22 December 2013

Colonel Jim Gallin Has Passed

Retired Air Force Colonel Jim Gallin passed away in Florida last week. His friends and colleages will long remember his outstanding service to the Nation. Jim's flying career spanned the range of AC-47s to B-52s, both of which he flew in the Vietnam War, the B-52 during Operation Linebacker.

Jim put his Master's degree to good work as the plant manager for Digital Computer for several years. At Westover with the Air Force Reserve, his duties included 337th TAS squadron commander, and 439th MAW Wing Vice Commander. Activated for Somalia, he served during that operation as Air Operations Commander. He was proud of his membership in the Order of Dadelions.

Jim was perhaps also proud of his outstanding service flying C-123Ks in Panama when the 337th pulled southern rotation. There he became known by various monikers for which no explanation will be offered here, and for his ability to run down the runway catching up with aircraft daring to leave without him...he was, after all, the aircraft commander. Jim was also appreciated by the AME, especially Suzy Harris who was able to bandage him all up as her simulated patient in a moment of particular Gallin weakness.

Jim Gallin: dedicated officer, outstanding military aviator, firm friend. Happy trails and God Bless, Jim!

Agent Orange Harmless, Claims VA Leader

Agent Orange is harmless, or so claims VA's Director of Compensation and Pension Services (C&P.)

His exact words were, "There is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects." At least, Agent Orange is harmless only so far as veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims are concerned if they reach the director's desk for prompt denial.

TCDD is the toxic contaminant in Agent Orange, or, more specifically, 2,3,4,8-Tetrachlorodibenzenzodioxin. It is a recognized human carcinogen, recognized as such by EPA, WHO and other authorities, and also by the VA! Again, quite harmful except where Agent Orange-exposed veterans' claims are concerned...pretending otherwise is merely part of VA's campaign to deny medical care to qualified veterans.

C&P's statement was part of his September 2012 order that an Agent Orange-exposed war veteran's claim be denied. The VA's Portland Regional Office had recommended approval, but C&P then directed the refusal over his signature once he was made aware of the veteran's claim.  The director of C&P was asked about his position, obviously contrary to both law and science, during a face-to-face February 2013 meeting with C-123 Association members Wes Carter and Marlene Wentworth at VA's 1800 G Street headquarters.

He and his staff seemed unaware of his action in this particular case, but did nothing then or subsequently to revise the order denying the veteran's claim. Thus, it remains the position at the Department of Veterans Affairs that Agent Orange has not been shown to cause adverse health effects...their pretense is that it is harmless.

Apparently objecting to the veteran's submitting an Agent Orange exposure claim, the diretor went so much further in his order forbidding this veteran's application. Because numerous government and university scientists provided substantial proofs of the vet's exposure situation, He directed that all input from toxicologists, chemists, epidemiologists and environmental scientists input be flatly rejected and only physician input be acceptable. This flies in the face of decisions by the 8th and 9th Circuit Courts which ruled such arbitrary dismissal of expert toxicological input illegal and unfair.

Actually, numerous physician statements of support were also included in the veteran's claim and these should have meet C&Ps requirement. These were submitted by the vet's own VA physician (Dr. Mark Garzotto, an acknowledged Agent Orange researcher and also professor of medicine at Oregon Health Sciences University), from Rear Admiral R. Ikeda (MD, USPHS) Director CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, CAPT Aubrey Miller (MD) US Public Health Service, and Professor Arnold Schecter (MD) at the University of Texas Medical School.

However, these physicians were all dismissed by simply ignoring them without comment of any sort, either in C&P's order or in the actual claim denial. By pretending their nonexistence, VA skirted the need to permit this convincing evidence to support the veteran's claim.

The determination of Compensation and Pension Service to prevent this veteran's claim was made even clearer in their mischaracterization of the C-123 Agent Orange study completed by the Air Force and release in May 2012. The VA twisted the fact, saying the Air Force concluded exposures by crewmembers were unlikely to have exceeded regulatory standards. In fact, the AF made that conclusion only for passengers, not for crew members who were in the C-123 much more over a full decade of flying. And besides, there are no published regulatory standards for dioxin exposure, because any exposure is considered harmful by regulators.

