Veterans Attorneys, after filling first NOD, have become law today.

http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfJUN07/nf062007-1.htm

Mike-I just came back from a meeting with a sort of business associate-farm business- and he had a lawyer there-a nice woman-and I mentioned to her how this is a special day for veterans.

She asked why-and I told her that the Civil War law saying lawyers could only charge a vet 10 bucks had been repealed by this new law of the land regarding the prosecution of their VA claims.

She and the business guy-very Pro vet and who was interested in an idea I had as to veterans issues-that would need a financial backer-and he has the $$$ resources-
were both astonished at this new reg and the old Civil war one that we were still under until today.

I rattled off a little about the battlefield vets find themselves on as they try to prosecute their claims- and they were even more astonished at that---

I am pretty happy about this new law-but I feel it discriminates against the thousands of vets and widows with long term claims in process who cannot take advantage of the law because their NODs were filed prior to today.

That was not part of the proposed regs months ago at the Fed Reg site for public comment.

I feel like the 'VA givith and the VA takith away'
Still -it is a victory for vets and these newly returning men and women from Iraq and Afganistan might benefit greatly from the law-

(then again- it hurts to even think they would have to go through what many here have gone through to the point of hiring a lawyer)

The other downside to this is the "NOD" trigger. In discussing the person's case in the other thread (100% PTSD P&T and sent to a C&P regardless), I'm not sure this new law would help him at all. We really need a lawyer to stop the VA from issuing a C&P to a P&T vet (without proper cause..IE - new evidence) BEFORE they are dragged into the appointment which then gives the RO the new evidence they need to lower the claim. Of course, a lawyer could argue it was wrong (in the past tense), but what good does that do if the RO now has new and material evidence to lower him/her?

I wonder if a lawyer can argue that a C&P was illegal and nullify the C&Ps results.....I doubt it.....

What we really need is civil litigation against ROs who blatantly ignore VA regulations. Until then, I don't think this law will do a whole lot outside of cost vets more money they cannot afford. As bad as the VA is, a veteran tends to win the cases they should win provided they are argued with even the most minimal of competency....a lawyer really won't change much unless said lawyer can somehow bring accountability to the process.

I see in the long run- and it is what I hope for that- as you said- lawyers could bring accountability into the system.

I cannot imagine what some of them will think about the VA when they begin to handle claims.

Evidence is everything to a lawyer and the VA can ignore it, misinterpret it, manipulate it----I cannot imagine a good attorney putting up with that-

If it is too late for the mentioned vet to file an NOD- you are right- he cannot get a lawyer on this matter.

"What we really need is civil litigation against ROs who blatantly ignore VA regulations"
that would be the answer!

Wait until lawyers observe the conflict of interest that a C & P exam is-

Say I buy a propane fireplace (I have been thinking of one for when the wood pile gets covered with a few feet of snow)
say I get it installed and then it causes a fire so I call my HO insurance man and he sends out the company that makes the propane fireplaces to act as the insurance investigator.
DUH!
What chance do I have of proving the propane fireplace was faulty -

We have the same situation-with VA as judge and jury-
and worse yet VA- paid doctors write up C & Ps for VA paid personnel to deny VA claims with.
Although many C & Ps results do help the vet to succeed-
I guess I could write up any kind of negative C & P from a 15 minute exam-if I was a doc at the VA-
(not to mention how can they possibly really read and assess the med recs or SMRs too in this time frame) knowing I would be paid by the VA---

I do hope that these lawyers in assessing claims they hold the POA on will first check past decisions for CUE potential (then again the new law seems to styme that maneuver) and then see if a past vet rep caused monetary damages to the claimant- now that would be a civil matter and the lawyer could handle that separate from any VA claims issue-charges could be filed in a state court-with a fee agreement on how that separate matter would be paid for and this type of civil suit would be free from the control of the VA.

I really hope you're right on this, but, as it stands now, there is no mechanism for accountability even if the lawyers do cite gross negligence on the RO's part. Under the current system, the best a lawyer could do would be to seek congressional oversight and, unforunately, lawyers have to put food on the table too and they can't spend all their time on crusades for veterans, whether those veterans deserve it or not:-(

However, I could see lawyers brining more, and varying types of, 1151 claims for harm to veterans due to RO negligence (particularly in terms of PTSD).

