Official Calls Wounded Warriors Report ‘Unrepresentative’

Official Calls Wounded Warriors Report ‘Unrepresentative’

By John J. Kruzel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 26, 2010 – The focus of a New York Times article depicting neglect and suffering endured by a group of wounded soldiers recovering in an Army program is unrepresentative of the recovery effort at large, the Army surgeon general said today.Video

Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Eric B. Schoomaker stopped short of calling the article that appeared yesterday inaccurate, but said the overwhelming majority of soldiers in warrior transition units are satisfied with the recovery regimen, according to an Army survey.

“I don't see them as necessarily crafting fiction,” Schoomaker said to Pentagon reporters about the article. “But I do believe that it is wholly unrepresentative of the totality and the context of what we’ve done for warrior care, especially in the last three years.”

Overall, 81 percent of participating soldiers are satisfied with the program, and about 90 percent of wounded soldiers recovering at Fort Carson, Colo. -- the focal point of the New York Times article -- are satisfied with their warrior transition unit according to the survey, Schoomaker said.

These figures paint a picture in stark contrast to the New York Times report, which the paper said was based on interviews with more than a dozen soldiers and health care professionals from Fort Carson’s transition unit and reports from other Army posts. The article states that warrior transition units have become “warehouses of despair” for many soldiers.

The Army surgeon general took umbrage at this portrayal of warrior transition units -- which are responsible for some 9,300 soldiers -- calling it “a poor characterization” and “almost 180 degrees of the truth.”

Schoomaker was asked specifically to comment on the report’s description of the units as “warehouses of despair, where damaged men and women are kept out of sight, fed a diet of powerful prescription pills and treated harshly by noncommissioned officers.”

“Of all of the descriptions in there, with the exception perhaps of the suffering that individual soldiers and families have had,” he said, “that sentence alone is among the most offensive to us. And I think it wholly describes a situation that we feel is not present.

“We welcome you and any member of the press to go out and physically visit warrior transition units,” he continued, “to talk with those soldiers, to talk with their cadre and to see the larger context of how care is being delivered.”

The article raised concerns about the over-prescription of drugs by doctors and the abuse or misuse of both prescribed and illicit substances. A military official told reporters that 78 incidents of illegal drug use have been recorded at the Fort Carson warrior transition unit since 2008.

“We have concerns about the diversion of prescription drugs that can be used for recreational uses, just as in the nation at large,” Schoomaker said. “That's a big problem right now across the country. We’re also concerned because illegally obtained drugs can be used as complements to these other drugs.”

Schoomaker said an inspection of warrior transition units by the Army inspector general will be completed soon, and Army Brig. Gen. Gary Cheek, commander of Warrior Transition Command, is slated to visit Fort Carson to review policies and practices of their warrior transition unit later this week.

“With 9,300 soldiers currently in the program, we don't always get it right,” Schoomaker said. “To that end, we take every criticism and concern seriously and continuously strive to improve our program.”

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Warrior Transition Units were created with the purest of goals when they came into being, it was because the old "medical holding companies" of the past just were not doing a job of maintaining control over the ever growing number of wounded veterans filling the nations military hospitals that were not bad enough to still be hospitalized but not well enough to return to their units. Most will be given medical discharges due to PTSD and or amputations or other significant wounds. The majority of these soldiers are on so much medication that actually showing up for formations atregular times can be more than should be expected. Many are "zombies" from the narcotics the hospitals are giving them, or anxiety medications, etc, many of them are walking pharmacies, hardly capable of doing "work" of any meaningful type, yet the chain of command are writing these soldiers up for missing formations, reducing their ranks, taking away part of their paychecks and by the time many of their medical discharges are ready to be processed these soldiers have found themselves in so much disciplinary problems that instead of getting a medical discharge they are being thrown out of the Army on bad conduct discharges and finding themsleves owing the military thousands of dollars in over payments of enlistment or re-enlistment bonuses, which makes the depression even worse.

Last week they were hero's this week they are zero's and owe the Army they served honorably at war. Yes there is a requirement for discipline even for soldiers in medical treatment for war injuries but throwing a wounded soldier out of the Army with no medical benefits and a bad discharge which will now prevent them from getting even the basic care at the Veterans administration or being able to file for veterans compensation for their injuries, you have some very depressed veterans left kicked to the curb. There needs to be a lot more leeway given to these type of soldiers, they are not infantry troops training to go to war, they have been there and injured now they need help and compassion not to go thru a version of hospital boot camp and see who survives with all the stripes they arrived with.

Sphere: Related Content

VA refuses to make ASST Sec Tammy Duckworth available

The text of Mitchell’s letter to Shinseki is below:





April 23, 2010



Honorable Eric K. Shinseki

Secretary

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420



Dear Secretary Shinseki:



I am concerned about what appears to be an emerging pattern of non-compliance by the Department of Veterans Affairs with recent Subcommittee requests for witnesses and information. Most recently and notably, I am concerned about the Department’s refusal to comply with our Subcommittee’s request to produce Undersecretary for Health, Dr. Robert Petzel, and Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, L. Tammy Duckworth, to testify before our oversight hearing, Examining the Progress of Suicide Prevention Outreach Efforts at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, that had originally been scheduled for April 28, 2010.

As you may be aware, on April 23, 2010, an Army Times article reported that there is troubling new data showing that there is an average of 950 suicide attempts each month by veterans who are receiving some type of treatment from the VA.[1] The subject of the hearing was to be outreach to all veterans – many of whom are not being treated by the VA – who have committed or attempted suicide.

As you know, our Subcommittee has long believed that the epidemic of veteran suicides, and the VA’s outreach efforts to veterans at risk are of paramount concern, and has held numerous oversight hearings on the subject.[2]

On Wednesday, April 21, 2010, we were told by Assistant Secretary of Congressional and Legislative Affairs that the Undersecretary for Health, Dr. Robert Petzel, and Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, L. Tammy Duckworth, would not be complying with our request.

