Archive

Author Archive

2013 Disability Compensation Rates

March 12th, 2013

VA’s disability compensation rates for 2013 include a 1.7 cost of living increase. You can see the 2013 table here – http://benefits.va.gov/COMPENSATION/resources_comp01.asp

One of the issues that is currently being discussed in the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee is the impact of the proposal for a “chained CPI” index to be used in calculating benefits. This is likely to result in a cut in benefits for those receiving VA disability, as well as for Social Security recipients. Veterans’ organizations have testified recently before joint sessions on the Senate and the House Veterans’s Affairs committees on the impact of this proposal, and Senate Committee Chairman Bernie Saunders has indicated concern about this proposal.

Press releases about the testimony of veterans’ organizations can be found here:
http://veterans.senate.gov/press-releases.cfm?action=release.display&release_id=817d03fa-56a3-4457-bd3f-1d7dac3ea72e

http://veterans.senate.gov/press-releases.cfm?action=release.display&release_id=cb65dea1-e38d-4533-8088-dfd4f1a47b2f

Sandra W Wischow FAQs, Veterans Benefits Claims, Veterans Benefits Legislation , , , , ,

From Military to Manufacturing

October 23rd, 2012

A number of corporations, including GE, Alcoa, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin have joined in a new coalition to train veterans for jobs in advanced manufacturing technologies. The coalition will focus on assisting veterans and employers to translate military skills to advanced manufacturing jobs and on empowering employers to recruit and mentor veterans. The initial program is designed to help 15,000 veterans gain the necessary skills for careers in the advanced manufacturing sector, but the coalition is seeking additional partners to meet its goal of reaching 100,000 veterans by 2015.

For more information about this program, go to http://www.genewscenter.com/News/GE-MANUFACTURING-INSTITUTE-ALCOA-INC-BOEING-and-LOCKHEED-MARTIN-LAUNCH-COALITION-TO-TRAIN-U-S-VETERANS-FOR-JOBS-IN-ADVANCED-MANUFACTURING-3bbd.aspx

Sandra W Wischow Uncategorized , ,

Senate confirms two new judges for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

May 29th, 2012

On May 24, 2012, the Senate confirmed two new judges for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Court has three vacancies and the addition of two new judges to fill two of those vacancies will be a welcome development.

The two new judges are Margaret Bartley and Coral Wong Pietsch.

Judge Bartley was previously senior staff attorney at the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) and also Director of Outreach and Education for the
Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program, where she served since 2005. She also served as Editor of The Veterans Advocate® where she had previously worked as Assistant Editor and contributing writer. She represented veterans and their dependents and survivors before the CAVC and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals from 1995. Following law school, she served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Jonathan R.Steinberg, formerly of the CAVC. She holds a B.A. from Pennsylvania State University and a J.D. from American University Washington College of Law.

Judge Pietsch retired from the Army in 2007 as a brigadier general after having served inthe Judge Advocate General Corps since 1974. Since her retirement, she has been living in Hawaii, where she has worked as a civilian attorney for the Army. She has also served on the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. She was the first woman general in the 228-year history of the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps and the first Asian-American woman to hold the rank of brigadier general in the Army, promoted to brigadier general while a member of the U.S. Army Reserve. She holds a B.A. from the College of St. Teresa, an M.A. from Marquette University, and a J.D. from the Catholic University of America.

Sandra W Wischow FAQs, Veterans Benefits Claims , ,

Should I just withdraw my claim and start over?

January 18th, 2012

We hear from many of our clients that they have been advised to just withdraw their claims and file new claims, rather than submit additional evidence in support of the pending claim.  Is this a good idea? 

Absolutely not!

This often comes up when you have a claim with missing evidence – let’s say you had a back injury in service and you have a back disability now, but you didn’t have any medical opinion saying that your current back disability is related to your injury in service (a “nexus opinion”).  You filed the claim in 2008 and it’s been at the Regional Office since then.

