I found this to be interesting.


As of this date (August 24, 2006) there are a total of (562) BVA cases for attorneys Bendezu and Mahlin listed on the BVA’s web site at http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva.html .

Of those (562) Bendezu & Mahlin Board of Veterans’ Appeals listed on their web site (using “bendezu” and “mahlin” in the search engine at http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva.html ) there are (106) of those cases that included discussions similar to “veteran failed to report for the VA examination”, apparently at the advice of counsel.


Below are (19) Board of Veteran’s Appeals (BVA) decisions (numbered and listed in chronological order, obtained from the BVA web site) of the veteran clients’ of the Veterans’ Advocacy Group of Lincoln, NE (attorneys Antonio E. Bendezu and Richard J. Mahlin). All (19) of these BVA cases discuss (repeatedly) the belief of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that these veterans and their attorney were attempting to “manipulate” the system by obtaining private medical opinions and examinations that were favorable to their claims, and then by refusing (repeatedly) to attend VA scheduled compensation and pension examinations, apparently in an effort to attempt to insure that only evidence that was favorable to their case was allowed in the claims folder, when the BVA made their decision.


For the whole story go to:
http://www.nebrweb.com/vetsresource/Manipulate.htm

Looks like some dirty attorneys trying to use VA tactics agains the VA. I don't think the vet is the main concern of these guys and he will probably end up being the loser in more ways that one. Why would they have the vet miss a C&P? That alone is enough, IAW the law, to deny the claim.

It is obvious to me that these attorneys are not even recognizing the BVA. I believe they are attempting to take the cases to Veterans Court by intention. They may use the arguement that the evidence was sufficient and that the VA was only scheduling an exam to rebut the one the Vet aleady had even if it is by private MD.

The only thing I see here is the fact if they lose, The vet is the real loser and not the attorneys.

Dear Fellow veterans & friends

The court ruled the veteran cannot proceed to court until the BVA ruling. IF the VA remands it back how can they go to court. My lawyer told me lawyers had tried to stop remands but the court allows the VA remands without limits

Terry higgins

Obviously, the BVA may not like attorneys telling vets to get IMO's, but to say this is a manipulation of the system is a joke. We have to go to the half-ass C&P exams done by over-the-hill doctors and those who speak no English. Why the heck can't the BVA make the decision instead of the remand that adds another year to the decision? How long does it take to get to the court from the initial claim that was denied....5 years? SSA makes a decision in 3-4 months and then you hire a lawyer and go from there.

Dear Fellow Veterans & Friends

i wonder what would happen if the vets took the position the medical informaton before the VA is enough to decide the claim. IF the VA does not think so to put in black and white what they need and the veteran will supply the medical informaton needed.

Terry Higgins

My 16 year experience with the VA is that when there is fraud its not a Veteran but someone who works for the VA.

Maybe the lawyers are doing this to eventually get a ruling and change the system further so that it is more fair to the veteran. Sometimes lawyers do things that dont look right at first but, knowingly in the end they come out on top. Which the Veteran would win also. Its a shame that its came to this but, im sure a judge will rule on whether veterans can skip a C&P or an appointment if it is in their best interest. Lets face it...The same Veterans Administration that is giving us the benefit is also the ones giving us the exams, does that seem fair? Same thing I guess for workmans comp claims, or social security. You go to their doctor who works for them. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. How can it work when the doctors forget to write the stuff down, or just well lets see... misplace the information or make it sound less than what it is. A perfect example is my claim for sleep apnea. The nurse practicionar at the C&P said "oh well thats just a mild case of sleep apnea" Well last time I checked the VA regs if you utilize a Cpap machine its a starting automatic 50 percent if it is service connected. I dont call that mild; and down playing it really pisses me off.

Sorry about the rant...its just upsetting that they do this to alot of veterans.

