New Army technology could save soldiers' lives
By John Couwels
CNN
ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) -- Regrowing a fingertip cut off in an accident sounds like something from a futuristic movie. But with innovative technology developed by the U.S. Army, such regrowth is possible today.
This remotely controlled robot, called BEAR, could help remove injured soldiers from battlefields.
1 of 3 This research project and a hundred others were on display this month at the 26th Army Science Convention. Some the greatest minds in science from around the world gathered at the four-day conference to exchange ideas and showcase collaborative projects between the Army's research laboratories, universities and partner industries.
The main goal is to develop technology to make soldiers safer and more effective, said Thomas H. Killion, the Army's chief scientist.
The Army's regenerative medicine study combined properties from the intestinal lining and the urinary bladder to create a regenerative substance called Extracellular Matrix.
The cream-colored crystallized powder, called "magic dust," boosts the body's natural tendency to repair itself, said U.S. Army Biological Scientist Sgt. Gen Rossman. When the matrix is applied to a missing digit or limb, "the body thinks it's back in the womb," Rossman said.
One civilian participated in the regenerative-medicine study after cutting off the tip of his finger in a model plane's propeller. Researchers continually applied the matrix to the wound, and after four weeks, the body grew skin and tissue to replenish the damaged area.
The U.S. military branches have begun a consortium with private institutions to develop treatments for severely injured troops. With the help of grants, the Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine is studying nerve and vein transplantation, treating burns without scarring and regeneration of tissue, skin and even bone.
Through both animal studies and civilian clinical trials, the institute is developing therapies for the large number of soldiers injured by improvised explosive devices and other explosives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We are working on trying to regenerate limbs, to repair limbs and to keep them from being amputated," institute Project Director Col. Bob Vandre said.
Army scientists also have developed an engineered skin substitute made in a laboratory from patients' own cells. A postage stamp-sized patch of skin could grow several times larger than the original sample. The engineered skin could then be placed over a wound or burn, protecting it from infection, and eventually cover large portions of the body that have been damaged.
"Our goal is to restore the function to our wounded warriors who have given so much in battle," Vandre said.
Armed Forces Institute scientists also say they also have developed a process to rebuild missing or damaged bone. A web-like tube of calcium-phosphate ceramic, called hydroxyapatite, acts as a biodegradable scaffold that is set in place of the missing bone, giving the body a platform on which to rebuild.
Scientists say the scaffold allows the body to regrow its own natural tissue, bone and veins so it can support itself. Because of the complexity of the process, researchers so far have regrown only 3 centimeters of bone in clinical trials on rats, but they hope to reach 5 centimeters in two years. With the regrown bone, scientists could avoid placing titanium or other medical devices in the body.
Of course, to apply this technology, the Army needs a way to safely remove injured soldiers from combat zones. Enter the Battlefield Extraction Assist Robot, or BEAR, a human-shaped machine with eyes, ears and arms for lifting heavy objects.
Built by Vecna Technologies in association with the Army, BEAR is still a prototype. But its potential is promising. BEAR is outfitted with lights, two cameras and infrared abilities, and it can travel up to 10 mph. The device also can lift 250 pounds while balancing on its toes.
Vecna robotic engineer Andrew Allen says BEAR can be remotely operated, reducing the chance of injuries to soldiers' human rescuers.
"BEAR can easily be replaced; it costs money and not lives," Allen said.
Robot technology has exploded in the past six years, said Army scientist John Parmentola. Robot prototypes of all kinds were on display at the conference, and about 10,000 military robots are expected to be deployed in the field in 2009.
Robots can be outfitted to accomplish various tasks. One can detect 38 different chemical or biological explosives from a distance of 3 to 5 meters. The robot could be used to scan car doors or truck lids for explosives or chemical residue.
Another, called Packbot, is deployed in Iraq for surveillance, reconnaissance and explosives removal. Packbot has been outfitted to react to voice commands, given remotely through an earpiece. Loud background noises do not distort the commands, because the system monitors the vibrations of the operator's jawbone.
Finally, some robots come with a retractable apparatus called a Zipper Mast or Situational Awareness Mast, which can be equipped with a camera or antenna and raised to peer over walls or send radio communications.
The smallest Zipper Mast is not much bigger than a coffee pot and can extend to a height of 8 feet. Designed by the U.S. Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, the larger mast is affixed to tanks and can reach heights over 30 feet.
Monday, December 22, 2008
New Army technology could save soldiers' lives
Guardsman adjusting to civilian life
Guardsman adjusting to civilian life
By Mary Jo Balasco - The (Rock Hill) Herald via The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Dec 21, 2008 16:42:53 EST
ROCK HILL, S.C. — South Carolina Army National Guard Capt. Bill Berry spent his last holiday season on an Army base in Afghanistan, packing equipment for a mission to teach soldiers how to handle roadside bombs. During his 13-month deployment, the Rock Hill man often had to leave the base, sometimes for days, placing him in jeopardy nearly every day.
“The hair stood up on the back of my neck a few times,” said Berry, 47. “Any time you’re outside of the gate, there is danger.”
Berry and the 175 other soldiers of the 178th Engineer Battalion arrived home in May. This year, they will celebrate the holidays with their families as they continue to adjust from serving in the war zones.
Readjusting to civilian life can be fraught with problems for returning soldiers. Military officials say they may face issues that vary from mild to severe, depending on their experience.
