Skip to main content

In a highly rated diary today Obama Administration to Cover PTSD for ALL Veterans  written by dansac. They showed how thru a NY Times article that the VA Secretary General Shinseki has added a new regulation making it easier for veterans to file claims for PTSD caused by combat but where it is hard to find documentation of the incident thru Army records that verify the veteran was actually at the scene of the incident and that their life was in danger.

Now basically if the veteran was in a war zone, or a hazardous duty area and they get a Veterans Administration doctor or mental health professional to diagnose them with PTSD then their claim should be approved. The only thing that has most veteran service officers upset is that the VA will not recognize diagnosis made by civilian doctors the veterans have to be seen and diagnosed by VA personnel only.

Which in most cases would seem reasonable, except for the other rule changes that General Shinseki is trying to push thru at this same time as a way of supposedly making it easier for veterans to obtain benefits and quicker decisions on these claims.

In reality it will stymie the veterans ability to use lawyers and make it easier for the VA Regional offices to deny claims without fully explaining in detail why the claim was denied. This will truly be a Catch 22 with Catch 22's wrote into them.

From this VA article we learn of the Secretary's new desired rules for "Veterans Benefit Programs Improvement Act of 2010."

as Larry Scott puts it  

"Getting rid of the primary basis of appeals and running off the lawyers will surely allow VA to get rid of all those pesky claims on remand."

While there are some excellent ideas in the proposed legislation, we must raise a red flag!

Analysis (below) is provided by an attorney who practices veterans' law.


Two biggies affecting legal representation of veterans in the Secretary's proposed legislation.

  1. They do away with reasons and bases for Board decisions - only "plausible" basis required.  Translation, almost no Board decision could/would be overturnable at the Veterans Court.
  1. They change the EAJA prevailing party definition to be limited to cases where the claim ultimately results in a monetary benefit.  Translation, even if we have to pay we won't have to do it for years or decades.  Not to mention that if the claimant dies and no award is ever made, VA will save both the benefit payment and the legal fee.  

What lawyer is going to work for months or years on an appeal, then wait more years or decades for a rating decision to get paid EAJA which is immediately offset against the award???  0, nada, none.  

If either of these sections get into law - Game over.  

Secretary said he would get rid of the backlog - this should do it.  Getting rid of the primary basis of appeals and running off the lawyers will surely allow VA to get rid of all those pesky claims on remand.

The proposed legislation addressed to  VP Biden and Congressional Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi

It is hard to tell at times where Secretary Shinseki is coming from, either from the side of veterans, or the side of the Potomac two step  you know where it makes them seem like they are helping while at the same time tying up the system to make it even harder for the average citizen to get the government benefits they are entitled to.

I am always hopeful that veterans are going to get the benefits they deserve, but after more than a decade of dealing with them, I have this cynical side in me  maybe it is the 6 feet of paperwork I have in dealing with their denials and appeals that lasted nine years.

Originally posted to testvet6778 on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:24 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site