Just a thought but I'd bet the 162 who didn't go to the C & P's had some weak cases & the lawyers were doing the best they could for them. Or at least I hope so......GARY

That may well be the case. The Veteran Benefit Manual recommends that the SO get copies of the med records BEFORE sending them to the VA - and states that the veteran is only required to submit evidence which SUPPORTS their claim. They don't have to sign a release for the VA to obtain ALL the records. Nor do they have to turn over ALL the records. The veteran is only required to submit evidence which proves their case.

However, if the VA ASKS for additional evidence - perhaps the vet has to submit it.

In these cases - it seems like the attorney's are pushing the fact that the vet HAD submitted evidence that supports their claim - and has submitted ENOUGH evidence - so the VA had no "authority" to request the vet submit to a C&P.

free

two sides to every coin... maybe the lawyers are doing the same thing the government has always done stacking the deck in their favor.. how many VA comp are done by doctors who low ball the rating.. tit for tat

look at SSD in my case i had 4 doctors saying the same thing two VA and Two private and still i had to wait 2 1/2 years to get to AJ and on SS side NO doctor ever saw me but they said a lot to counter the doctors i had been seeing for over 5 years.. The cp doctors are looking out for the people THEY work for ... the lawyers are doing the same thing

In essence, the BVA is claiming that the doctors who wrote those IMOs are lying, which is just cause for said doctors to lose their licenses. To me, that is a very strong and unfounded accusation and the lawyers should fight those jerks all the way.

One should not ASSUME that an IMO is false without having some just cause to do so. To me, this is the same BS circular logic in which the VA says, "if you have nothing to hide, than why not go to the C&P?"....as we all know, it's not about "hiding" anything; rather, it's about unqualified doctors being force-fed opinions from RO adjudicators and siding against the veteran when there is even a shred of doubt.

The seattle RO pulled this same crap with my wife....we had plenty of independent evidence which included a 2 week hospitalization and a very strong/detailed evaluation from her treating psychiatrist, but the RO still forced her into a C&P. The worse part is that she was found to be P&T just 8 months prior to all of this and they STILL made her go to a C&P with the P&T tag and strong IMOs. In essence, the VA was fishing for something to lower her rating and they knew they wouldn't get it from an independent doctor. In fact, the C&P psych only gave her a 30 GAF and they used that as the basis to "attempt" to lower her rating from 100% AA with P&T to 70%. I had to appeal the decision and get the director involved to get her back to 100% P&T.

Personally, I hope these lawyers tear the VA a new one...they are despicable people, imho, and it’s high time they got a taste of their own medicine!!!!

I helped my 95 year old ex father in law apply for increased pension for housebound benefits. His doctor filled out the form they sent - but they still wanted him to go to a C&P.

I don't know - it just seems like the VA could take the treating doctor's word for it that maybe this 95 year old guy has poor eyesight and hearing and doesn't walk around as well as he used to. But they couldn't.

He was getting $38 a month pension. At 95 - if they would have approved housebound - he would have recieved an extra couple hundred dollars a month for the 8 months he lived past when he applied.

But he never got it approved - it was still in the red-tape stage.

Free

Considering the effort I put into getting my compensation I bet there are thousands of vets worse off than me who get nothing from the VA. If the lawyers and vets have to hire an IMO to write an opinion, so be it and that is the way the VA has been doing it for years with the 5 minute C&P exam that has a hidden agenda to deny the vet. The BVA has a lot of crust to even mention manipulating the systemt since the VA has all the power and uses it to deny the most pathetic cases. I mean the VA sits there and lets older survivors and vets die in order not to pay compensation and A&A. If a vet or survivor goes into a nursing home they can get A&A but it takes the VA six months to approve it and then half are dead by then.

The VA has a big problem now....the internet, Vets are learning the rules and the VA is not used to that as it means the old tactics are not working and they cant find new ones due to IMO's and the new technology used to show what realy is going on inside a person.

The VA can give me all the C&P's they want, I will always have a IMO from a specialist to counter before I even get there, as it is the only way to balance the scales and invoke the "benefit of doubt rule".

Todays VA has become like the federal OWCP system.