Conclusion: strictly for policy reasons alone and disregarding the 1991 Agent Orange Act, Title 38 and the Federal Register of 8 May 2001, and disproving promises by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki that all C-123 claims will be carefully considered, the VA is determined that C-123 veterans' claims will be denied regardless of proof, legal sufficiency, medical or scientific justification. At least, if C&P has any say.

VA Dental Insurance Program Now Available

For all the virtues of the Veterans Affairs health care system, its approach to dental services has caused many people to grind their teeth.
Some 8 million veterans are enrolled to receive VA medical treatment. But the only ones eligible to receive dental care from the VA are those rated 100-percent disabled, [or] with a service-connected oral condition.
“This has long been a sore spot for veterans,” said Gaston County (North Carolina) Veterans Services Director Kurt Geske, adding that only a few hundred thousand of the 8 million veterans fit that description. Delays in care of up to three years have been reported, for veterans otherwise completely eligible, and promised, such vital care. Veterans not presently qualified are completely on their own, and most cannot afford dental care.
Relief could arrive next year for many who have been left out, however, including thousands of vets in Gaston County. The VA is implementing a comprehensive national VA Dental Insurance Program to allow eligible veterans to purchase affordable dental insurance. Veterans’ beneficiaries and certain family members are also eligible.
“This new program potentially affects thousands of Gaston County residents who probably don’t have private dental insurance,” Geske said.
The VA announced the new venture last month along with Delta Dental and MetLife, which will provide the coverage via multiple plans. Covered services include diagnostic, preventative, surgical, emergency and endodontic/restorative treatment.
The enrollment period began Nov. 15 and coverage begins as soon as Jan. 1, depending on when the person applies. CLICK here for the Dental Dental brochure which compares their plans.

VA Opposed on Its "Exposure" Definition; Word Redefined By VA To Deny C-123 Veterans' Claims

The VA continues to be challenged about their in-house, policy-driven redefinition of the word "exposure," redefined by adding "bioavailability" only to prevent legitimate Agent Orange exposure claims from C-123 transport veterans.

Challenger: Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institutes of Health/National Toxicology
Program and  Director, NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:, asked about the VA redefinition of exposure:
In all my years as a toxicologist, I have never heard bioavailability as part of the exposure definition...In my opinion, "exposure" is the contact between a chemical (of any type) and the body. [June 26, 2013]" 

VA: "Exposure=contamination field+bioavailability." VA invented that illogical redefinition of exposure because the law requiring VA to care for Agent Orange-exposed veterans simply states "exposure" as the requirement.

VA and its Compensation and Pension Service, determined as always to frustrate veterans' disability claims, remade the word to their own liking so no matter how much proof the C-123 veterans might submit (touched it, drank it, bathed in it, used as a hair tonic, whatever) VA would deny any exposure having occurred.

But fundamental scientific terms can't legitimately be redefined just for  agency policy objectives – instead, we all have to play by the same rules and regulations, the same science, the same physics, the same language, the same law and rules of justice. Is the VA exempt somehow, able to invent, reinvent, redefine basics just to prevent veterans' claims?

But now, according to the Deputy Director for Post-Deployment Health, none of the C-123 veterans have been exposed. In a conversation with C-123 Chair Wes Carter, she explained that no of Vietnam War veterans had been exposed either, and probably not many of the Operation Ranch Hand spray veterans were ever exposed.

That insertion of "bioavailability" is what VA uses as their magic bullet, because VHA insists NO AGENT ORANGE VETERAN CAN EVER PROVE HIS/HER BIOAVAILABILITY event and were therefore, using the VA's new definition, were never exposed regardless of any ingestion, inhalation or dermal contact with Agent Orange.