Our Subcommittee has an obligation, on behalf of our nation’s veterans, to examine the VA’s efforts to address this problem. We cannot, however, conduct our work without access to appropriate witnesses and appropriate information from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is one of the reasons why our Committee is vested with subpoena power. [3]

I urge you to reconsider the Department’s response, and to produce the requested witnesses.

This most recent exchange follows the Department’s decision not to produce Deputy Secretary Gould to testify at the Subcommittee’s hearing on February 25, 2010, entitled Gulf War Illness: The Future for Dissatisfied Veterans. My first request was on October 26, 2009. Again on November 3, 2009, I reiterated the importance of having top leadership who can speak with necessary authority at the hearing. In my third letter, dated January 22, 2010, I stated my position yet again on the importance of Deputy Secretary Gould attending the hearing as a witness.

Instead, on February 18, 2010 we were informed that the Department would not comply with my request and had unilaterally decided to send Chief of Staff, John Gingrich, as a replacement.

As I am sure you are aware, Congress determines who testifies at hearings – not the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Moreover, I am also concerned that the VA has yet to return questions from our Subcommittee’s Acquisition Deficiencies hearing on December 16, 2009. Responses were originally due on February 23, 2010. We granted an extension until March 2, 2010. To date, however, we have yet to receive the VA’s response.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time I’ve expressed my concerns regarding requests going unanswered or unreasonably delayed.

Additionally, as Chairman, I have received complaints from other Members of Congress that their requests for information from the Department are going unanswered or unreasonably delayed. Based on our Subcommittee’s recent experience with the Department, I am hardly in a position to dispute them. I am concerned that perhaps what we are experiencing is a cultural problem stemming from a disregard for Congressional prerogatives evident through refusals to send specific requested personnel or waiting until the last minute to inform us they are unavailable, and not responding to the specific requests made through this Subcommittee.

The power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. The Supreme Court had held that this power is broad.[4] It encompasses inquires concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statues. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.[5] Congress does not take this power lightly. As the Court has stated, it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.

Because this tremendous power is trusted by the Constitution to Congress, it is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action.[6] The Supreme Court makes clear the duty of all citizens, and agency officials, that it is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation.[7]

I ask that the VA share the same unswerving commitment that I know you do, and be rededicated to a teamwork approach. The American public and veterans demand accountability from the VA through their elected representatives.

I urge you to ensure that the Department responds to all Congressional requests in timely and forthcoming manner. Our veterans deserve nothing less than full accountability and transparency. In this effort, you have my support.



Sincerely,







HARRY E. MITCHELL

Chairman,

Subcommittee on Oversight

and Investigations





1 Rick Maze, 18 Veterans Commit Suicide Each Day, Army Times, April 23, 2010 (visited on Apr. 23, 2010) < http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/military_veterans_suicide_042210w/>.

2 Media Outreach to Veterans, Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations of the House Vet. Aff. Comm., 110th Cong (2007); Media Outreach to Veterans: an Update, Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations of the House Vet. Aff. Comm., 110th Cong. (2008).

3 Rules of the House of Representatives, Subpoena power, Rule XI (m)(1)(B), (m)(3)(A)(i), (m)(3)(C); See Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187-8, 200-1 (1957); See also U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 11 F,Supp.2d 76, 86 (D.D.C.1998) (“[I]t [is] well established that a legislative body suffers a redressable injury when that body cannot receive information necessary to carry out its constitutional responsibilities. This right to receive information arises primarily in subpoena enforcement cases, where a house of Congress or a congressional committee seeks to compel information in aid of its legislative function.”).

4 Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187-88, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 (1957).

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id. See also Committee on the Judiciary v. Harriet Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The last time I looked Congress has the wallet or checkbook that funds the VA and they have oversight responsibility, which means that the VA must make their executives or anyone else employed by them available to the House or Senate Committees that want to question them under oath at hearings, it is part of their jobs. The federal agencies can't say no we are not going to comply or no we ain't coming to your hearings, they must be held accountable if they are defying Congress with the blessing of the Secretary of the VA's approval then he must answer to Congress on why he won't make these officials available and on what authority does he base this on? Executive privilege does not extend to people this far down the list from the President, we are a nation of laws, and we can not have federal employees deciding that they just are not going to comply with Congress, if necessary these individuals either show up at the hearings or be fired it's that simple, they are public employees, some who have been selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but they are still accountable, to us the taxpayers, and given the fact that the subject of these hearings is about suicides of this nations veterans, it is appalling that the VA would refuse to help get to the bottom of the problem. Maybe they don't have the answers but they should not be the road block to trying to find better solutions to a problem that is harming this nations veterans and their families, suicide has no winners, only pain is left in the wake of each and every suicide.

Sphere: Related Content

Can the Peace Drug Help Clean Up the War Mess?

Can the Peace Drug Help Clean Up the War Mess?

SAN JOSE, California—Michael Bledsoe's story begins like that of many other Iraqi war veterans. In 2007, he was chasing insurgents through Anbar province when a roadside bomb exploded, breaking Bledsoe's back and both his feet. A former Army Ranger working as a security contractor, Bledsoe soon knew his high-paying military career was over.

Back home, Bledsoe (not his real name) felt angry almost constantly. Nightmares haunted him. He withdrew and became isolated. "It was a serious sense of loss," he says. His psychiatrist quickly diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Despite months of talk therapy, the nightmares continued, and Bledsoe grew desperate. Then "something almost miraculous" happened, he says. An online search brought him to a unique study of the banned drug MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), well known as the street drug ecstasy. The 21-patient study, sponsored by the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), launched in 2004 as the first U.S. clinical trial of a psychedelic drug in 35 years.

