda? Simple...we'd like our illnesses associated with Agent Orange exposure to be treated. Until such time as the law changes, we're eligible for this care and the decision to withhold it is wrong.

I trust this entry, at least, is not "exaggeration, misinformation or propaganda."

30 August 2014

Why Does VA Oppose C-123 Veterans' Agent Orange Valid Exposure Claims?

They've fought us since the first inquiry..."NO" was their first and only answer in a knee-jerk response, after which
they cast about to create reasons for that position. "NO" was their research objective.

Faced with veterans whose claims could very reasonably fit into VA's 21-1MR requirements, instead of seizing on existing rules, laws,  scientific proofs and Federal Register commitments to include C-123 vets, Post-Deployment Health automatically sought ways to exclude, not to include.

Clear? The C-123 vets met each requirement of the VA's to be granted presumptive service connection. Perhaps rules could be interpreted different ways, but VA's only thought was to create interpretations against the C-123 vets. They stretched their rules, not to help us, but to exclude us.

So why the big NO when the law and science were behind the C-123 vets? VA found (created?) several of reasons:

1. VA already said no, and they remain defensive of that decision, unable to modify their position – they want the victory and they disregard the cost to us veterans over the last three years in terms of illnesses, deaths, medical & burial expenses, denial of care, etc. That would mean acknowledging their moral failures. Even if claims are eventually approved, VA saves money by delaying as long as possible (currently three to four years at BVA) to avoid providing medical care. Presently there are over a quarter million veterans' claims in appeal, meaning a quarter of a million vets denied medical care for the illnesses and injuries already established (unless otherwise qualified for VA care.) While VA managers decry the claims and appeals delays, the savings in medical care thereby could exceed a billion dollars each year*
2. Recognizing the C-123 veterans' service connection will cost VA money for health care and disability compensation. Presently C-123 veterans are denied VA medical care and have to make arrangements elsewhere, and are denied the VA peripheral care provided totally disabled vets (dental, rehab, pharmacy, counseling, prosthetics, vision, etc.)
3. VA has the attitude of having to "draw the line somewhere" regarding exposure benefits and will fight any post-Vietnam claims, as Post Deployment Health told the Associated Press
4. Recognizing C-123 post-Vietnam exposures potentially affects other toxic situations well beyond our small group. The White House has been deeply concerned with this since the beginning of Agent Orange concerns, as Peter Sill's box Toxic War perfectly illustrates
5. VA Office of General Counsel has become defensive to the point of insisting on the Department's power to redefine "exposure" to its own purposes; success in that redefinition could help VA oppose other exposure situations such as burn pits, dirty water, biohazards, etc.
C&P Claims Motto
6. Perhaps in some way, their folks in C&P and Post Deployment Health actually believe they are
correct
7. Attitude. They don't like veterans arguing with them
7. Successful opposition to claims such as ours may result in extra praise in their annual performance reviews and perhaps, win them bonuses. They look more productive by denying claims then by approving them
8. Along with their consultants, VA recognizes the threat that would be caused by recognizing our unique long-term exposure. The differences between high intensity/short term exposures and our long term/low intensity exposures was recognized in the first Air Force study and continues to worry experts
9. VARO raters worry about opposing C&P which has ordered C-123 claims denied; raters take easy route of using the boilerplate claim denial language
10. Denying the claim gets it off the rater's desk and lets the veteran lose hope or at least, stick the claimant with a three-four year BVA wait
11. Encouraged by their "Agent Orange Never Hurt Anybody" consultants, Post Deployment Health eagerly accepted the bioavailability concept as a scheme as VA's end-run around the 1991 Agent Orange Act and Congress' elimination of the medical nexus requirement for exposure claims. Brilliant! VA redefines exposure to prevent exposure claims.
12. C&P has already directed C-123 claims denied on the basis of TCDD being harmless, and by citing non-existent VA "scientific studies" and non-existent "VA directives" and any change would necessitate revisiting the injustice of those denied claims
13. The longer VA delays, the more C-123 veterans die and claims die with them

* Harvard's Kennedy School of Government calculations using IEF statistics

09 April 2014

California-Style Veterans Fund Raiser

Veterans Mario Rodriguez and Julie Carruth raise funds for other California vets at surfing event

Veterans Appeals Process Disastrously Flawed – deliberately!