And the adjustment for National Guard soldiers like Berry can be even more difficult than for active military soldiers. That’s because, unlike active soldiers, guardsman go home to communities where most people can’t relate to their experiences, said Chief Warrant Officer Terry O’Conner, reintegration program director for the South Carolina Army National Guard.
Although Berry is glad to be back with his wife and daughter, readjusting to home, family and work after living in a constant state of danger has been a challenge.
Sometimes, he doesn’t sleep well, and his wife, Rose, says he talks loudly in his sleep. He gets angry when he knows he shouldn’t. And he feels anxious in crowds and doesn’t want to socialize.
Hugs and kisses, even from Rose, can make him feel rigid because he didn’t have that kind of affection for many months. At times, he still feels like he’s in Afghanistan, where getting stuck in traffic could mean death. Over there, every new person is a potential enemy. So Berry stays on alert.
There is no switch to turn off Berry’s survival mode. And although he is adjusting, it’s been slow.
The mental strain is because of exposure to death, destruction and living in a constant state of danger, O’Conner said.
“When you come home, and come out of the war zone, that’s when you spend a lot of time thinking about these things,” he said.
Berry, a parks supervisor for Rock Hill and a retired National Guardsman, was called out of retirement in January 2007 to serve in Afghanistan.
He said the military needed him to train soldiers in the handling of roadside bombs. It was the first time in his 26-year military career that he was deployed in a conflict. He was especially concerned about being responsible for the lives of others.
In late January 2007, Berry left for training in Mississippi. He came home for a final visit in April 2007 before leaving for Afghanistan.
Rose Berry, 47, had mixed emotions about him leaving.
“You go back and forth between fear that something would happen and being proud that they are willing to serve,” she said.
Dani Berry, the couple’s 20-year-old daughter, hoped he wouldn’t really have to go. “They get called up for a lot of things and then don’t have to go,” Dani said.
But he did go.
In May, Berry arrived back in the U.S. Since he has been home, his wife has noticed changes.
“He is quieter than he was. He doesn’t have as much patience as he did before he left, and he doesn’t have as much tolerance as when he left,” she said.
Berry said friends have noticed changes in him. When he’s in a crowd, Berry said, he tends to keep track of everyone, because he still feels on guard.
One day, a friend was talking to him in a store as other customers walked nearby. Berry said he felt so overwhelmed that he abruptly left the store.
He returned to his job as a park supervisor last summer. Sometimes, he felt frustrated when people didn’t jump to action as soon as he asked them to do something.
“Being a captain in the military, when you say something, a certain amount of people start moving before you finish your sentence,” Berry said. “It doesn’t always happen in the civilian world.”
Despite his reintegration adjustments, Berry said he’s glad he served.
“It changes you as a person,” he said. “You’ve seen things that other people haven’t seen. I’m changed forever — for the good.”
New Marching Orders
New Marching Orders
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, December 19, 2008; 12:13 PM
The military is gearing up to carry out the orders of the new commander in chief. And one of the first orders may be one of the most meaningful: To shutter the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Peter Finn writes in The Washington Post: "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates instructed his staff to have a blueprint in place by the time of the inauguration in case Obama decides the closure of the facility is one of his 'first orders of business,' said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. . . .
"Any plan will probably address whether to also abolish the military commission system and, if so, what kind of legal framework can be substituted to put detainees on trial. The U.S. government will have to negotiate homes in third countries for as many as 60 detainees who have been cleared for release but cannot be returned to countries such as Uzbekistan and Libya because of fears they will be tortured. And the next administration will have to find or build appropriate detention facilities in the United States, as well as negotiate with local and state authorities who may not want terrorist suspects housed in prisons in their areas. . . .
"Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, welcomed Morrell's announcement as an important signal of Obama's intention to follow through on statements made during the campaign. 'This is an important first step toward turning the page on eight years of shameful policies that allowed torture and violations of domestic and international law,' he said in a statement."
David Morgan writes for Reuters: "'If this is one of the president-elect's first orders of business, the secretary wants to be prepared to help him as soon as possible,' Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters. . . .
"Defense officials said the task of closing Guantanamo is likely to be a lengthy, complex process that would involve all three branches of the government.
"'You look at this sort of thing early because that's when you have momentum for bringing about change. With a new administration coming in, you've got people who are willing to do what's necessary,' said one defense official."
From the transcript of Morrell's briefing yesterday: "I think fundamentally the motivation for the secretary in this -- in this respect is not just the fact that he believes that closure is the right thing, but that the president-elect has made it perfectly clear throughout the course of the campaign that this -- that he wishes to address this issue early on in his administration. And so the secretary wants to be prepared to assist him in trying to figure out a solution to this thorny problem."
Amanda Terkel of Thinkprogress.org caught Gates talking to PBS's Charlie Rose Wednesday night. Asked about closing Guantanamo, Gates replied: "Well, I think that there are some problems that need to be dealt with, probably in statute, to be able to close it. I think that we can provide alternatives to it. . . .
"I think these problems are solvable. And my guess is --
Rose: "So on balance, you would like to see it -- "
Gates: "I would like to see it closed. And I think it will be a high priority for the new administration."
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I know I am one of the enlisted people, so my opinion does not count for much, but to me the simple solution to the "trial" problem is for them to use the military court system and the rules they use for our own military members accused of a crime the Uniformed Code if Military Justice otherwise known as the UCMJ, it has been used for death penalty crimes, read about the death of Private Slovik, does the system make mistakes, yes but it is about as fair as fair goes, it governs the lives of millions of Americans in uniform. In other words use the General Court Martial for the "terrorist trials" even for KSM, it would be a fair trial, probably even more fair the these tribunals the Bush Administration dreamed up.