After several bond-building sessions with psychiatrist and study leader Michael Mithoefer and a co-therapist, Bledsoe swallowed a white tablet, donned eyeshades and reclined in Mithoefer's comfortable Charleston, S.C., office. Over the next eight hours, Bledsoe revisited the explosion and recounted the trauma to Mithoefer. After two more MDMA-assisted psychotherapy sessions, Bledsoe says his PTSD symptoms were "completely eliminated."

This weekend at a MAPS-sponsored meeting here, Mithoefer reported similar results for nearly all of the trial's participants. After two or three MDMA sessions, patients who received MDMA experienced huge drops in symptoms as measured by a standard PTSD scale. At baseline, study patients had an average Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) score of 79, but after MDMA-assisted therapy, CAPS scores dropped to 23.4 in the 13-person MDMA group, whereas an eight-person placebo group averaged a score of 60. (Later, seven of eight placebo patients chose to receive MDMA as well.)

The improvements appeared to endure, Mithoefer reported. After an average of 3.5 years, 13 of 16 patients remaining in contact with the researchers no longer met the criteria for PTSD. However, two of the patients "clearly relapsed," Mithoefer says. In addition, many of the patients returned to using antidepressants and other psychoactive medications, though the total number of prescriptions in the group was much lower than before.

Julie Holland, a psychiatrist in New York City who used to work at the James J. Peters VA Medical Center in the Bronx, says the data "look really great. It's amazing that when patients are done with therapy, they don't meet criteria for PTSD. I've never even seen that. It's a very big deal." If MDMA were legal, Holland added, she would "absolutely" use it in her practice.

Brain-imaging studies in healthy volunteers show that MDMA quiets the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that some researchers call a “fear center” due to its central role in triggering strong negative emotions. MDMA also releases a flood of the brain messengers serotonin and dopamine while increasing blood levels of the hormones oxytocin and prolactin, which promote social bonding. This potent mix diminishes fear and defensiveness and boosts empathy and the desire to connect with others, says Holland, so “the therapy work goes faster and deeper.”

Veterans suffer very high rates of PTSD, according to surveys. One 2004 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that up to 18 percent of Iraqi and Afghanistan combat veterans experience the disorder. "This is our way of trying to contribute to our moral obligations to our veterans," says MAPS founder and executive director Rick Doblin. He added that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has rejected overtures from MAPS to work together on five separate occasions.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been friendlier to the group. This month, the agency granted MAPS permission to continue testing MDMA in 16 additional veterans with PTSD. But the road to full FDA approval is long and expensive, and Doblin anticipates five to 10 years of additional trials. He envisions eventually building a network of psychedelic therapy centers.

A dedicated network of therapists experimented with MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in the 1970s and 1980s before the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration banned the drug in 1985. The next year, Doblin launched MAPS to revive psychedelic research, a movement that's now gaining steam. A dozen human studies of MDMA, LSD, a powerful African drug called ibogaine and psilocybin, from so-called "magic mushrooms," are now under way, testing the once-stigmatized drugs as treatments for not only PTSD, but also cluster headaches and addiction, as well as anxiety and depression in cancer patients.

Charles Grob, a psychiatrist at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, dosed 12 end-stage cancer patients with psilocybin to test whether the experience could ease anxiety and help the patients cope with their diagnosis. Grob did not present his data, which are under review for publication, at the San Jose meeting, but the buzz on the results is positive. Grob and his co-investigators did offer snippets of letters and reactions from study patients. One said, “It feels like healing.” Similar studies of psilocybin in the terminally ill are now launching at New York University in New York City and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

However, the going has been slow, with Doblin carefully dotting every regulatory "i" to prevent a second backlash against psychedelics. "This isn't the '60s," he says. "We've learned the lessons of that era, and now we're trying to integrate ourselves into science, into medicine, into society."

At the San Jose meeting, dubbed "Psychedelic Science in the 21st Century," that integration was in full swing. Eleven hundred therapists, physicians, basic researchers and psychedelics enthusiasts gathered for three days of scientific and cultural talks, visionary art shows and late-night celebrations. The unlikely mix found conservatively dressed researchers from prestigious universities mingling with the heavily tattooed and the green haired.

As for Bledsoe, he's now a true believer. His MDMA sessions were "an almost sacred experience, a very special and uplifting experience," he says. After the therapy, he vacationed in Jamaica, began dating a local woman and bought a house on the island. "I'm happy and well adjusted now," he says. "It's a good fairy-tale ending. As soon as we get some little Bob Marley kids it'll be even better."

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I am sorry to have to question the validity of "science" that uses ecstacy as the "cure" for PTSD, I can still remember when the CIA and the Army wereconducting tests with LSD-25 in the 50s and 60s as the new agent of warfare, the drug that would make everyone forget the horrors of war and hopefully allow the military to have control of the mind of the soldiers under the influence of this drug.