You talk to a doctor who tells you that he does think there’s a relationship between the two, and he writes you an opinion, explaining why he believes that there is a relationship.  The best thing to do is to submit that opinion to the Regional Office (be sure to keep a copy and to either take it in person or send it certified mail!)

Someone tells you, “Oh, no, things will happen much faster if you withdraw your claim, then submit a new one with all the evidence.”  Here’s the problem – if you do that and are then granted benefits, your claim would be effective as of the date you filed your new claim, not the date you filed your original claim.  So, you could lose as much as 4 years of back benefit payments if you do this.

Under the law, the “effective date” of a claim is generally the later of the day the claim arose (say, when you developed your current back disability) or the date VA received your claim.  If you withdraw the claim filed in 2008 and file a new claim to reopen with your new evidence in 2012, the effective date of your claim will be 2012, not 2008.

The bottom line – it’s always better to continue an ongoing claim when you obtain new evidence than to withdraw the claim and start over.

Sandra W Wischow FAQs, Veterans Benefits Claims , , , ,

VA Study Shows Link Between Kidney Cancer and Agent Orange Exposure

May 16th, 2011

Even if a particular condition is not on VA’s “presumptive list” as a condition caused by Agent Orange exposure, a veteran can present medical evidence to show that his or her individual condition is “as likely as not” related to that exposure.

A new VA study suggests a link between Agent Orange exposure and kidney cancer, a condition that is not on VA’s “presumptive list.” While this is a limited study, this type of evidence may be helpful in establishing that this exposure is “as likely as not” related to kidney cancer, and can provide support for an opinion by your doctor that the two are related.

For more about the study, see http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2011/05/14/agent-orange-linked-to-kidney-cancer-study

Sandra W Wischow Agent Orange, Veterans Benefits Claims , ,

Service Connection for Agent Orange Related Conditions

April 21st, 2011

Under VA regulations, a veteran who was exposed to herbicides in service and develops a disease which is listed on the “presumptive list” is presumed to have developed the disease because of his or her exposure to herbicides. For a list of these conditions, see http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/diseases.asp.
Generally, VA refers to this as exposure to Agent Orange, although there were also other herbicides used with different names. If your condition is on the list, establishing service connection is a relatively straightforward process.

Suppose your condition is not on the presumptive list? Unfortunately, VA will often deny service connection, without much more explanation than that the disability is not included on the presumptive list. While the Regional Office may stop there, that may not be the end of your claim and you should not necessarily accept this as a final answer.

In a case called Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed.Cir. 1994), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals determined that even if a particular condition was not included on the presumptive list for radiation exposure, the veteran could still establish service connection independently – that is, by submitting evidence that his or her disability was as likely as not related to radiation exposure in service. This rule has also been applied to claims involving Agent Orange.

So, let’s suppose you served in Vietnam. You are presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange, so an “event in service” is established. If you now have one of the diseases on the presumptive list (for example, prostate cancer or diabetes), service connection is relatively simple to establish.

Suppose that instead you have one of the forms of leukemia that is not listed on the presumptive list, such as CML or AML? You can still establish service connection with a medical opinion that the leukemia was “as likely as not” caused by your exposure to Agent Orange. This is certainly a more difficult process than establishing service connection for a presumptive condition, but it can be done.

Bottom line? If your claim is denied because your condition is not on the presumptive list, but there is medical evidence of a link between your condition and Agent Orange, you should file a notice of disagreement and continue to pursue your claim.

The missing element in your claim is nexus – a connection between exposure to Agent Orange and your current illness. You’ll need a medical opinion to establish this connection, so you should discuss this with your doctor. It will help him or her if you do some research yourself – check the literature, to see if you can find any studies linking your condition to Agent Orange, or, more generally, to dioxin. If you provide study data to your doctor, he or she will be better able to provide a solid opinion linking your condition to Agent Orange exposure.