Who could then claim the system was NOT fair, and the Military Courts are not going to allow "illegal evidence" to be entered into the trials, I think Hamdan is a perfect example of how fair a Military Court Martial can be, despite the Bush Administration claiming Hamdan was one of the worst of the worst, the Officers on the Jury saw Hamdan for what he was a young man trying to feed his family and was nothing more than a driver, who just happened to work for one of the most evil men in the world, but do we execute him for that? Did we try Hitlers driver and charge him for Hitler's crimes? I don't think so and if they did it would have been just as wrong.
End the fiasco known as Gitmo, transfer the detainees to the brig at Charleston SC and then send them to Leavenworth to complete their prison sentences, anyone found guilty and sentenced to life however should be sent to Supermax, and the ones like KSM that get the death penalty should be transferred to the federal prison where they executed Timothy McVeigh.
I know I am not a Cabinet level person, but this seems to be the sanest way to handle this mess. If we are a nation of laws, then we need to behave as such and get rid of this Kangaroo Court system they created for these "terror war criminals".
Just my 2 cents......
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Mika Brzezinski and Morning Joe now get a radio program
Mika Brzezinski
Mika Brzezinski, Letting Her Opinions Percolate on 'Morning Joe' and the Radio
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 22, 2008; Page C01
Mika Brzezinski doesn't mince words about what happened when CBS dropped her as a correspondent two years ago.
"Nobody wanted me," she says. "I spent a year looking for a job. You spend 10 years at a place, you gave your heart and soul and blood for it, and all of a sudden it's over? I was 40 and, quote, fired, and I'm sure people were thinking, what's wrong with her?"
No one is asking that now. Brzezinski has parlayed her role as co-host of MSNBC's morning show, with Joe Scarborough, into a syndicated radio show with the former congressman and a brand-new book deal. She is, for the first time, bursting with opinions.
"I've been in a box as a journalist for 20 years," she says. "That is a very safe and lazy place to be. You can hide behind objectivity. It is much harder to put yourself out there."
Brzezinski's comeback occupies the eroding line between news and commentary, but it reflects more than that. In a fickle culture that swoons over celebrities and spits them out, media people can be hot and then, suddenly, not -- particularly women who reach a certain age and are supplanted by younger rivals.
As the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, she found her name to be a mixed blessing. For years, she says, "people made fun of me and assumed doors were opened because of my last name. In some cases it was true, and in others it wasn't. I had to triple-prove myself and compensate for inbred resentment in newsrooms."
The move to radio seems a bit much, given that Brzezinski gets up at 3:30 a.m. for her three-hour stint, starting at 6, on "Morning Joe." Now the two move on to a separate New York studio for another two hours of blabbing at 10 a.m.
"We feel we've just got more to say," Brzezinski explains. "We're either at each other's throats or getting completely fired up." Even before the radio show launched two weeks ago, "we have not gone a day without continuing the conversation, sometimes on the phone, sometimes still fighting."
On Thursday they are dueling in a Washington studio, the morning dominated by a 5 a.m. incident in which the rail-thin Brzezinski was mugged by a man demanding money outside a Ritz-Carlton. Brzezinski had asked Scarborough not to talk about it, and she seems mortified when he returns to the subject again and again, ripping her for expressing sympathy for the robber -- whom she gave all of $6.
"This left-wing attitude of yours. . . . Isn't Mika responsible not only for her mugging, but for the mugging of everyone?" he asks one caller.
During a break, her father calls her cell. "I'm fine -- I'm on the radio. It's no big deal . . ."
"It's a huge deal, Doctor Brzezinski!" Scarborough shouts.
"Do not freak him out," she pleads.
There is a bit of old-married-couple slapstick in their act. He declares that "you are boring me." She punches him in the arm for calling her a "Marxist." She texts friends while he is talking, sometimes sharing gripes with Scarborough's wife, Susan. Brzezinski shakes her head and rolls her eyes, saying things like "stop it," "you're crazy" and "you're just absolutely sick." It's all part of the routine.
"She finds herself playing the straight man a lot of the time," Scarborough admits. But at times, he says, "she does stick it to me. You stick a needle in the balloon and let the air out and people love that."
Citadel Broadcasting, which debuted the show on its New York station, WABC, and will carry it on KABC in Los Angeles next month, is looking for other syndication deals. Washington's Citadel station, WMAL, is sticking with its Chris Plante show, so the company is hoping to sign up another station.
Several television hosts -- Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Rachel Maddow -- are successfully juggling radio shows. Bill O'Reilly recently dropped his radio gig, saying he was stretched too thin.
Brzezinski finds radio "more intimate" than television. She takes off her makeup and shows up in a T-shirt, jeans and scarf.
When "Morning Joe" began last year, after the controversy that knocked Don Imus off MSNBC, Brzezinski was installed -- at Scarborough's insistence -- as the news reader. She was uncertain how much banter she could engage in and still be viewed as fair.
The turning point came when Brzezinski refused to read a report about Paris Hilton -- "I hate this story," she declared -- setting a lighter to the script, ripping it up and putting it in a paper shredder. That was her YouTube moment, one that has been viewed 3.8 million times, and the reaction was overwhelming. A shtick -- and a co-host -- were born.