Now here we are another 50 years later and again we have the VA now experimenting with another psychedelic and they are wanting to experiment with others A dozen human studies of MDMA, LSD, a powerful African drug called ibogaine and psilocybin, from so-called "magic mushrooms," are now under way, testing the once-stigmatized drugs

Being one of the 7120 "med vols" I have had a very bad experience with human research and I can not condone anything the government is doing along these lines, the 7120 men of Edgewood Arsenal human experimenst were found in the last medical follow up study to have a 75% death and disability rate in the FY 2000 study published by the IOM as the March 2003 Sarin Report by DR William Page, 3098 men aged 45-65 could not be located using all government databases IRS, VA and Social Security and men aged 45-65are either paying taxes or drawing compensation checks from the VA or Social Security either as SS or SSD the report also reported that of the 4022 men they did find alive 54% of them or another 2200 men were disabled, yet they never explained what the disabilities were, why? Also given that GW1 veterans were exposed to mustard agents and sarin why did the IOM only look at Sarin exposures and NOT mustard agent problems, the Edgewood Arsenal veterans had been exposed to both Sarin and mustard between 1955 thru 1975, the Army destroyed the Iraqi ammo bunkers ay Kamiasyah, Iraq on March 19, 1991 with sarin and mustard filled rockets and artillery shells, spewing the chenical weapons for miles of the spring winds of the desert, if the veterans of the first gulf war may have been exposed to Sarin then it is also likely they were exposed to mustard agents, why hasn't the IOM looked at the medical problems caused by exposure to low level mustard agent exposure or was it the fact that DOD refused to write of fund a contract for the huge potential financial liability they know the mustard agent expsoure would cause, as the known medical problems related to mustard agents are extensive to the human body and the compensation could runinto the hundreds of billions of dollars to the 500,000 veterans of the first gulf war.

Sphere: Related Content

Veterans Face Two-Front War: A Response from the DVA

You would have to read the hundreds of emails I get weekly from veterans pleading for help, saying their VSO’s will not return their phone calls. The DAV, as I understand it have reduced their attorney staff that takes cases to the Court of veteran Appeals. Had a veteran who DAV refused to pursue their case to the Court, found him an attorney, won a procedural decision from the court, and is now back at the VBA awaiting a decision. Attorney Bob Walsh is a Godsend to veterans, as is Attorney Joe Moore, and several others. They provide much pro bono help, where no help existed before… what do you do? who do you turn to? after VSO has had your claim for years, then drops you?

Far too many veterans just give up… don’t give up.. at the end of your rope? Get an attorney.



Remember? , 16,112 of the Vietnam Veterans with claims for Parkinson’s are deceased, who should have won their case years ago, if the VSO’s had fought for it, as

Hard as a number of veteran advocates, like me, fought for it. That doesn’t include the many thousands who never filed a claim because a VSO said not to, as it wasn’t covered.



There are a lot of good Vet service officer, but far too many bad ones, and most are overwhelmed just passing the papers back & forth between denial, appeal, denial, appeal and requesting a burial flag, before case is ever decided.

Mike:



I had not seen the article. Thanks for sending it to me.



I was informed recently that the local DAV service officer stood up in a public veterans meeting here in Battle Creek, Michigan and lied to all present.



He said that if you hire an attorney to work on your VA benefits claim and win you will pay 1/3 of the back pay and then 1/3 of the benefits for life.



I charge 20% of the back pay. I do not get paid when I help veterans with new claims. I had over $ 250,000.00 recovered for veterans last year that was pro bono, without fees. Some attorneys charge 33% of the back pay. No attorney can charge a veteran for life.



That lie I suggest is the official “big lie” coming from DAV. I do not think our local service officer could come up with such foolishness on his own.



The DAV response may be accurately stating how much their claimants recovered last year. As to how many cases the DAV takes up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the answer is very few. To my knowledge no service organization staffed up with attorneys to assist their members after the creation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. There is no “G.M. Legal Services Plan” type of free legal assistance available to the membership of the national service organizations. There are only two or three thousand attorneys in the U.S. that assist veterans with benefits claims. The VA has a large number of expert attorneys in Washington to represent them on each case at the CAVC and Federal Circuit.



A few Pro Bono attorneys will not clean up the 1 million claims backlog the VA has created with the able assistance of the DAV and the other service organizations. The system is broken, and veterans and their families suffer every day because of it.



The DAV approach of “pissing on a forest fire” has not been effective for the past 60 years. It is not effective now, and will not work in the future. But they press on.



If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.



The major changes in veterans benefits in the past 50 years have been through grass roots efforts or by small organizations. Agent Orange was tackled by the Vietnam Veterans of America. A workable G. I. Bill was recently rammed through by the Iraq Afghanistan Veterans Association. The ban on concurrent receipt was a grass roots effort by thousands of disabled military retirees with little support from the large organizations. Veterans for Common Sense had the courage to sue the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs over the benefits claims processing debacle.



The recent improvements in Agent Orange benefits and Gulf War Illness was the work of a handful of men and women. Less than a hundred. Many of them are seriously ill with the diseases they have been seeking benefits for. They were able to effectuate change in the system. But for 60 years the national service organizations have been unwilling or unable to modernize and improve the system.



I do not believe in bringing a pen knife to a gun fight. I do not think veterans should have to hire an attorney to get their benefits. But since they have had little or no help from the National Service Organizations my position is that 80% of 100% is far better than 100% of nothing, and easier to spend.



These are my personal views and are not the views of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law or Project Salute.














Veterans Face Two-Front War: A Response from the DVA






Veterans Face Two-Front War: A Response from the DVA
April 3, 2010 by Michael Leon · 39 Comments

Share
Bob Walsh, Attorney Fighting for Veterans
Last month, Veterans Today ran a piece on the effort of veterans service organizations impeding veterans from getting legal assistance against the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs, an agency ranging from hostile to indifferent to the plight of veterans in a rigged and crooked bureaucratic system.

The fact is there is no unified veterans lobby fighting on behalf of veterans to mitigate a hostile bureaucracy.

Veterans service organizations have been captured by the VA and partisan interests. Groups like Veterans for Common Sense and attorneys like Robert Walsh wage a lonely war on behalf of their clients against the VA, but also against the national veteran service organizations that are part of the problem.

Emblematic is the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) that I say seeks an effective roll-back of legal assistance for veterans after years of working against the right of veterans to obtain legal counsel to fight the VA.

Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director of the Disabled American Veterans disagrees with the above sentiment. Mr. Violante’s views on the matter are reprinted below, and I will let them stand without further comment so that the group’s view are heard here. Intelligent disagreement is critical, as is dialogue with the enemy.

By Joseph A. Violante

The column, ‘Attorneys Fight for Veterans Against VA and VSOs’ contains some inaccuracies, which I would like to address.

You claim that the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is targeting the use of attorneys by veterans. This is absolutely false. While we have a resolution calling for repeal of the law that allows attorneys to charge veterans a fee for services render on claims, DAV is not actively pursuing that goal. DAV does not oppose attorneys assisting veterans with their claims; we are opposed to veterans paying forthose services with their earned disability compensation. It is our firm belief that veterans have already paid for their earned benefits. For your information, DAV has reached out to and been contacted by many law firms and individual attorneys who are helping active duty service members and veterans with claims assistance on a pro bono basis. DAV works closely with these attorneys in identifying active duty service members and veterans who need assistance before Physical Evaluation Boards (PEBs) and the U.S. Courts of Appeal for Veterans’ Claims and Federal Circuit.

The reference to Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) as the ‘veritable enemy’ couldn’t be further from the truth. Last year alone, DAV National Service Officers were responsible for our clients receiving $4.3 billion in new and retroactive benefits. DAV Transition Service Officers are on military installations providing free TAP and DTAP counseling, as well as assisting with claims work and reviewing files. Our Mobile Service Offices, with state-of-the-art electronic equipment, go out to inner cities and rural areas to provide claims representation to veterans who cannot get to regional offices in person. DAV assists any veteran, his or her dependents and survivors free of charge. Our assistance doesn’t stop there. DAV volunteers help veterans in the hospital, drive veterans to and from their VA medical appointments and assist veterans in their communities with services that include cutting lawns or grocery shopping to name but two. These statistics are hardly the work of an enemy.

Again, the reference to VSOs, and specifically DAV, as ‘part of the problem in denying and delaying veterans [sic] disability claims’ is false. You provide no facts to back up this fallacious allegation. First, I believe the benefits we obtain annually for our clients prove you are mistaken. Second, there is no reason for us to delay a veteran’s benefit claim. Unlike an attorney, our representatives get no fee based on the retroactive payment our client receives. Further, we don’t have the ability or any reason to ‘deny’ our own client’s claim. Finally, DAV and many VSOs and Military Service Organizations have been recently working on a comprehensive plan to improve the VA claims process and speed up decisions, outlined in our National Commander’s recent testimony and other testimony provided over the past two years by national legislative staff.

It is interesting that the link embedded in your article, ‘the Attorneys for Veterans right [sic],’ links to a blog that claims it is ‘independent,’ yet it is littered with ads from attorneys looking for business. The page you link to is from 2007, three years ago.

To support the allegations in the article, ‘Attorneys Fight for Veterans Against VA & VSOs,’ you print a letter from a Mr. Priessman. He starts by claiming: ‘Recently, the DAV, after testimony by its Commander, Roberto Barrera, sought to overturn legislation [Public Law 109-461].’ I have no idea where he got that information, because it is totally unfounded. I would direct your readers and Mr. Priessman to National Commander Barrera’s full written statement (http://www.dav.org/voters/documents/statements/Barrera20100302.pdf), DAV Talking Points (issues provided to our members to raise at their meetings with elected officials) (http://www.dav.org/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=219) or a video of Commander Barrera’s oral remarks and answers to questions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzLBDFVNhvU (part 1) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehZkEhQikNo(part 2)). Nowhere is there any reference to repealing P.L. 109-461, which allows attorney to charge veterans for services. Nowhere is there any mention of attorneys except for DAV’s work with law firms, which provide pro bono services before PEBs and the federal courts. Nor is it clear where he believes we have portrayed ‘attorneys as complete scoundrels’ and ‘veterans as complete dolts.’ DAV employs several attorneys, myself included. DAV’s objection is about attorneys receiving a veteran’s disability compensation as their fee.

There are some veterans or other claimants who believe that they will get better results by using an attorney, but this is simply not borne out by the facts. One need only look at the annual statistics from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Annually, attorneys are below the average for allowances. Last year, the average for allowances at the Board was 24 percent. The average allowance rate for attorneys was 22.7 percent. The only group lower than attorneys were unrepresented veterans. Not only did all VSOs come in higher than attorneys, but so did ‘agents’ and ‘other representatives.’ While attorneys do have a higher remand rate and hence a lower denial rate than the averages, there is no way to identify what percent of the remanded cases were for procedural due process reasons and failed to put any money in the veteran’s pocket.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The only comment on this I have is the DAV VSO had their Power of Attorney revoked by me when their VSO insisted I drop my cardiac claims from Dec 2002 in May 2007 and start a new claim for hypertension a 10% disability which would have cost me the effective date and thousands of dollars in back pay for the CAD and hypertension I was successfully rated for after the BVA appeal which was handled by a pro bono lawyer from NOVA I would have been happy to pay the lawyer the attorney fees they should have been entitled to as the VA does NOW allow the lawyers to collect 20% of back pay on granted claims, since the case was taken pro bono the lawyer declined my offer to pay, "ethics" ruled the day. Something the DAV has forgotten about over the years.......I am now SMC S thanks to a lawyer not the DAV

Sphere: Related Content

AKAKA AND SHINSEKI AGREE ON NEED TO REFORM VA CLAIMS SYSTEM

Committee reviews VA budget for coming year



WASHINGTON, D.C. – At a hearing today on the VA budget, U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki agreed that reforming the VA disability claims system must be a top priority.