I see it all in many ways-

Since this reg only applies to claims that are so new to the system( new or re-opens) that a NOD was filed on or after
Wednesday-June 20,2007-so
if-up to that point the vet had a rep on the POA and the rep sat back and watched an illegal VCAA be sent to the veteran-or there was no election form with it- and if the NOD was due to an illegal denial-
(the legal VCAA letter specially to the claim and what evidence is needed-is supposed to arrive BEFORE any denial)
the lawyer already sees a situation of negligence with the POA.

Since most claims mitigate themselves-
I mean that negligence on part of a vep is moot when the claims succeeds-
in regards to a state court action of damages-

nevertheless- if I were a vet rep these days- I would want to avoid any potential legal problems at all because every claimant I rep from now on-to include those filing NODS with attorneys whose POA I had held prior-
and I would be much more willing to be accurate and responsive to the issues I get claims on-

The director of my POA insisted I had never been in their office in years (wrong) and at first insisted I had no IMos (wrong) would not support my remand (wrong)
because they insisted I got a legal VCAA letter (mega wrong)
and then rejected my IM0s himself.(outrageous)

All above documented by the POA himself.

This is the kind of crap that a lawyer will take note of when they get a claim with a prior POA.

The regs only cover their representation for the claim itself.

However, nothing would prevent a lawyer from filing a cause of action in a state court, as the veteran's personal attorney-completely aside from the claim matter-
for negligence of the POA.

My new lawyer is a disabled veteran and MOST interested in these new regs.
This is a veterans community and the reason is we have the Bath VAMC 20 minutes from me-in a small village where he is relocating his practice to.
The court house is a brief walk for him and the vets at the VAMC can get a taxi for a few bucks and get to his office when he re-opens my other lawyers office there.

At some point he wants to discuss this Lawyers for vets criteria much more with me-
he has to take a test etc.
I told him I will make him a Star!

All kidding aside- I foresee many nuances of the Attorney for vet regs that in the long run can only help to change the VA claims process.

Jay-you sure are right about their time restrictions- I worked for lawyers-
they work hard and cannot perform miracles.

EVIDENCE wins a VA claim.

Without that even the most prominent lawyers in our country and even the best vet reps in the USA and there are plenty even though I gripe-cannot be successful in
winning a claim.

I think i the long run allowing veteran to have lawyers will be a good thing, in the beggining there will be issues I am sure, but in five years lets see where the game stands then, I have the feeling the fact that lawyers will not be over their shoulders on the veterans side will make the VARO's do a better job to start with. I am willing to give it five years before I make a judgement call either way, like most things it will take time to work the kinks out

Once again the VA has managed to make to classes of claims. Those that can have Lawyers and those who cannot. I wonder how long before some Vet will challenge not being able to have a Lawyer on an old claim?

Pete,

No, it isn't fair. It was about three weeks ago, I was pondering "hiring an attorney and haven't him remove my claim from the Appeals Management Center and returning it back to the Regional Office, so that he could represent me," now it doesn't seem as though I have to worry about that one.

Another decision, that I don't have to make. What a crappy world.

As Always,

Josephine

Josephine:

Did you know that you can write the AMC and tell them that you want a hearing.You can tell them that you want it at your local VARO and they have to do it.

I did that when my claim was rotting at the BVA and within 3 months was awarded 100% P&T at Waco VARO.

This is not advice it is pointing out your rights. It is a big step if you decide to do it.

Pete,

I don't know if I could do this. My brain is so confused now, that I wouldn't even have enough sense to speak.

My claim is so confusing.

Always,

Josephine

Pete- I sure agree- the VA has limited the new regs to leave out an enormous class of veterans and widows-and if I was a lawyer who was going to help vets under the new regs-I would sure be ticked off-at the thousands of vets I could not rep- with the new reg criteria on the NOD.

however-I was 'talking' to Larry Scott the other day (Larry is the VA Watchdog)-
about this disparity.

As he correctly inferred- this reg is the initial step in one direction -and it is a good start (a victory anyhow)

I am a member of Gold Star Wives.
They are relentless in pursuing challenges to established VA case law- and VERY successful.
I do expect this new reg to be challenged at some point.

WHat I sure like about them is that as soon as they succeed in getting a reg changed to help GSWs, they immediatly start to develop a war plan to either expand the new reg or challenge something else!

Their site reveals how tenatious they are for all of us in this club that no one really wants to be qualified as becoming a member of-as our membership is due to a death of a veteran by direct SC or Sec 1151.

Their advocacy is superb.


http://www.goldstarwives.org/

Pete, What is AMC?

AMC is Appeals Management Center the BVA's private RO. It started out with a bang but had degenerated into another penalty box to delay claims.