Thus, Post-Deployment Health has directed that no C-123 veterans are even  to receive Agent Orange exams, even though VA policy is that ANY veteran believing himself/herself to have been exposed to military herbicides is entitled to an exam if requested. Again, her policy was confirmed in conversation with The C-123 Veterans Association.

Clearly, despite the Agent Orange Law of 1991, Title 38, commitments made in the Federal Register of 8 May 2001, and the requirement to be "veteran friendly," the VA is invested in preventing C-123 exposure claims and has fought hard for two years to deny us medical care and other exposure benefits.

Is this why VA's Director of VA's Compensation and Pension Services ordered C-123 veterans' claims denied on the basis that TCDD (the deadly, cancer-causing toxin in Agent Orange) "no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects." Imagine that: denying Agent Orange exposure benefits, provided for by law, by pretending Agent Orange is harmless?


Dr. Wayne Dwernychuk, retired scientist from Hatfield Consultants (a leading environmental sciences firm) was not reserved in his comments.  "Frankly, I am dumbfounded by the comment published by Mr. Tom Murphy...Either Mr. Murphy has missed the VA briefing session on the toxicity of TCDD or he genuinely has no idea of the work of the Institute of Medicine...Hundreds of eminent scientists regularly participate in the literature assessment of diseases related to exposure to TCDD...Obviously, Mr. Murphy has twisted science to prevent recognition of your valid claim for exposure to Agent Orange."

It is an amazing situation. Even the US government agencies responsible by law for these fundamental issues cannot get the VA to treat veterans correctly. VA rejected EPA confirmation. VA rejected US Public Health Service confirmation. VA rejected even the CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) which made it clear: "ATSDR concluded aircrews operating in this, and similar environments, were exposed to TCDD." VA reacted by claiming the ATSDR scientists weren't even qualified to make such determinations, even though the ATSDR has reconfirmed their finding three separate times. 

Most recently, incoming ATSDR Acting Director Rear Admiral R. Ikeda (MD, US Public Health Service) said she has reviewed and stands behind the ATSDR C-123 exposure confirmation.

Will nothing will penetrate VA's barriers against C-123 claims? One or two snuck through (I'm thinking of LtCol Paul Bailey, receiving his VA award just two months before his death) but Compensation and Pension Services put a stop to that!

"Unscientific" was the conclusion by physicians and scientists, who complained to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that Compensation and Pension Services was cheating C-123 veterans out of life-saving medical care.


21 December 2013

Another Challenge to VA Definition of "Exposure" & VA Policy of Denying C-123 Agent Orange Benefits


The authoritative Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology is recognized as the premier scientific publication dealing with toxins and their impact on humans.

As you know from reading earlier postings, VA in 2012 introduced their policy-driven and wrong-headed redefinition of "exposure" only to bar C-123 veterans from Agent Orange exposure benefits. Because the various laws specify that a non-Vietnam War veteran need only prove exposure to military herbicides for a successful claim, VA focused on creating a phony way to deny the exposure. To make it go away with semantics, even though we'd had a decade of that exposure flying the contaminated C-123 warplanes.

VA opposed us by redefining the word. They put forward the incorrect and unscientific pretense that "Exposure=Contamination Field+Bioavailability." No proof of biological impact of the substance on the body (like caffeine in coffee increasing blood pressure) the VA pretends to mean equals no exposure. 

This is scientifically wrong. The most authoritative source is the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which defines exposure as the simple contact (or ingestion or inhalation) of a contaminant with the body. Remember, the laws and regulations make clear veterans need only establish the fact of exposure...that is what the VA seeks to make impossible by creating their own in-house use for that word.

Now, a highly respected professional society, the International Society of Exposure Science, has published their official ISEA glossary. There, exposure is defined as "contact between an agent and a target." No mention of bioavailability! Not here, nor elsewhere in science is bioavailability required to acknowledge exposure, because in fact, bioavailability flows from exposure.