While their sparring clearly puts Brzezinski to the left of Scarborough, a onetime GOP lawmaker from Pensacola, Fla., she tries to resist being typecast as a liberal. She demurred when John McCain, during a September appearance, called her a "supporter" of Barack Obama. Brzezinski likes to point out that one of her brothers provided foreign policy advice to the McCain campaign and the other to the Obama team.
When Brzezinski was a teenager, her father would take her along when he was interviewed on such programs as "Today" and "Nightline." It was then that she decided she wanted to be a television reporter. While attending Washington's Madeira School, she and a friend started the "Mika and Melissa Show," which aired on a cable-access channel.
At 15 she tagged along when her father, by then out of office, met secretly in Tunisia with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, an encounter she remembers mainly for "being surrounded by men with guns."
The elder Brzezinski, a native of Poland, is not surprised by his daughter's newly combative role. "It reminded me a little bit of dinners we used to have at home, where she got her training," he says. "Her brothers were dominating. She had to fight, and she had to have something to say."
After serving as an intern at Washington's WUSA and WRC, Brzezinski launched her career at the Fox affiliate in Hartford, Conn., where she met her future husband, television reporter James Hoffer. Brzezinski joined CBS in 1997, left to briefly co-anchor an MSNBC afternoon show with Ashleigh Banfield, and then returned to CBS, where she broadcast live from Ground Zero on the day of the 9/11 attacks. Five years later, she had a fat new contract to take over the Sunday night news and contribute to "60 Minutes," and made a demo tape as part of a possible new anchor team. But she and other correspondents were dropped after a new management team hired Katie Couric for the anchor job.
Feeling "sort of battered" after a year of job hunting, Brzezinski took a freelance job at MSNBC that consisted of doing four 30-second news cut-ins every evening. She spent much of the time talking by phone with her daughters, now 10 and 12, at their home in New York's Westchester County, discussing homework or listening to them play piano. Ten seconds before air time, she would put down the phone, read the headlines and say, "Now back to 'Scarborough Country,' " lowering her voice to make the title sound ironic.
When Scarborough, who was based in Florida, came to the Secaucus, N.J., studio to try out for the morning slot, he asked Brzezinski if she was poking fun at the program. "I can't make fun of your show because I've never seen the show," she replied. But as they talked, something clicked.
"I could tell she was not a talking head," Scarborough says. "She wasn't like anyone I'd met in television news. She didn't take herself too seriously and was obviously very quick on her feet."
Scarborough called MSNBC boss Phil Griffin and said he wanted Brzezinski on the morning show. But there was resistance. Management wanted either a traditional newsman or a young news reader. "Nobody saw it," Scarborough says.
He kept pushing, and Brzezinski got her tryout. As the presidential election unfolded, "Morning Joe" gained traction as a kind of political salon, with long segments built around pundits and campaign aides. "No cooking, no lingerie, no missing girls," Brzezinski boasts.
One occasional guest was her dad, who had endorsed Obama. "I think she felt a little awkward about it," the former White House adviser says. "I once corrected something she said about me, and she said, 'Oh, here I am, 10 years old again.' "
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mika is one of the reasons I am able to watch the show, I can't stand it when Joe starts on his defense of the waterboarding of prisoners rant, and Mika calls him on it and how it is hurting the nation. As a disabled Army veteran, I agree with her, as a nation and the nation of "laws" how do we abdicate that to a neocon ideology and give up our core values? There are better ways to get the intelligence, than bringing our nation to the terrorists level of doing business. I feel if we have to become terrorists to beat them, then what have we accomplished?
Bin Ladin and the other madmen win, when they cause us to act in their manner.
In the meantime I enjoy watching Mika slap Joe off his pedestal that he puts himself on.
Video of DR Phil veterans show Dec 19, 2008
Part 6 DR Phil
Part 5
Please go to VA watchdog.org to see these other segments Larry has posted all 6 segemnts it is worth the time to watch the entire show and my thanks to Dr Phil I hope he does at least one show every 6 months on different areas of the veterans problems.all of the segments can be seen here please click
Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Benefits For PTSD Soldiers
CBS - aired at 7pm last night
For video from WUSA-9 (their DC affiliate), click here: http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=79643&catid=187
Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Benefits For PTSD Soldiers
Posted By: Phyllis Armstrong Date last updated: 12/18/2008 5:41:50 AM
Attorneys have filed a class action lawsuit to get Army benefits for soldiers with PTSD.
WASHINGTON, DC (WUSA) -- Many of America's soldiers come home from war with medals. Thousands of men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan also return with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
"I came home from Iraq and had reoccurring nightmares, insomnia, irritability, extreme tension, stress and paranoia," said Juan Perez, a former U.S. Army cavalry scout.
Perez is now part of a class action lawsuit that takes aim at the Army. Attorneys for the National Veterans Legal Services Program say the Army ignores regulations that would provide retirement pay and family health benefits for Perez and other soldiers with PTSD.
"I experienced firsthand the horrors of war. I saw my friends suffer injuries, and several of my friends and fellow soldiers died," said Perez.
His lawyers say mandates from the Veterans Administration and Congress require the Army to give discharged PTSD soldiers a 50% disability rating. Perez, a father of five, received a zero rating and struggles to pay his family's bills.
"I was a good soldier...My expectation was that the military would be there for me and my country would be there for me. Instead, the way I was treated felt more like a to the face," said Perez.
The class action lawsuit does not seek punitive damages. Attorney Jim Kelley says NVLSP simply wants to get relief for soldiers who deserve better treatment.