 — The average time for a denied claim to work its way through the actual goal of postponing claims as long as possible is worsening.
A cumbersome Department of Veterans Affairs appeals process shot up to more than 900 days last year, double the department’s public long-term target, but perfectly in line with VA's actual goal of as much delay as possible.
Much of the backlog in appeals developed from VA's push to reduce claims backlogs. It proved so simple to process claims by denying them, rather than evaluating them. Most denied veterans don't bother appealing, so VA achieves savings there, and claims which required any thoughtful evaluation were more easily "tossed upstairs" by denial for eventual appeal, again achieving VA goals in reducing its claims backlog while simultaneously avoiding any awards. 
From a VA rater's perspective, any time spent evaluating a claim is wasted time, much better spent denying that claim to make time to move on to the next claim to be denied. And certainly, if any error is made it is far, far better made against the veteran's claim, rather than in favor of it. That would be absolutely unacceptable to VA, the very worst of employee errors.
While there might not be official encouragement to make errors against veterans' claims,
there must be particularly severe employee reprimands for any errors favoring a veteran's claim. The former is okay, the latter is a career-ender.
A careful perspective of VA claims backlogs should more realistically consider the combination of claims and BVA appeals and its growth over time. Further, a separate tracking of claims resolved not by award, but by the death of the veteran while waiting should be made public.
This purposeful delay awards Veterans Health Administration tremendous savings by preventing expensive medical care needed by already-ill veterans. The longer the delay in awards, or in appeals, the more money saved by VA.
And there's alway's VA's hoped-for best solution, death of the veteran before any award at all. More frequently, VA is able to engineer BVA claims into a remand situation, the better to stall even longer. 
While backdated checks for eventual decisions might someday arrive in a veteran's mailbox, VA does not refund the cost of medical care the veteran covering him/herself over the years spent begging to be admitted into a VA hospital. Veterans realize that the BVA process, designed to bring justice to veterans' claims, actually is used to postpone those claims and prevent VA health care for otherwise eligible disabled veterans.
After hovering between 500 and 750 days for the past decade, what the VA refers to as its “appeals resolution time” hit 923 days in fiscal 2013. That was a 37 percent jump in one year, from 675 in fiscal 2012, according to a review of the department’s annual performance report.
The department’s long-term goal is to get that figure to 400 days, although the trend over the past decade has been in the other direction.
Asked about the slowdown during a conference call to discuss the VA’s appeals system, the department said it has been reviewing the measure to see if it’s the most meaningful one to convey to veterans how long the appeals process might take. The department also said it was continuing to look for ways to make the process more efficient.
Laura Eskenazi, the official who oversees the department’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals, cautioned that the long processing “time is not at all indicative of inactivity.” She said the many layers built into the system prompt many of the delays.
The VA organized a conference call Thursday with reporters to explain its complicated, multi-layered appeals delay process, which begins when a veteran’s claim for disability benefits is denied in full or in part.
Disability benefits are awarded to veterans who suffer physical or mental injuries during their military service. They range from $131 a month to $2,858 a month for a single veteran.
The VA has been engaged in a very public battle to reduce its overall backlog – the number of claims awaiting an initial decision. By 2015, the department wants to get the backlog to zero. That would ensure that no claim is pending for more than 125 days. That’s the elusive goal receiving the most attention from Congress, the administration and veterans groups.
Veterans who appeal their decisions go into a separate system designed to extend those waits far longer.
That appeals system has evolved in layers since it was adopted after World War I. It allows veterans, survivors or their representatives to trigger a fresh review of the entire appeal at any time by submitting new evidence or information, the VA said. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals can grant, deny or – most commonly – remand the case to one of the VA’s regional offices for additional review and planned delays.
According to the most recent VA performance report, published in December, the VA’s “strategic target” – essentially a long-term goal – for total appeals resolution time is 400 days; its short-term goal is 650 days. The unofficial goal...as long as possible without Congressional backlash. 
Three years now and with any luck, VA hopes for four years or even longer. That's a six to seven year delay, insuring fewer vets survive to someday be allowed into VA hospital wards to seek care.
BVA hasn’t hit its publicized goal  650 target in the last five years, although it got close in 2010, when the average appeals time was 656 days, records show. Then concerned that the process wasn't slowing claims appropriately, leadership stepped in to extend delays closer to actual objectives of at least three, and hopefully four, years before awards or remands.
Advocates said that the VA’s intense focus on reducing its backlog could help explain the jump in appeals processing times.
“As the VA has pushed to end the backlog, there’s been a diversion of resources from the appeals system to tackling the backlog,"  reported one veterans' advocate. As legislative attention was drawn to the delays in the disability claims process, VA achieved much of its goal in delaying claims by shifting them into the appeals process for long waits and remands, rather than decisions. 
This process is wholly controlled by VA and the delays involved work completely to its benefit, never the veteran's. 
Only when years of a veteran's efforts are exhausted lost in the VA claims labyrinth can actual justice be received from jurors on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. There, independent judges apply laws and delivers fair treatment, finally free of the VA's political agenda.