And this flows from experts with the US EPA, the American Chemistry Council, and Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory. Dr.Valerie Zartarian with the EPA published the glossary in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology in September 2004.

It must be clear to everyone, including VA's Veterans Health Administration and their
Post-Deployment Health Section, that VA has undertaken a policy-driven redefinition of fundamental scientific terms and done so solely to prevent C-123 exposure claims.  Post-Deployment Health has even barred C-123 veterans claiming exposure from receiving Agent Orange Registry health exams. (source: W. Carter telecon with Deputy Director VHA Post-Deployment Health)

Nowhere else in science or medicine is "exposure" redefined as the VA has done. Now, the authority of the premier professional scientific organization addressing exposure issues, and the publication by an EPA scientist here of the glossary as a juried article, means VA's approach has been trashed.

VA will still deny claims, which is the VBA's fundamental mission. The Secretary promised the Senate that all C-123 claims were to be considered individually. Perhaps so, but these claims are all 100% denied regardless of proof submitted, and denied at the direction of VA's Compensation and Pension Service which tells raters that "regulations do not permit" C-123 claims to be honored. 

However, VHA's Post-Deployment Health, which directed Compensation and Pension Services to accept their warped manipulation of the word exposure,  now stands exposed themselves for their obvious falsehoods.

20 December 2013

Nat'l Veterans Legal Services Project Guidance on Maximizing Claim Awards

CLICK for the NVLSP has an excellent guide for understanding common VA errors in assigning percentages of disability, offered here for your review.

NEVER...never think that your efforts to receive the VA disability rating for your injuries or illnesses is inappropriate or self-serving! The Nation wants its veterans' needs addressed and wants each veteran to accept the benefits as earned!

Remember, there are "magic" numbers in the VA percentages, quite apart from the financial element:

1. 20% entitles a veteran to rehabilitation training/education
2. 50% provides the full range of VA medical benefits other than dental (unless service-connected also for dental issues)
3. 100% brings the full range of VA medical benefits, including vision and dental

Also, we sometimes forget that an award of disability for Agent Orange exposure is particularly important to military retirees. This is because AO is considered an Instrumentality of War, qualifying a retiree for Combat Related Special Compensation.

Pro Bono Legal Representation Available for C-123 Agent Orange Claims

Don't do it on your own! This is a minefield of traps and disappointments, and there are professionals ready to help veterans prepare and manage disability claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The various service organizations such as VFW, DAV, American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America are chartered by Congress and offer VA-trained service officers to help any honorably discharged veteran – no membership required and services are both expert and free.

Another resource are America's law firms. Some expert firms specialize in veterans law and represent claims at the various levels of appeal, and for a regulated fee usually about 20% of the award for back-compensation. Many law firms and legal organizations also offer pro bono representation, leaving the veteran responsible only for nominal expenses. Click for a directory of pro bono resources.

Check them out...but don't do a claim on your own!

New Service Connection Conditions for TBI Injuries Added by VA

Corpsman proves valuable to team in Afghanistan
Petty Officer 3rd Class Michael Soto accompanies litter-bearers as they load an injured Marine into a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter during a medical evacuation on Jan. 30, 2012, in Garmsir, in Afghanistan's Helmand province. (Marine Corps)
  • FILED UNDER
The Veterans Affairs Department has added five medical conditions to a list of illnesses that, if they are diagnosed in a patient with a service-connected brain injury, automatically are presumed to be service-connected as well.
The new regulation, which takes effect Jan. 15, adds Parkinson’s disease, certain types of dementia, depression, unprovoked seizures or some diseases of the hypothalamus and pituitary glands to the list of conditions that, when diagnosed secondary to a brain injury, also are presumed to be related to military service.
The change will make it easier for afflicted veterans to receive disability compensation from VA for the second condition.
“We decide veterans’ disability claims based on the best science available,” Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki said Monday in a statement. “As scientific knowledge advances, VA will expand its programs to ensure veterans receive the care and benefits they’ve earned and deserve.”
Service connection will depend in part on the severity of the traumatic brain injury and onset of the illness, which will be considered secondary to the brain injury, according to VA.
Officials said the change was made based on a 2008 Institute of Medicine report that noted “sufficient evidence of an association” between the diseases and moderate to severe brain injury, and in the case of depression, mild concussions.
More than 250,000 service members suffered a TBI from 2000 to 2012, with 194,000 classified as mild — a concussion. About 42,000 suffered moderate TBI, defined as a “confused or disoriented state that lasts more than 24 hours, but less than seven days”; this level of TBI can be seen in brain images.
Another 6,476 received a severe TBI or a penetrating head wound.
Paul Sullivan, a 1991 Persian Gulf War veteran and spokesman for the law firm Bergmann & Moore, which handles disability claims, earlier this year described the then-proposed rule as “good news for veterans.
“What this does is make it easier for VA to process the claim with one less evidentiary step. And it establishes a framework for considering other conditions secondary to TBI,” Sullivan said.