"I don't think we can do enough for the veterans who put themselves in harm's way to fight the war on terrorism," said Kelley.
He says soldiers with PTSD, who are no longer able to serve, should qualify for family health care and retirement pay. Perez works as a shipping clerk in Colorado and has trouble paying health care premiums for his family.
"Kids get sick all the time. If I had gotten my 50% disability rating, it wouldn't be a big issue. I wouldn't have to worry about the big premiums," said Perez.
The father of five served in Iraq twice. He says an explosion left him with impaired vision as well as PTSD. The NVLSP attorneys say there are hundreds, if not thousands of people with PTSD who are not getting the benefits they deserve from the Army.
"It's hard for me because I love the Army...The other soldiers need to be taken care of also. It's not just myself. I can feel what they're going through because I'm going through it myself," said Perez.
A spokesman says the Army's lawyers have not yet seen the class action complaint. A statement provided say medical experts and personnel staffs carefully evaluate each claim to ensure soldiers and their families get well-deserved benefits.
Written by Phyllis Armstrong
9NEWS NOW
CNN - press conference streamed live on CNN.com yesterday, story below, along with transcript of on-air coverage
Stressed soldiers sue for disability benefits
Story Highlights
Soldiers: Army denied them disability rating, so they were denied benefits
Lawsuit filed by veterans advocacy group on behalf of vets with PTSD
In October, Army ordered all future PTSD sufferers to be eligible for benefits
Soldiers want eligibility to go back six years
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Army intentionally denied benefits to soldiers suffering from a widespread stress disorder after they returned from service in Iraq and Afghanistan, a veterans advocacy group charges in a suit filed Wednesday.
The lawsuit, filed by the National Veterans Legal Services Program, accuses the Army of illegally cutting off benefits to thousands of veterans and their families by refusing to assign a proper disability rating to those veterans after they had been discharged with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
As a result, the veterans have been denied benefits, including, among other things, lifetime monthly disability payments and free medical care for themselves and their families.
"I experience firsthand the horrors of war" said Juan Perez, an Iraq veteran and one of five plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "My expectation was that the military would be there for me, and my country would be there for me. Instead, the way I was treated felt more like a slap to the face."
All disabled veterans are assigned a disability rating from zero to 100 percent. According to the Legal Services Program, a rating of at least 30 percent is required to qualify for benefits such as monthly disability payments and free health care.
Soldiers receiving less than a 30 percent rating are entitled only to a one-time lump sum severance payment after being discharged.
On October 14, the Defense Department ordered the Army to assign at least a 50 percent rating to all soldiers discharged with PTSD in the future.
The lawsuit seeks to provide full benefits to all veterans discharged with PTSD in the past six years.
A Rand Corp. study released in April indicated that nearly 20 percent of all military service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have reported symptoms of PTSD or major depression.
CNN NEWSROOM TRANSCRIPT
Multiple Failures of the SEC; Adam Walsh Case Closed; New Lawsuit for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Aired December 17, 2008 - 09:00 ET
Meanwhile, short-changing our veterans. A new lawsuit in Washington from The National Veterans Legal Services Program says some soldiers who come back after fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq with Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder are not getting the benefits they deserve. CNN Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, is live in Washington now with the story.
Barbara, we hear an awful lot about PTSD, certainly, with these two conflicts. But we haven't heard a lot about benefits that the servicemen and women are supposed to be getting.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, we haven't, Heidi. And at this hour, here, there is a press conference under way by a Veterans Legal Services Group addressing that very point. They are making the case that they believe in this class action lawsuit, you see some of the people speaking now about this, that veterans are inappropriately getting minimal disability ratings for post-traumatic stress disorder, and because of those minimal disability ratings, veterans are not getting their full benefits.
The magic number? 50 percent. With a 50 percent disability rating for PTSD, as it's called, veterans would get a series of much better benefits for life. Some of the benefits they would get with that 50 percent disability rating, they would get monthly disability benefits for life. They would get free health care for themselves and their spouse. Free health care for dependent children.
The lawsuit claiming that the Army, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the people involved in giving the returning troops that key disability rating are deliberately giving them less than a 50 percent rating so the government can avoid paying them these extra benefits, which, of course, would amount to millions of dollars for troops over their lifetime.
But as you say, Heidi, what it really gets to is this continuing issue of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for the troops returning from these wars. Every expert will tell you that it is a very serious, very deep, very broad problem, and nobody really at this point has any idea, specifically, how many troops are suffering these days and how many will in the future.
Heidi?
COLLINS: Yes, certainly something that the army is working on. General Rick Shinseki, secretary of the VA, that was announced, right, this will be something that I imagine he will be looking into?
STARR: I think you can bet that Rick Shinseki, along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will make the issue of benefits for the returning troops from the war one of their top priorities.
General Shinseki wounded several times as a young soldier serving in Vietnam.
COLLINS: Yes, what a story.
STARR: Disabled partially himself with some of those injuries over his continuing career in the army. He's somebody who really gets it. And everyone believes will make this a top priority.
Heidi?
COLLINS: Very good. CNN Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, for us this morning. Thanks, Barbara.
Associated Press - picked up story from Billings Gazette (the hometown paper of one of our plaintiffs)
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2008/12/18/state/hjjbihibjjifhh.txt
Veterans file suit against government
By The Associated Press - 12/18/2008
BILLINGS — A 22-year-old Billings man is one of five Army veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who filed a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. government on Wednesday.