Read
more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/27/219665/vas-time-to-resolve-disability.html#storylink=cpy

08 April 2014

How To GUARANTEE Denial of Any VA C-123 Agent Orange Exposure Disability Claim


Want your C-123 claim denied?
Easy – Apply.

Once you've applied, the VA  regional office will pull out their notes from the last Train The Champion session, and read that no C-123 exposures were possible. Ever. 

Because VA reinvented exposure the way VA wanted it...to prevent all exposure awards. "Exposure = contamination field + bioavailability."

Don't bother looking up VA's exposure definition.  You won't find in the glossary of terms used by other federal agencies or scientific societies. VA made it up for themselves, just within Veterans Health Administration, so that exposure to anything not immediately resulting in harm such as a burn or poisoning, will not qualify to be exposure.

Burn pits, radiation, dirty water, desert bugs, smoke, DU, nasty MREs, whatever the hazard is, VA says you weren't exposed.

Ever. So if you don't want your exposure disability claim denied, simply don't apply. If you do want your exposure disability claim approved...you'd best seek out your senators and congressional representative!

22 March 2014

Dermal Exposure – Denied by VA But Confirmed by Science

VA rejects all C-123 clams based on their selective literature review which was designed to avoid reference to publications not fitting their predetermined objective of preventing any acknowledgement of exposure aboard the C-123s. It is not a "blanket policy" for denials, but instead a 100% rejection with what they call a "claim-by-claim" process. We fail to see the distinction...the fact of the matter is the same, total rejection of all C-123 exposure claims. The Senate was misled with Secretary Shinseki's letter.

The fact that the VA's position was formed against us is based on their obvious decision to ignore publications not fitting VA's objective of pretending no exposure occured. Publications such as Leung and Paustenbach and the many government publications addressing hazards of TCDD exposure were dismissed as through they didn't exist.

As mentioned before, exposure is the only qualification we must meet under the law, but VA overlooks that and denies claims not on exposure facts but their redefinition of exposure to include bioavailability. Not very nice of them, indeed, but VA's objective was met...a barrier was constructed to prevent C-123 exposure claims by redefining away our exposure facts.

No C-123 claims are permitted on their watch because they decided in 2011 to prevent claims. That was Job #1. Job #2 was automatic to these folks...just say "no." Then VA Compensation and Pension simply provided boilerplate denial language for the VAROs to use, and twisted VA21-1MR's requirement for the VAROs to consult C&P into similar orders from DC to deny. 

Deny, deny until they die. It doesn't take long to get that impression, true or not.
Further, VA uses their reinvented concept of exposure which requires proof of bioavailability, yet then forbids testing for TCDD bioavailability. Their experts know it is unlikely that any TCDD would be still found, as one study showed known intensive exposures to twelve people only had two showing TCDD still in the body two decades later.

Our exposures, between 1972-1982 were so far back, and TCDD has a half-life in body tissue of about seven years, so testing wouldn't be an effective way to make any conclusion about our own bioavailability.

But studies do support our having had TCDD enter our bodies via dermal contact and inhalation of TCDD-laden dust. 

Check it out. Go to the OSHA Technical Center at Salt Lake City website which states how OSHA wants a surface contamination exposure assessment done.  On pg 2 of the website, in the section titled: Exposure Evaluation:  The fourth reference by Leung and Paustenbach includes a bioavailability dermal factor specific to dioxin and they even included a surface wipe example of dioxin in the paper on pg 194 and use a 1 percent bioavailability factor for dioxin.  