Vets Die Waiting For Claim Decisions...situation worsening!


The day after Veterans Day, U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Luke Parrott walks through the rows of headstones in Section 60 where several of his friends and soldiers he served with are buried at Arlington National Cemetery November 12, 2012 in Arlington, Virginia. A veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Parrott was injured in an IED blast in Baghdad in 2005. Parrott spent time sitting and talking to the graves of the soldiers he knew. "It's as close as we can get to talking anymore," he said. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)


TAKE A NUMBER

Number of Veterans Who Die Waiting for Benefits Claims Skyrockets

Over the last three years, the number of veterans dying before their claims are processed has skyrocketed, reports Aaron Glantz of the Center for Investigative Reporting.

After seven months of delay, the Department of Veterans Affairs finally approved World War II veteran James Alderson’s pension benefits in December 2012.
But it was not a cause for celebration or relief for Alderson, whose life’s work was the farm-supply store he founded near Chico, Calif., after returning home from the Battle of the Bulge.
The 89-year-old veteran had died three months earlier in a Yuba City nursing home.
“My father was a very proud person,” Alderson’s son, Kale, said. “Whenever I saw him, he would ask if I’d heard from the V.A. and whether his money would hold up. It really took a toll on him.”
The V.A.’s inability to pay benefits to veterans before they die is increasingly common, according to data obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting. The data reveals, for the first time, that long wait times are contributing to tens of thousands of veterans being approved for disability benefits and pensions only after it is too late for the money to help them.
In the fiscal year that ended in September, the agency paid $437 million in retroactive benefits to the survivors of nearly 19,500 veterans who died waiting. The figures represent a dramatic increase from three years earlier, when the widows, parents and children of fewer than 6,400 veterans were paid $7.9 million on claims filed before their loved one’s death. 
These veterans range from World War II veterans who die of natural causes without their pensions to Iraq War veterans who commit suicide after their disability claims for post-traumatic stress disorder are denied.
The ranks of survivors waiting for these benefits also have surged, from fewer than 3,000 in December 2009 to nearly 13,000 this month.
Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, said the data confirmed the worst fears of many veterans and members of Congress.
“The common refrain we hear from many veterans is, ‘Delay, deny, wait till I die,’” said Miller, who called the burgeoning backlog of benefits claims a “national embarrassment.”
Nationwide, about 900,000 veterans and their families have been waiting about nine months for a decision on their claims, with those in America’s major urban areas waiting the longest. As of October, the most recent month for which numbers are available, the average wait time for a veteran was 15 months in Chicago, 16 months in New York and a year and a half in Los Angeles.
But in a conference call with the Center for Investigative Reporting, V.A. officials said that while the long delays generally were unacceptable, the growth in posthumous payments was not disturbing.
The ranks of survivors waiting for these benefits also have surged, from fewer than 3,000 in December 2009 to nearly 13,000 in December 2012. Now it is even worse!
“It’s a good thing that the V.A. pays benefits to honor the service of veterans and the sacrifices of their family members despite the fact that a veteran has unfortunately died,” said Dave McLenachen, director of the agency’s pension and fiduciary service.
Some veterans' advocates say the number of survivors being approved for retroactive payments represents a fraction of the veterans who die waiting because grieving families must file paperwork with the agency to keep a claim from expiring with the veteran.