Nicholas Wells and the four other veterans say they were found to be unfit for service because they were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, but then were denied disability benefits and free health care to which they were entitled under federal law.
The suit was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., by the National Veterans Legal Services Program. The class-action lawsuit was also filed on behalf of potentially thousands of other veterans in the same situation.
Wells' mother, Dawna Lynn Wells, a physician assistant at St. Vincent Healthcare, said her son is working on a North Dakota oil rig and did not want to comment on the suit. She referred all questions about the suit to the lawyers who filed it.
Barton Stichman, one of the attorneys, is also a joint director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program. He said Wells and the other four plaintiffs are all Westerners who underwent basic training at Fort Carson, Colo.
Stichman said they joined in the suit because when the legal services program established its Lawyers Serving Warriors project early this year and offered free legal services to veterans, those five were among the first to request assistance.
A preliminary statement that opens the complaint reads: "This case arises from the failure of the United States Department of Army to honor its clear and explicit duty — embodied by statute and regulation — that it not abandon its fallen or wounded soldiers or leave them behind." The complaint says the plaintiffs were all diagnosed with PTSD after their experiences in combat. The Army was required to assign each veteran a disability rating of at least 50 percent based on the PTSD diagnosis, which would have made the soldiers eligible for benefits and assistance, including health care for the veterans and their families, the suit says.
"In a deliberate disregard for its legal obligation, the Army instead rated these soldiers below 50 percent (and in most cases below 30 percent) in a transparent attempt to purge its ranks and eradicate its responsibility to care for its wounded soldiers," the complaint continues.
The lawsuit notes that the Defense Department on Oct. 14 directed the Army to begin assessing a minimum PTSD rating of 50 percent for all soldiers discharged with that ailment, but it says that the directive does nothing for the thousands of soldiers who were previously rated improperly.
Army regulations long required the 50 percent rating, and the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act specifically mandated such a rating, according to the lawsuit.
PTSD is a mental health disorder that used to be known as "shell shock" or "combat fatigue." It often makes it difficult for sufferers to adjust to work or maintain a job or to interact with others, and it can lead to feelings of estrangement and detachment. It can also bring on nightmares and sleep deprivation, memory loss and family or marital discord.
All disabled veterans are supposed to be assigned a disability rating from 0 to 100 percent, in increments of 10 percent. A retired service member rated at 30 percent or higher is deemed "medically retired" and is entitled to disability retirement pay for the rest of his or her life, according to the complaint. Such retirees also receive commissary and exchange privileges and free medical care for life, including spousal and eligible dependent coverage.
A veteran rated below 30 percent is deemed "medically separated" and receives a one-time lump sum disability payment and none of the other benefits available to a medically retired veteran.
Three of the veterans named in the suit, including Wells, received disability ratings of 10 percent. The other two had zero ratings.
The military careers of the five plaintiffs are described in some detail in the complaint. Spc. Wells joined the Army on Nov. 9, 2004, and was deployed to Iraq with the 3rd Brigade Combat team in the 4th Infantry Division, where he was a scout and a lead Humvee gunner. His squadron routinely came under small-arms fire as well as more than 20 attacks involving improvised explosive devices, according to the complaint.
Wells' tour in Iraq last about 12 months, and he began experiencing signs of PTSD during a leave at Fort Carson in March 2006. Although doctors told him he was suffering "normal" anxiety attacks, when he ultimately returned from Iraq in November 2006, "he was still subject to severe anxiety attacks and other symptoms of PTSD," the suit says.
He received intermittent treatment for two years, but it "was designed only to ready Spc. Wells for redeployment to Iraq in late 2007," the complaint says. His redeployment orders were finally canceled in December 2007 and he was found unfit for continued service last May. It was then he was rated 10 percent disabled, rendering him "medically separated" from the Army and deprived of numerous benefits.
The complaint says the exact number of affected veterans is unknown, but that "thousands of individuals were evaluated and permanently separated from service by the Army" because of PTSD over the past six years but were rated below 50 percent disabled.
The suit asks the Court of Claims to order the Army to stop its practice of violating its own rules when rating soldiers with PTSD and to award the plaintiffs benefits to which they are entitled, as well as court costs and attorney fees.
Contact Ed Kemmick at ekemmick@billingsgazette.com or 657-1293.
Legal Times - the Incisive Media (formerly ALM) publication in DC posted the story yesterday afternoon, and it's now among the headlines featured on the paper's website and Law.com
December 17, 2008
Veterans Sue Federal Government Over Disability Benefits
A group of military veterans filed a class-action against the federal government today, alleging that they were illegally denied disability benefits despite being diagnosed with severe cases of post-traumatic stress disorder that should have qualified them for free care.
The five soldiers, all veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were discharged by the Army after it determined that their damaged mental health left them unfit to serve, according to a complaint filed with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Once released, they were assigned disability ratings well below the 30 percent figure needed to qualify for lifetime health care benefits.
The complaint alleges that starting in 2002, the Army “systematically” ignored rules requiring that all servicemen diagnosed with PTSD receive an automatic 50 percent rating. Just this past October, the Defense Department ordered the Army to stop deflating PTSD victims' disability ratings.
So far, there has not been any discussion at the Defense Department about how to compensate the soldiers who were denied benefits before the order, said the veterans' lawyers. The suit asks the Army to award them disability benefits, as well as financial compensation for the benefits they have missed.