“I am encouraged by the Administration’s commitment to add thousands of staff to process veterans’ disability claims, but we should be candid: it appears that the situation will get worse before it gets better,” said Akaka. “It will take years and significant resources to fully train new VA claims staff on the complex existing procedures. We need to bring systemic change to the current process if VA is to provide veterans with the timeliness and accuracy they deserve.”

The President’s budget proposes $125 billion for VA in the coming fiscal year. This is an increase of nearly $11 billion from the previous year, including a $4 billion increase in VA’s medical care account. The President’s budget would also provide funds to increase the number of Veterans Benefits Administration staff by more than 4,000 above last year’s level (including staff added due to the Recovery Act).



Following today’s hearing, Members of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee will provide the Senate Budget Committee with their views and estimates for VA’s budget. Views and estimates are a formal part of the federal budget process, in which Congressional committees recommend funding levels for programs and activities under their legislative jurisdiction. (For the Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s jurisdiction, click here.) The House and Senate Budget Committees review these recommendations when formulating the proposed Budget Resolution for the coming fiscal year.



The Chairman’s opening statement is available here. For the full witness list and the witnesses’ written testimony, please visit http://veterans.senate.gov.



-END-

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

We veterans have been hearing this for years, just like the VDBC and it's recommendations, it all sounds great when they say it, but then it gets shoved to the back of the shelf and nothing happens.

Start mixing the "pudding" as Bill Cosby used to say the "proof is in the pudding" don't tell us how great it is going to be, just do it.

Sphere: Related Content

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT TO YIELD BETTER BENEFITS FOR THOUSANDS OF

News Releases

http://www.lawyersservingwarriors.com/news_releases-10-0125.html

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT TO YIELD BETTER BENEFITS FOR THOUSANDS OF
VETERANS SUFFERING FROM PTSD AND THEIR FAMILIES

Veterans must opt-in by July 24 for disability rating upgrade and expedited review of benefits, NVLSP and Morgan Lewis available to counsel veterans on their rights as class members

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 25, 2010

WASHINGTON—Following an order issued by the judge overseeing Sabo v. United States, legal notices are being mailed this week to more than 4,300 veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom and were diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The court’s notice invites them to join a class action lawsuit filed in December 2008 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by signing and submitting an “opt-in” form no later than July 24, 2010. Submitting this form will allow these veterans to take advantage of a negotiated resolution that guarantees an upgrade in the veteran’s disability rating and an expedited review by a military correction board to determine the full extent of the rating improvement.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of seven veterans by the non-profit National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) and pro bono counsel Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, alleges that between December 17, 2002 and October 14, 2008, the military illegally denied benefits to an entire class of service members who returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD and were discharged from service.

As a result of the suit, the military has agreed to expedite a review of records to increase the disability ratings previously issued to all class members. To help affected veterans navigate the process of seeking the benefits to which they are entitled, NVLSP and Morgan Lewis are bringing together approximately 100 volunteer lawyers to offer free counseling to all class members.

The disability ratings which are the subject of the lawsuit are critically important to veterans with PTSD. A permanent disability rating of 30% or more entitles a veteran to monthly disability benefits for the rest of the veteran’s life, to free health care for the veteran and his or her spouse for life, and to free health care for their minor children.

“For years, the law has required the military to assign a disability rating of at least 50% to all veterans discharged for PTSD. This rating (above 30%) would give them the medical benefits they need. And, in October 2008, the Department of Defense in fact ordered the military to assign a 50% rating for PTSD going forward,” said Bart Stichman, co-executive director of NVLSP. “Yet, each of the seven named plaintiffs in our lawsuit received a rating of 10% or less. We believe there are thousands more who were likewise shortchanged.”

Eligible veterans who join the suit will be entitled to expedited review of their disability rating, a correction of military records to show their rating for PTSD was at least 50% for the six-month period following the date of release from military service, as well as a determination of whether the new rating should be permanently increased, decreased, or remain the same.

After their rating is increased, class members may receive back pay of disability benefits, reimbursement for health care expenses the military should have covered, as well as future benefits to which they and their families are entitled—potentially millions of dollars in benefits over time.

“Even if the military board does not end up permanently raising a veteran’s PTSD disability rating, the veteran retains the right to ask the court to do so,” added Stichman. “In short, they cannot end up worse off by virtue of joining the lawsuit and agreeing to a board review.”

WHO CAN BE A CLASS MEMBER IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?
All individuals who (a) served on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force, (b) were found by a Physical Evaluation Board to be unfit for continued service due, at least in part, to the individual’s PTSD, (c) were assigned a disability rating for PTSD of less than 50%, and, as a result, (d) were released, separated, retired, or discharged from active duty after December 17, 2002, and prior to October 14, 2008 (regardless whether such release, separation, retirement, or discharge resulted in the individual’s placement on the Temporary Disability Retirement List).

Veterans who do not receive the legal notice, but who believe they may qualify as a class member in Sabo vs. United States, should go to www.ptsdlawsuit.com to obtain information about their rights in the lawsuit.



http://www.lawyersservingwarriors.com/news_releases-10-0125.html

Go to Web site: http://www.ptsdlawsuit.com/index.html

It only involves veterans who

(a) served on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force, (b) were found by a Physical Evaluation Board to be unfit for continued service due, at least in part, to the individual's PTSD, (c) were assigned a disability rating for PTSD of less than 50%, and, as a result, (d) were released, separated, retired, or discharged from active duty after December 17, 2002, and prior to October 14, 2008 (regardless whether such release, separation, retirement, or discharge resulted in the individual's placement on the Temporary Disability Retirement List).