“You’re just so exhausted and drained with the grief of losing a loved one that sometimes it’s hard just to wake up in the morning, let alone navigate a complicated bureaucracy,” said Bonnie Carroll, founder of the Washington-based nonprofit Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.

Delays tied to Agent Orange
In November, more than a year after Vietnam veteran John Conrad died of leukemia, the V.A. sent his widow a letter acknowledging his cancer was caused by exposure to the toxic defoliant Agent Orange.
The decision marked a reversal for the agency, which had denied Conrad’s claim for disability benefits for three years while the former Army specialist was still alive. The denials had come despite supporting medical opinions from a series of doctors, including the V.A.’s own oncologist.  
“We went through our savings and our retirement money. And then, after he died, they said they made a mistake and sent a check for $79,000,” his widow, Linda Conrad, said in an interview at her home outside Phoenix. 
By the time the V.A. reversed itself, the family home was in foreclosure. Linda Conrad, who had quit her job as a paralegal to care for her husband during his last days, found her efforts to secure a new job thwarted by the recession.
Yet, in an interview, the VA deemed John Conrad’s saga a success, because the more experienced claims processors who handled Conrad’s claim after his death had the authority to reinterpret the medical evidence.
“That’s the way it’s supposed to work,” said Brad Flohr, assistant director for policy of the V.A.’s compensation service.
V.A. officials say the agency’s changing stance on Agent Orange claims is a major catalyst for the rise in posthumous payments. In 2010, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki issued a ruling granting benefits to 158,000 Vietnam veterans who suffered from ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s disease. and two types of cancer—neither the kind of leukemia that killed John Conrad—that the agency previously had denied were caused by Agent Orange.
Officials said that decision, a response to a federal court ruling in Northern California, was responsible for about half of the payouts in 2012.
McLenachen attributed the threefold increase in the number of veterans who died awaiting disability and pension benefits to a different phenomenon: a 2008 law that streamlined the ability for survivors to petition the agency for compensation instead of forcing them to file a new claim.
That explanation doesn’t resonate with members of Congress who have been increasingly frustrated with the delays veterans face in obtaining benefits.
“It’s not plausible,” said Rep. Jerry McNerney, a California Democrat and ranking member of the House subcommittee that oversees the VA’s benefits bureaucracy. Even under the old system, McNerney said, survivors regularly filed claims for benefits that veterans had requested before they died.
Errors compound delays
Veteran advocates and family members of veterans who died waiting accuse the VA of callous indifference in denying legitimate benefits claims and deluging families with paperwork even as loved ones slip away. Chronic mistakes add to a feeling of abandonment.
A Center for Investigative Reporting analysis of 18 reports published this year by the V.A.’s inspector general revealed auditors found mistakes in more than 1 in 3 high-profile claims they reviewed. In 2011, the Board of Veterans Appeals found errors in 73 percent of cases it decided, according to the board’s annual report.
“The V.A. has a problem with errors and that lengthens the process and increases the chance that a veteran will die waiting,” said Bart Stichman, co-director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program, a Washington-based nonprofit that provides legal assistance to veterans and their families.
Iraq War veteran Scott Eiswert “gave up on life” after receiving a February 2008 letter from the V.A. denying his claim for post-traumatic stress disorder for the third time, according to his widow, Tracy Eiswert. Three months later, the 31-year-old Tennessee National Guardsman shot himself in the head.
Then, in August 2008, the VA reversed itself, sending Tracy Eiswert a letter stating that it “was clearly and unmistakably in error” for failing to grant her husband’s disability claim. The agency sent a check for more than $10,000 to cover the disability benefits Scott Eiswert should have received while he was alive. The VA also deemed his suicide related to his military service, entitling his widow to a $1,195 monthly survivor’s benefit.
“I was relieved to get the check, but if they would have done their job and given him the help he needed immediately, maybe this wouldn’t have happened,” Tracy Eiswert said.
This story was produced by the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. Learn more at cironline.org. Contact the reporter at aglantz@cironline.org.