Lawyers for the veterans are hoping that the suit’s discovery process will reveal how many other servicemen with PTSD were denied disability benefits.
“We don’t know the exact numbers of the people who were effected, but we think there were thousands,” says Bart Stichman, co-director of National Veterans Legal Services Program, which is representing the soldiers.
Along with the NVLSP, the soldiers are being represented by Brad Fagg, James Kelly, Richard Black and Charles Groppe of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. The suit is the first from the NVLSP’s Lawyers Serving Warriors project, a program meant to provide veterans pro bono counsel from major firms.
This isn’t the first time the Army has come under fire for its handling of PTSD victims. In California last year, a group of former soldiers filed suit against the Veterans Administration in federal court demanding that the agency completely restructure the way it processes PTSD claims and clean up a bureaucratic mess that left many former soldiers without care for months.
Army spokesman Paul Boyce did not address the suit directly, but says the Army would continue doing its best to aid veterans.
“We have assisted more than 650,000 soldiers with their disability both their physical and mental health concerns,” Boyce says. “That’s more people than the city of Atlanta. We will continue to do so.”
Posted by Jordan Weissmann on December 17, 2008 at 03:21 PM
AmLaw Litigation Daily - carried the story in this morning's roundup
PRO BONO
Morgan Lewis Files Class Action for Veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
We've heard of class actions filed against the Department of Veterans Affairs, alleging it failed to care adequately for soldiers who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. Morrison & Foerster has been involved in one such action. But yesterday, lawyers at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and the National Veterans Legal Services Program took a different path. On behalf of five veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who suffer from PTSD, they filed a suit in Federal Claims court targeting the U.S. Army.
The suit, which seeks class action status, claims that the Army has ignored federal law and its own regulations in denying benefits to soldiers who were discharged as a result of suffering from PTSD. According to the suit, the Army is required to assign veterans who suffer from PTSD a disability rating of at least 50 percent, which would make them eligible for full benefits. The Army, the suit alleges, has instead given those soldiers a rating below 50 percent. "Not only has the Army expelled these soldiers from service, but it has reneged on its statutory obligation to provide these veterans the aid, assistance, and benefits they are due under existing federal law and longstanding federal regulation," the suit alleges.
The Morgan Lewis attorneys working on the mater are Brad Fagg, David Kerr, James Kelley II, Richard Black, and Charles Groppe. Barton Stichman and Amy Fletcher appear on the complaint for the National Veterans Legal Services Program.
Blogger coverage - three veterans and disability blogs picked it up as well
http://ptsdcombat.blogspot.com/2008/12/as-second-legal-attempt-fails-to-force.html
http://www.vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfdec08/nf121808-3.htm
http://www.specialneedsbusiness.com/articles/soldiers-sue-us-army/
Kelleys thoughts on the VA and widows
VA Assists Surviving Spouses .. Plus
Please if you know of any Widows this applies to then inform them. VA will not in spite of what they say publicly in their media releases.
-----Original Message-----
From: VA Media Relations [mailto:va.media.relations@VA.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:15 PM
To: VANEWS-L@WWW.LISTSERV.VA.GOV
Subject: VA Assists Surviving Spouses
Recent VA News Releases
To view and download VA news release, please visit the following Internet address:
http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel
VA to Provide Payments to Eligible Surviving Spouses Quick Action Taken to Resolve Problem Identified by Senate Chairman
WASHINGTON (Dec. 18, 2008) - The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) today announced immediate actions to quickly identify and pay surviving spouses who are eligible to receive a one-time compensation or pension payment for the month of the veteran's death.
"This benefit payment is long overdue to many of our beneficiaries," said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake. "In these difficult economic times, it is imperative that we take aggressive action to fix this situation for the families of our veterans."
Problems in VA's implementation of a change in law that was effective in 1997 resulted in some surviving spouses not receiving the veteran's compensation or pension payment for the month of death. This problem was recently brought to VA's attention by Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Peake immediately directed the formation of a special task force to identify and pay the beneficiaries who never received the benefit or were inadvertently required to repay the money issued for the month of a veteran's death.
Surviving spouses most likely to be affected by this processing problem are those who never applied to VA for survivors' benefits following the death of a veteran.
The task force is in the process of reviewing VA's payment records for veterans who died after December 31, 1996, and who are survived by a spouse. The review will identify those to whom VA owes retroactive benefits for the month of the veteran's death. Current address information is being obtained for as many of these beneficiaries as possible.
VA will begin issuing retroactive payments to eligible surviving spouses at the end of this month. Payments will continue to be issued as additional unpaid beneficiaries are identified and VA is able to obtain current address information.
Because there are deceased veterans for whom VA does not have marital status information, a special Survivors' Call Center has been established for spouses who believe they may be entitled to this retroactive month-of-death benefit.
Surviving spouses are encouraged to contact the Survivors' Call Center at the toll-free telephone number, 1-800-749-8387. Call center agents will assist surviving spouses in providing VA with the information needed to determine their eligibility.
The Call Center is open Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 7:00 PM central standard time. Inquiries may also be submitted through the Internet at http://www.vba.va.gov/survivorsbenefit.htm.
VA is aggressively changing its processing procedures to ensure this benefit is correctly paid to all surviving spouses in the future. VA's disability payment system will also be enhanced to automate the month-of-death payment for all eligible surviving spouses.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
In my final paper after the first of the year I discuss this issue of what Congress passes or intends so they say and just what this discussion is about; VA implementation. In every case, just like this the Veteran or the Widow takes it on the chin because of what VA does and what they consider the correct implementation on their behalf not what was intended. DoD is very similar.