Key Facts Regarding Sabo, et al., v. United States



On December 18, 2009, the United States Court of Federal Claims ordered that a legal notice be sent to you and all other veterans of the U.S. Armed Services who may be eligible to join the lawsuit known as Sabo, et al. v. United States.
The Sabo lawsuit was brought by seven veterans from the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. The seven veterans were discharged from military service as a result of a finding by a Physical Evaluation Board ("PEB") that they were unfit for continued active duty service due, at least in part, to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"), and were assigned a disability rating for PTSD of less than 50%. You received the Court-approved legal notice because government records indicate that you -- like the seven veterans who filed the Sabo lawsuit --were discharged from the Armed Services between December 17, 2002 and October 14, 2008, were found unfit for continued active service due, at least in part, to PTSD, but were assigned a disability rating for PTSD of less than 50%.
The seven veterans in the Sabo lawsuit claim that the PEBs violated their legal rights, as well as yours, by assigning a disability rating for PTSD below 50%. The seven veterans have asked the Court to order the military services to give them - and to give you if you join the lawsuit - all of the military retirement benefits to which a veteran with at least a 50% PTSD rating would be entitled.
The military services deny that they have done anything wrong, and the Court has not yet decided that issue. For those who "opt-in" to the class, the military services agreed to prioritize applications to the records corrections boards requesting an increase of their PTSD ratings.
The Court approved the legal notice that was sent to you and other eligible veterans to inform you of your rights to either join or not join this lawsuit, and what you would need to do to join this lawsuit, if that is what you decide to do.
Under the Rules of United States Court of Federal Claims, the Court has allowed the lawsuit to be a class action on behalf of the following individuals:
All individuals who (a) served on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force, (b) were found by a Physical Evaluation Board to be unfit for continued service due, at least in part, to the individual's PTSD, (c) were assigned a disability rating for PTSD of less than 50%, and, as a result, (d) were released, separated, retired, or discharged from active duty after December 17, 2002, and prior to October 14, 2008 (regardless whether such release, separation, retirement, or discharge resulted in the individual's placement on the Temporary Disability Retirement List).

If you fit this definition, you may choose to join (or "opt-in" to) this lawsuit as a Class Member.
Even though you may have a right to join this lawsuit, there is no obligation to join and you do not lose any legal rights by declining to join.
The lawyers who represent the veterans in the Sabo lawsuit are not charging the veterans a fee for their services. These lawyers have agreed not to charge you or other class members a fee if you choose to join the lawsuit.
If you join this lawsuit, neither the Court nor a military records correction board can reduce the PTSD rating(s) that the PEB assigned to you absent fraud or unusual circumstances.
The FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) and Summary of Rights and Options provide more detailed information regarding this lawsui

Sphere: Related Content

Veterans and "Shreddergate" destruction of compensation claims

Veterans and "Shreddergate" destruction of compensation claims

Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 12:01:29 AM EST
In the latest disclosure of "SHREDDER GATE" which disabled veterans have been screaming about for years, and was just "discovered" last year when a Detroit VARO employee blew the whistle.

Larry Scott of VA Watchdog.org (links to all articles about shreddergate) has en extensive online library of news stories related to this mess. I was reading his newest article and a few things caught my attention. Like the possibility the VA was destroying more than one million documents a year (in one office) they have 57 offices around the world. It hasn't been proven that destruction has happened at every office, just most of them.

But reading the Office Inspector General Report (OIG) I ran across a sentence that "shocked me" and that isn't easy to do any more, after fighting these bastards for the past decade before having a Judge make them service connect my cardiovascular disease, nothing they can do bother me, but this did.

The VA has been telling veterans and Congress that it takes 3-4 years to train a Veterans Service Representative in how to properly rate a compensation claim. Given the complexity of all the medical conditions, and medical evidence and statements from doctors and veterans medical records, and court martials, military police statements, civilain police statements and any and every other kind of evidence that can be used to validate a claim.

A 42-page document containing interviews by VAOIG's Criminal Investigations Division (CID) with VARO employees ... available for viewing or download here. This document makes the best reading. We have some employees spilling the beans, others confused and some playing Sgt. Schultz: "I know nothing." You will find numerous statements by many New York VARO employees that "recycle bins" were used to discard unopened mail, which was shredded and numerous incidents where huge piles of unopened mail just "disappeared" overnight or over weekends. And, you'll find the testimony of a VBA employee who says they were told to shred mail, but do it a little at a time so as not to garner attention ... and, that the worst thing that could happen is that some veterans might have to re-file documents.

OIG Interviews this is the document that Larry says is the best reading, the paragraph that got my attention is on page 3.........

It just makes me ask a few more questions that are not answered anywhere

if this one office has a 91% new employees of less than 2 years, how many more offices are similar?
Since it is supposed to take 3-4 years to train a representative, who are the experienced workers doing the claims decisions?
Why did 91% of the employees quit or leave or were they fired?
My claim has ten years of experience laying around the local VARO and in the BVA office in Washington DC, does it have all new employees working on it and is that why it took so long?
Are they going to improve the retention rate of employees so veterans can get their claims handled properly in the future, or keep giving bonuses to the VARO officials to keep firing or chasing off experienced employees, so the veterans can't get benefits they are due?
I am sure other veterans can think of their own questions below, of and why isn't the visible media cable news, broadcast news, newspapers or anyone else reporting this stuff?

Original article on shreddergate

Shredding Our Trust in the VA

VA investigators find entire claims and other critical documents in shredding bins at Detroit Regional Office. VA official will only say, "I can't talk about that."

by Larry Scott

Many veterans who have filed disability claims with the Veterans’ Benefits Administration (VBA) of the Department of Veterans’ Affair (VA) will relate horror stories of misdated, misfiled or lost documents all leading to delays in processing or an outright denial of the claim. The mantra for veterans dealing with the VBA has become: "Delay, Deny and Hope that I Die."