Paralyzed Veterans Push for "Common Sense" Disability Ratings



Complex Veterans Claims Require Common Sense Approach

Posted: 12/19/2013 1:08 pm

Veterans with complex medical conditions, whose lives don't fit neatly into pre-determined templates, are often needlessly denied life-critical benefits because the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) relies far too heavily on disability checklists and rules-based calculators.
Complex medical cases demand human reasoning and judgment to achieve true accuracy. Strict adherence to rules-based algorithms and checklists has already left too many veterans shortchanged in their benefits.
Those of us at Paralyzed Veterans of America (Paralyzed Veterans) appreciate the need for speed in rating disability claims to expedite the delivery compensation and other benefits to veterans, and recognize that VA is focused on addressing the backlog in veterans' claims.
Paralyzed Veterans embraces the notion that there must be a balance between modernized processes, standardization, expertise and common sense when evaluating the needs of veterans. The needs of catastrophically injured veterans are too complex for a standard checklist. Simple yes-or-no questionnaires cannot capture all the nuances of a veteran's life and condition.
A calculator alone should not decide their fate.
VA must enable its people to be... people. VA rating specialists who determine, or rate, a veteran's level of disability and needs must be empowered to go beyond the rules-based algorithms when necessary and use common sense to make sure that America's veterans get what they were promised and have earned.
VA staff should not be required to always insist that severely or terminally ill or wounded veterans submit to additional "C&P" (Compensation and Pensions) exams when the medical record more than adequately supports the claim. For some of our most disabled and ailing veterans, waiting sometimes months to be scheduled for "just one more" test or filling out yet one more lengthy form can put unnecessary delays between them and the benefits they've earned.
For veterans with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), a painful, aggressive and debilitating neurological disease that is almost always fatal, delay of benefits can be equal to denial of benefits. When VA rules-based processes can require these veterans to complete yet another questionnaire despite strong clinical evidence -- such as being in hospice care -- when there is no time and no need to wait for a rating decision. These veterans may die before receiving any benefits -- benefits that could make their final days a bit more comfortable.
When Paralyzed Veterans' leaders recently testified on Capitol Hill, we asked VA to:
• Assign cases involving complex, severe conditions only to the most experienced raters, and empower them to make judgments and recommendations not based exclusively on rules-based calculator results
• Ensure that new raters are properly trained in the handling of severe disability claims, to increase the number of talented VA professionals who can properly handle complex cases
• Empower rating specialists to make common sense overrides, and fully implement and train them about the reasonable doubt doctrine, which requires that when the evidence for and against the claim are equally compelling, VA must resolve doubt in favor of the claimant
• Expand the "acceptable clinical evidence" option to allow VA rating specialists to gather medical information by phone instead of having veterans with severe disabilities forced to report in person for examinations.
In essence, we asked that VA staff be empowered to balance the push for more timeliness in the adjudication of claims with common sense reasoning to ensure complete accuracy, especially in the most severe and complex cases.
We are heartened to learn that some VA regional offices took note, such as in Nashville, where immediately following Paralyzed Veterans' testimony, the regional office announced that it will be implementing several important changes in the way in which it handles ALS cases:
1. Paperwork will no longer be sent offsite for scanning to process the claim (adding unnecessary time to the process).
2. VA staff will undergo intense training regarding ALS cases so they better understand the medical dynamics inherent in an ALS diagnosis.
3. VA will make a decision about the claim within three days of submission.
We applaud the initiative of the regional office in Tennessee in adopting a common sense approach to handling ALS cases and hope that all VA regional offices follow with similar policies. Let's not lose sight of those who need VA help the most. We urge VA leaders to exercise their power to make sure veterans get what they need and what they have earned.