No one is going to tell me that from the Secretaries of VA we have had and the Directors of Benefits of VA we have had all the way down to the people doing the denying that no one at VA knew or recognized this wrong and yet they did it anyway. NO ONE has the guts to say that.
While Senator Akaka finally said something Congress in its entirety has known what they perceived was not being done and in fact was being done detrimental to the Widow and family and did nothing. NOTHING AT ALL. Not even a damn meeting, much less any oversight. Once again no one is discussing the ramifications of what this VA policy did to our families in many areas of mental and financial abuse.
I also like the phraseology of the statements “aggressively changing”. This means nothing and you should not take it literally. This could mean over the next two to five years you might see some retroactive money. Veterans and widows alike have no right to expect some reasonable interpretation of what VA says in these descriptions. No different from the "must be expedited by stated law" when in claim remand. Stated by law yet Veterans and Widows have no case to expect some form of reasonable application of those laws and the words “must be expedited” when it comes to VA. It could be and probably will be a minimum of two years and then on out.
Then you have... The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) today announced immediate actions to quickly identify and pay surviving spouses who are eligible to receive a one-time compensation or pension payment for the month of the veteran's death. Immediate to VA means when they get around to it or the cries of 'wrong doing' go down which ever comes first. They will put one person on it to show they are doing something. Then blame some computer fiasco as to why nothing is done.
I would expect more VA hoops with this for our Widows to get anything. Probably put them back in the VA Hamster wheel for at least a 12 to 18 months gathering more and more paper work so Regional Centers can shred it and change the dates.
So I would be surprised if this also is nothing but VA propaganda. Not to the point they have been challenged and admitted wrong. But the point that anything is going to be done in any aggressive timely manner or expedited. This would be a first for VA.
Then we have the following:
“Surviving spouses most likely to be affected by this processing problem are those who never applied to VA for survivors' benefits following the death of a veteran.”
Nothing but spin that Joseph Goebbels would be proud of.
This puts the blame back on widows as it is their fault. Yes there are plenty of widows out there that did file and they were taken to the cleaners by VA and the way they implemented the policy.
But one would have to ask why would a widow not apply?
I will tell you why. VA outreach on purpose is almost non-existent. Congressman Filner brought that up several times.
Now why would that be?
Because VA does not want the Widows to know that for example what their spouse died from after decades of denial has made the hit parade finally of one of those death and disability disorder created by our own government. Some come to our reunions and find out that their husband was wounded on the battlefield and died from those wounds. VA or our government will not mount campaigns to inform our Widows or our walking wounded that what they died from or are disabled from is Service Connected. This is not just oversight...but intentional.
Going back to 2000 Congressional transcripts, Members asked what was VA doing for outreach and the answer was pitiful. They inform the VSO’s was the answer. That was the extent under oath of what VA does. Let them do it!@%%%%%%%%%! This is not a VSO task but a federal government money expenditure task. Veterans pay dues to the VSO’s and then for them to have to do informative publications for the government who created the problem to begin with. Salt in the open wound. How many Veterans actually belong and are active in VSO’s? Probably not a large majority.
Secretary Peake only pointed out more of what VA is not doing; on purpose I would add. How can any Widow in this day of mass media not know she is entitled to file for benefits? Even as the benefits for presumptive disorders slowly expands as more and more die not service connected from lack of admittance and collusion. Except if you did not want them to know that is.
If history was correct and you looked in Webster’s dictionary under the words: Despicable, disgraceful collusion, vengeful, omnipotent, dishonest, adversarial, it would say: See articles on the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and the Executive Branch for implementation of these words and their meanings.
I would not expect some "immediate" wholesale change in VA policy regardless of this VA propaganda of like they are actually going to do something positive in a timely manner. History says no it will not be done that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you watched yesterday on Dr. Phil you heard a direct question and answer that yes the Department of Veterans Affairs lies to Congress. Just like they do to Veterans. Does anyone really think that the department heads of VA would lie to Congress and not lie to the lowly Veteran or their family.
Congressman Filner also said they deny deny lie and then lie then lies some more to minize the damages created and then hope that folks will just forget about; it just like they do to the Veterans. Exactly like the lead story of VA assists Spouses.
Too bad the other media outlets will not tell the story. Those folks making millions on their shows are so ingnorant of what is going on it is pitiful.
No one on the show mentioned the 40 year battle we have had and only concentrated on the returning Veterans. However, some of the excuses that were used do not apply to Vietnam Veterans. They were not caught off guard and unprepared by an ongoing war. Instead a policy of collusion and conspiracy was directed and that is were the efforts went. White House after White House philosophy not to support the Veterans for mistakes made by the pinheads Johnson and McNamera. Why? Because they can when your citizen rights are stripped from you by Congress and Veterans Affairs.
I hope you contact that show and thank that show for exposing this agency for what they really are. Despicable Cowards! And request a show where the Vietnam Veterans and widows can tell their story. A story repeated in the millions.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I am presently working on an article regarding these 'overwhelmed with their IQ doctors' that make ignorant uninformed statements and how that applies to the perception of just what VA and the government wants to portray. Then published by 'uniformed ignorant' media types.
Someone has got to say something and it might as well be me citing names and their lack of facts in their statements. IN other words they are no longer qualified to make any statement regarding what has or is on-going unless they have done their own studies.
Kelley