It has been assumed by many veterans, their Service Officers who help file claims and attorneys who specialize in veterans’ law that the VBA operates in such a way as to deliberately stall or hinder the claim process with the goal of frustrating the veteran to the point where they just forget about the claim and go away. This isn't some grand plan to purposely hurt veterans, but rather a combination of ignorance, arrogance, incredibly bad management and non-existent oversight. While this viewpoint has been labeled cynical by some and outright paranoid by others, new information is surfacing that shows the cynics, and even the paranoids, to be correct.

What We Know

The VA’s Office of Inspector General (VAOIG) has been conducting audits, or investigations, of a number of VA Regional Offices (VAROs). There are over 50 VAROs around the country, each set up to handle the claims of veterans in a particular geographical area.

The latest series of VAOIG investigations centers on charges that VARO administrators and employees deliberately falsified "timeliness" statistics sent to the VA’s Central Office (VACO). This would be information that shows when a claim was received and how, with a documented timeline including date/time stamps, it moved through the process.

The first heads have begun to roll in this investigation. During the week of October 6, 2008, four employees at the New York VARO, including the Director, were placed on administrative leave. More accurately, they were removed from their positions awaiting the outcome of the investigation. Sources close to this investigation say that those removed, and others, were found to have been fudging the "timeliness" figures. And, there are allegations that documents, including paperwork essential to the claim process had been destroyed.

Another VARO under investigation is Detroit. On September 5, 2008, VARO employees were called to a meeting with the main topic being their poor performance levels. They were told that the Director had been called to Washington to answer questions regarding the poor performance.

At that meeting, VARO officials announced an "amnesty period" for anyone who had old claims at their desk or stashed in other places around the office, a direct procedural violation. Employees were told to turn in paperwork so they could try to get the "timeliness" numbers up. Officials also stated that a VAOIG team would be coming shortly to inspect the VARO and urged all employees "to be prepared."

By mid-September the VAOIG team had arrived at the Detroit VARO. What they found staggers the imagination. VAOIG discovered hundreds of claims, documents critical to claims and other valuable information in the shredder bins. Those bins were removed from the shredder area and the documents were screened by upper management.

It is unclear if the VAOIG team actually "seized" any of the documents in the shredder bins. What we do know is that after the VAOIG investigators left the Detroit VARO, management continued to find more critical documents in shredder bins. A meeting was called and the Director told employees that it was known who had thrown out the documents and that they would be fired. The "amnesty period" for turning in mail kept at employee’s desks was extended in the hope of turning up all "lost" claim documentation.

On October 2, 2008, the Detroit VARO Director began a "no record mail" program. This was meant to find all mail in the offices for which there, literally, was no record. Quoting from an employee directly involved in this process: "...discovered in the thousands of pieces of ‘no record mail’ we found original applications, medical evidence for veterans’ claims that had not been included in the decisions, informal claims (that likely could affect original dates of claims), and other relevant identifiable mail items."

On October 7, 2008, quoting again from the VA employee, "...the Director, Service Center Manager and other top management ransacked our work areas in search of mail that was being stored/stashed at individual’s desks. They sent some individuals home, and the others were told to wait in the break room until the end of their shift. I can’t attest to what they found in the work areas, but individuals were pulled aside and questioned."

Then, on October 9, 2008, quoting again, "During a training session the Director...stated that other regional offices have already placed numerous supervisors on administrative leave in regards to ‘cheating’ on their numbers, and that with as poor as our station numbers [are]...at least we aren’t cheating on our numbers, or at least not cheating well."

So, what is being done in the Detroit VARO to put an end to this mess? Not much. The VA employee adds with a noticeable sadness, "...They don’t seem to have any answers yet. They have juggled the supervisory staff around to different departments for some reason, and have been telling us to stand by for further training on our job functions. There are still items of mail at my desk currently that I have been told to hold on station since they don’t know the disposition of these types of mail yet [and]...they keep finding new piles of mail that date back to March of 2008 [and further] that’s had no action taken on it."

What We Don’t Know

At this time, we don’t know how many VAROs have been caught up in this investigation or if the VAOIG teams just went out to "sample" some VAROs and hit pay dirt in New York and Detroit.

We also don’t know what VACO is going to do about this. A highly-placed VACO official, when told that this information was going public, gulped, paused, and said, "I can’t talk about that." And, one of the VAOIG investigators who was at the Detroit VARO will not return phone calls on this matter.

The worst part is, we don’t know if any documents were actually shredded. By its very nature, shredding would eliminate the evidence of what was shredded. We may never know unless a VA employee comes forward and says that they did it or saw it done.

CYA Time

We will have to wait for the VAOIG reports before we can get a handle on how widespread this problem of "timeliness" is. Is this happening at all 50+ VAROs? A number of former VA employees have said that they believe the "timeliness" issue exists in all VAROs. They are of the opinion that there is widespread abuse of documents as they come in to the VARO. No one felt that any VARO Director would actually tell employees to hide or destroy documents, but the general feeling is that this is "winked at" and a standard way of handling the paperwork crunch at the VAROs.

Several former VA employees have postulated about how the VAOIG reports will turn out. They feel that the VA will claim that any hiding or destruction of documents was done at the lowest possible level and without the consent or knowledge of anyone above that person’s grade, then make promises that it will never happen again. A former VA attorney decided that it is impossible for such "widespread abuse to occur" without knowledge of its existence at all levels of the VARO.

We can expect statements of outrage from VA Secretary James Peake. We can expect hearings from the politicians on Capitol Hill. But, what will this really accomplish? Will any of this change the way the VAROs operate? Don’t count on it.

I have not posted the entire article and Larry has let me post entire articles in the past, most regular Kos readers know that I have been posting VA watchdog articles for nearly 5 years now...... just to remind people what shreddergate is about....

Veterans Administration and "shreddergate"

Sphere: Related Content