19 December 2013

Veterans Law Firm Reaches Out to C-123 Veterans – offers toxins expertise

The Newburgh NY-based firm of Finkelstein & Partners has offered representation to C-123 veterans seeking help with VA exposure disability claims. Offering a national presence, the firm features their Veterans Services Group which has successfully dealt with exposure issues and complex issues veterans face in disability claims.

Many of Westover's C-123 veterans are from Eastern New York and Western Mass, and will find representation in Newburgh especially convenient.  Their firm has offices throughout New York and the country.

Their veterans practice team is headed by partner Nancy Morgan (an Army wife!) and interested veterans are invited to contact her associate, Christine Clemens at 1-800-634-1212 ext. 5112.

As with all veterans law firms, attorney fees are awarded only upon successful results, and based only on past money due a veteran, not potential or awarded future compensation.

18 December 2013

Yale Law School Veterans' Law Clinic Report: C-123 Veterans Fully Qualified For VA Claims!


Earlier this year, The C-123 Veterans Association was referred by Connecticut's Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Linda Schwartz (now with the VA) to the Yale University School of Law, which maintains a veterans law clinic (their "Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization") under Dean Michael Wishnie. Dean Wishnie, functioning as the Supervising Attorney, has provided an extremely detailed pro bono analysis of the C-123 exposure issue and has formed an expert opinion as to the eligibility of C-123 veterans for VA Agent Orange claims.

Here is their executive summary, which is expertly supported with a fourteen page brief:

Dear Major Carter,
 On behalf of the C-123 Veterans’ Association, you have asked us to consider whether existing medical and scientific evidence  satisfies the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs (“VA”) legal standard for “actual exposure” to herbicide agents such that veterans who served on C-123 aircraft , which were used to spray Agent Orange and other tactical herbicides in Vietnam, are eligible for presumptive service connection for disability compensation benefits.  We are pleased to provide our legal opinion on this question.
 We conclude that existing evidence indicates that C-123 veterans satisfy the legal standard for “actual exposure” to tactical herbicides.  These veterans are thus entitled to presumptive service connection for listed diseases.  Because those veterans who served on C -123 aircraft can prove actual exposure  [via USAF Form 5s, flight orders, and other military documentation specific to both airplane type and "tail number,'] by law and regulation they need not demonstrate that they served in the Republic of Vietnam, nor are they required to present evidence bearing on “bioavailability” of herbicides, the duration or magnitude of their exposure, or any other criteria.  Under existing scientific and medical evidence, service on C-123 aircraft used to spray Agent Orange satisfies the VA’s standard for actual exposure to herbicides. Thus, veterans who served on such aircraft and who have a disease listed as service-connected for exposure to tactical herbicides are entitled to disability benefits on that basis.  In addition, like all veterans, C-123 veterans are eligible to seek benefits even for non-listed diseases, if the veteran can establish a medical nexus between the disease and the herbicide exposure. 

And here is the brief's conclusion:


Conclusion
 For the reasons stated above, C-123 veterans are entitled to service connection for listed diseases, because the available scientific and lay evidence demonstrates that veterans were “actually exposed” to tactical herbicides.  Veterans also remain eligible to seek benefits for non-listed diseases if the veteran can establish a medical nexus between the disease and the herbicide exposure. 

It is the plan of the Association to make the Yale brief available to all interested veterans. Yale will post it on their web site, and interested attorneys and VSOs can use the brief to hit hard on the legal justification for our exposure claims. Important: the brief can stand alone, but will do better through the initial disability claim if supported by Form 5s, flight orders, and other documentation available from the C-123 Veterans Association web site.

Dean Michael Wishnie
When using the brief, please make no changes, and please credit Dean Wishnie and his dedicated  team of Lora Johns, Daniella Rohr and Stephen Seigel! They were superb and they cared about us!