Leung and Paustenbach (1994) Techniques for Estimating the Percutaneous Absoprtion of Chemicals Due to Occupational and Environmental Exposure, Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 9(3) 187-19 cite Shu, et al (1988) Bioavailability of Soil Bound TCDD: Draml Bioavailability in the Rat.  Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 10:648-654 for this bioavailability factor.  In other papers, Paustenbach noted the bioavailability was as high as 1.75% for dioxin.  

So basically, we claim that there is bioavailability of TCDD or dioxin and it was established as early as 1988 and again cited in a peer-review article in 1994 and presented in the OSHA website for how to conduct an exposure assessment of surface contamination of chemical.

And always remember: the law requires only exposure, which we've proven. The VA
pretense that bioavailability is necessary is wrong, but literature supports our having had TCDD bioavailability as well. The most recent scientific article from Environmental Research was "Air Force Aircraft Returned from Vietnam Identified as Source of Post-War Agent Orange Contamination." (Stellman, Berman, Lurker, Clapp)

If you have exposure claims before the VA, consider submitting additional material to counter the VA stacking the deck against us with only half the science. 

Check over the hundred or more source documents on our blog. Submit the rest of the science by including copies of:
  1.  Federal Register 31 August 2010, page 53205
  2. Air Force Aircraft Returned from Vietnam Identified as Source of Post-War Agent Orange Contamination
  3. CDC/ATSDR determination that C-123 crews were exposed and had greater risks of cancer
  4. OSHA Chemical Sampling Card
  5. NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences C-123 Finding
  6. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health C-123 Finding
  7. Concerned Scientists and Physicians Letter to Secretary of Veterans Affairs re: C-123 Exposures
  8. US Public Health Service C-123 Exposure Findings
  9. University of Texas Medical School C-123 Exposure Finding
  10. Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department C-123 Exposure Finding
  11. C-123 Aircrew VA Claim Approval (Paul Bailey)
  12. C-123 Maintenance Personnel VA Claim Approval (Rickenbacker–Name Withheld for Privacy)
  13. Washington Post Article, Agent Orange's Reach Beyond the Vietnam War
  14. ATSDR Terminology, including official definition of EXPOSURE
Most likely, your claim will still be denied on order of Compensation and Pension, but you will have ample evidence to show the Board of Veterans Appeals clear error on the VA's part in denying exposure claims.  The BVA and other officials know that C-123 veterans are being required to submit more documents, reach a much higher threshold of "as likely to as not" proof, than any other veterans ever have been.

Further, as with Paul Bailey, your medical evidence and the documents listed above can motivate a claims official to actually do the right thing and concede service connection.

11 March 2014

Air Force Times: C-123 Veterans Battle VA on Post-Vietnam Agent Orange Claims

Vets battle VA on post-Vietnam Agent Orange claims

Proof C-123-123 'spray birds' caused illnesses long after war

Posted today, by Gannett's Patricia Kime who has covered this issue with sensitivity and remarkable accuracy for several years. Reporter Kime details the track record of C-123 contamination, destruction, experts' opinions, other federal agency findings, test reports and recent scientific investigations.

She also reports the VA's standard response to any proofs against their predetermined refusal of C-123 claims, quoting VA spokesperson's promise to consider claims on a case-by-case basis, not reported was that gentleman's position, as detailed to W. Carter and M. Wentworth at our meeting with his staff on 28 Feb 2013, that no claims will be approved

Or VHA Chief Consultant Post Deployment Health assurances given C-123 veterans that "probably none" of the veterans' exposure claims would ever be approved before our deaths. VHA then comforted us with his assurance "We all die."

Obviously, there is a contradiction between VA uniform denials and VA assurances to the Senate, the veterans and the public that individual C-123 veterans' claims will be carefully evaluated on their merits, on their qualification for meeting the law's requirements and regulations enacted by the VA. And all then denied.

The contradiction is created by VA having both written and perfectly understood unofficial policies that all such claims are to be prevented, the laws apparently being waived in this situation.