A second thing to look at is whether there is medical evidence linking your condition to benzene. Agent Orange was typically mixed with diesel fuel to distribute it, so exposure to Agent Orange generally would include exposure to benzene. There is also a chemical link between dioxin and benzene. So, don’t limit your research to dioxin – look for medical evidence linking your condition to benzene as well.

Presumptive service connection is not the only way to establish service connection for conditions caused by Agent Orange exposure. You’ll have a harder time establishing the connection for conditions that are not on the presumptive list, but with a strong medical opinion and supporting medical literature, it can be done.

Sandra W Wischow Agent Orange, Veterans Benefits Claims , , , , , ,

Does VA’s new proposed PTSD rule mean that I don’t need corroboration for my PTSD stressor?

July 14th, 2010

UPDATE

The proposed new PTSD regulations are now in effect. The text of the regulations can be found at http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=K23HwW/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve

VA’s fact sheet about the changes can be found at http://www.va.gov/PTSD_QA.pdf

Keep in mind that this does not entirely remove the requirement that PTSD stressors be corroborated – only in specified circumstances, involving situations of hostile military or terrorist activity. The asserted stressor must be consistent with the conditions of the veteran’s service. The new rules also require that a VA examiner give the opinion that the assereted stressor would be sufficient to cause PTSD.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS AUGUST 2009
VA has proposed a change to the PTSD regulations that will eliminate the requirement that a stressor be corroborated if it arises out of “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity.” There will also be a requirement that a VA psychiatrist or psychologist give an opinion that the stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran’s symptoms are related to that claimed stressor.

If these conditions are met, the veteran will not have to provide additional evidence to show that the stressor occurred, as long as the stressor is consistent with the places, types and circumstances of the veteran’s service, and as long as there is not clear and convincing evidence that the stressor did not take place.

The PTSD regulations already provided that no additional evidence was necessary if it was a combat-related stressor and the veteran served in combat.

What does this mean in practical effect? If you served in an area where there was “hostile military or terrorist activity” taking place, you no longer have to prove that you were “in combat.” Many times, the combat requirement was used to require additional evidence if the veteran served in a combat area, such as Vietnam or Iraq, but did not have a “combat” MOS. If your official MOS was, let’s say, “aircraft mechanic,” it could be very difficult to convince VA that your stressors were combat related and that you served in combat.

Under the proposed new regulation, VA is now recognizing that other stressors, such as “constant vigilance against unexpected attack, the absence of a defined front line, the difficulty of distinguishing enemy combatants from civilians, [and] the ubiquity of improvised explosive device” are characteristic of “deployment to a war zone,” regardless of whether you were directly serving in a combat role.

It’s important to understand what this doesn’t change – additional evidence will still be required to show that a stressor occurred, if it didn’t take place in a war zone and was not related to “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity.”

The proposed rule, along with VA’s explanation of the rule, can be found at

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=207646362677+5+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Sandra W Wischow PTSD, Veterans Benefits Claims ,

President Obama to sign the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010

May 5th, 2010

President Obama is scheduled to sign the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 today, May 5, 2010.

The law addresses a number of issues related to veterans’ health care, including assistance to family caregivers of disabled veterans, expanded health care services for women veterans, greater outreach to rural veterans, and enhancements to VA medical services.

For additional information about the bill, including the full text and a summary, visit http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1963.

Sandra W Wischow Veterans Benefits Claims, veterans health care , ,

60 Minutes

January 5th, 2010

If you missed the 60 Minutes segment on VA disability claims processing, you can watch it online, at cbs.com.
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/

Sandra W Wischow Veterans Benefits Claims ,

VA on 60 Minutes

January 1st, 2010

On Sunday, January 3, at 7 PM, 60 Minutes will run a segment on delays at the VA in claims processing, titled “Delay, Deny and Hope That I Die.” You can see a preview of the segment at the CBS website, http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

Sandra W Wischow Veterans Benefits Claims ,