In a hearing before the SCOTUS yesterday in oral arguments in Astrue v. Ratliff Justice Roberts was shocked to hear that more than 60% of veterans cases based on: In litigating with veterans, the government more often than not takes a position that is substantially unjustified
This is not surprsing to veterans, we have known this for decades, but due to the rules of the VA most veterans never get near a federal court in regards to their veterans compensation claims. In fact many claims are quit in the very beginning when the veterans gets told NO by the VA Regional office (VARO) and the veterans never appeal the denial to the Board of Veteran Appeals (BVA), let alone appeal the denials of the B|VA to the Cort of Veteran Appeals (COVA), where you really do need a lawyer to argue your case. Before 2007 veterans were not even allowed to use an attorney in the appeals process before they even reached the COVA hearing. In July 2007 the VA changed the rules to allow veterans or their widows to obtain legal representation after an original denial at the VARO level, we can NOW hire a lawyer and they can charge no more than 20% of the back pay, which is better than the 25% lawyers can charge for Social Security claims.
In this article in the blog of the Legal Times posted today Feb 24, 2010.
When Assistant to the Solicitor General Anthony Yang got up for his rebuttal in the case, Roberts interrupted him and the exchange went like this:
ROBERTS: Counsel do you -- do you dispute your friend's statement that 42 percent of the time in Social Security cases the government's position is unjustified, and 70 percent of the time in veterans' cases?
YANG: Well, I think that reflects the stakes often, Your Honor. Oftentimes the government does not contest, for instance, the $2,000 EAJA award and because it's the government, has to -
ROBERTS: So whenever it really makes a difference, 70 percent of the time the government's position is substantially unjustified?
YANG: In cases in the VA context , the number's not quite that large, but is a substantial number of cases at the court of appeals -
ROBERTS: What number would you accept?
YANG: It was, I believe in the order of either 50 or maybe slightly more than 50 percent. It might be 60. But the number is substantial that you get a reversal, and in almost all of those cases EAJA -
ROBERTS: Well that's really startling, isn't it? In litigating with veterans, the government more often than not takes a position that is substantially unjustified?
YANG: It is an unfortunate number, Your Honor. And it is -- it's accurate.
What is startling to me that is the governments own lawyer willingly admits to sticking it to this nations veterans, just because they can.
There is no justification for doing it, just because the VA wants to, WHY?
Why isn;t the President, the Secretary of the VA, or Congress doing the oversight on this issue, they are required by law to do? Is it acceptable for this nations government to use lawyers to abuse the laws to prevent disabled veterans or their widows from collecting compensation that is due to them for becoming disabled while on active duty serving the citizens of this nation?
Is this what we expect from our elected leaders? I don't think so,I am glad to see that even Justice Roberts is appalled by this, now will Congress be "shocked", and what will our Congressmen and Senators do about this mess?