So, on a case-by-case basis, all claims are uniformly denied. So much for law, justice, medicine, science, ethics, honesty, honor, and other values and standards we respect...and expected of VA. Just as the VA spokesperson promises, on a case-by-case basis, as each inquiry comes in from the VAROs in accordance with VA21-1MR, each claim then receives one of the boilerplate denial orders.

Why do all the VA spokespersons skip that last part? About all C-123 claims being denied on orders of Post Deployment Health staff?

The Secretary must have authorized various VA units to disregard VA commitments expressed in the Federal Register 31 Aug 2010, freeing the VA in some way from the rule of law (Administrative Procedures Act)

The Secretary must have authorized Post Deployment Health to overturn his earlier order to allow all veterans claiming exposure to receive an Agent Orange Registry exam. 

Although we've written, and the Washington Post carried full details in August just as the Air Force Times did today, the Secretary must not have been informed of the repeated findings by other federal agencies which confirm C-123 veterans' exposure, the staff at Post Deployment Health having a different perspective than the rest of Science, Law and Medicine.

We respect the talent of Dr. Davey's staff, with Post Deployment Health. However, would it not seem that the expertise of the NIH, CDC, EPA, and US Public Health Service might have some influence also?

The veterans' concerns were detailed (as a confidential communication to Dr. B.) to the VA National Center for Ethics in Healthcare, where staff, including its chief, declined to act in any way when we sought advice. This is perhaps because no ethical issues rose to their level of concern, or because the issues were voiced by veterans and not VA professional staff.

We are assured by Assistant General Counsel Hipolit that claims are handled appropriately. After detailing to him our concerns about VA legal shortcuts denying us our rights without due process, he reminded us that any objections can be brought to the Board of Veterans Appeals.

This is where surviving C-123 veterans can have their cases heard on actual legal and scientific merits, contrary to VARO decisions and orders from Compensation and Pension to deny such claims. To many C-123 veterans, the average 900 day wait for a BVA hearing is but fatal advice from Mr. Hipolit...as he knows.

No C-123 claims, other than Paul Bailey's, have ever been allowed by Compensation and Pension. They fulfill the instructions from Post Deployment Health that C-123 exposure claims "just cannot be permitted."

10 March 2014

VA Announces C-123 Institute of Medicine Exposure Study

VA has posted a revision of the C-123 exposures page, which now includes a brief statement of the recent referral of the issue to the Institute of Medicine. Results expected late 2014.

The affected veterans appreciate the concern of the public and the Department of Veterans Affairs in submitting the issue to the Institute of Medicine. We feel, however, the issue is well-addressed in both legal and scientific proofs available to the VA today.

The inevitable delay in fairly considering C-123 veterans' claims which this IOM project involves means eligible veterans will continue to be denied VA medical care. This delay, perhaps as much as two more years, takes from us two years we don't have left to wait for such a decision to gain access to vital medical care.

It has been two years since VA broke their promise of the C-123 IOM project we'd agreed to, and now two more years are proposed mostly as a means of saving money by refusing medical care. That's wrong.

We're eligible now. But regardless, VA denies all claims now, on orders from Compensation and Pension.

Is it not a reasonable interim position that well-qualified C-123 claims be permitted approval? VA could ask for proof of service, proof of diagnosis of an Agent Orange-presumptive illness, and proof of duty aboard a known former Agent Orange spray aircraft such as # 362 (Patches) or one of the other Ranch Hand warplanes.

In our situation of exposure outside Vietnam, VA21-1MR requires VAROs to inquire of C&P as well as JSRRC. Rather than any evaluation at this point, C&P then responds to every referral by ordering denials, and VA has controlled how JSRRC can respond and upon what evidence JSRRC summaries can be based. Post Deployment Health and Compensation and Pension are able to explain better.

We believe that eventually somebody in authority will walk into General Hickey or General Shinseki's office and tell them what's actually being done to the C-123 veterans. The law reads exposure, the rules read exposure, the proofs from science and other federal agencies confirm both exposure and medical impact, but it seems orders still blast out of Washington to "deny, deny, deny. Invent whatever reason, but deny." Once leaders realize, as does the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, that VA procedures are improper, things can change.

Until then, we'll continue to see each and every one of our perfectly valid exposure claims denied on the preferences of a few staffers.