I think that its the VA who manipulates Veterans not the other way around

That's so sad, yet so typical it seems. I've always said that the regs are written to be heavily in the veteran's favor, but the VA has never followed its own regulations....perhaps these lawyers will force them to do so.

I think this case is a perfect example of this....the regs say that a vet can use an IMO in place of a C&P as long as the information provided is sufficient for ratings purposes, but I've never heard of the VA accepting an IMO, by itself, even when the IMO is from a highly qualified specialist.

It's like they've instituted their own internal policy in which C&Ps are mandatory no matter how much independent evidence is presented, which would seem to be a violation of a congressional mandate. To me, these lawyers are doing exactly what they are supposed to do; they are upholding the law and it's pissing the VA off!

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, and we'll see a LOT more cases like this down the road...I can think of numerous examples of the VA ignoring congressional laws and doing so on a regular basis; no lawyer worth a d@mn is going to sit idly by and allow any government body to ignore federal statutes.

I can't wait until the lawyers take one of the P&T cases in which the VA orders a C&P without "new and material evidence"......it is clearly against the VA regs, yet they do it all the time. One of many examples of fraud by our esteemed veteran's association.

I tend to agree. To that end, I just sent the attachment to the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.

I'm not sure if this link will work but it is what I found on my own after receiving Col. Dan's regular email.
I have included the text below the link just in case.

I believe we have more lawyers heading for our side of this battle.
However, I also believe that the VA, adversarial, illegal, BS, Mickey Mouse, chicken tactics will increase as there are no courts that have the authority to police the VA.

sledge


http://www.news-gazette.com/ngsearch/index...90707%5Fngstory
%5F79561%2Etxt&search=Tybor&theorder=allwords

Lawyers receive lessons to help veterans

Published Online Sep 7, 2007

By Paul Wood

Since the Civil War, U.S veterans have not had the right to legal aid in fighting for their benefits until the final appeals process.

The laws are beginning to change now, and the Illinois Supreme Court is setting up workshops to help lawyers help veterans, with input from a Champaign vet who lost his right arm in Iraq.

Sgt. Garrett Anderson has won his own battle to get full disability for the injuries he received in Iraq in 2005, and recently was asked to contribute to an Illinois Supreme Court report on legal problems faced by veterans.

The court this week announced it will hold training sessions for lawyers and law students in Chicago, and eventually statewide, so they can better prepare veterans who have difficulties with the benefits process.

Though they can't yet represent veterans in the initial stages, attorneys trained in the Illinois program support veterans in dealing with the administrative process, including gathering and preparing the necessary documentation required in the claims process, said Joseph Tybor, the press secretary for the Illinois Supreme Court.

Anderson, 30, said he was enthused that lawyers will get special training "because there are a lot of loopholes in that process." Anderson and his wife Sam, a newly minted lawyer, contributed a brief to the commission at the request of several John Marshall Law School students, some of them veterans, who initiated the process.

The first training session will be held Oct. 5 at a location to be named, Tybor said. About 40 legal professionals will attend the classes taught by Ron Abrams, the director of the National Veterans Legal Services Project in Washington, D.C. Those who complete the all-day course will then train other pro bono lawyers.

Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald of the Illinois Supreme Court and Tammy Duckworth, director of the Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs, presented the program with a $100,000 grant, proceeds from a scratch-off lottery ticket which benefits not-for-profit organizations that help Illinois veterans.

Funding also comes from annual registration fees paid by Illinois lawyers, Tybor said.

Clinics are also planned for downstate. Tina Gunsalus, special counsel in the University of Illinois Office of University Counsel, and adjunct professor in the colleges of law and medicine, serves on the state high court's professionalism commission, which initiated the program with the John Marshall students.

She said the UI is interested in having a workshop, but it's too early to get specific about plans.

"In theory, it's a perfect fit for us," Gunsalus said. "There is a set of problems that veterans experience over and over and over – which could be a good learning process for our students."

Changes in federal law also apply to lawyers who are not working pro bono.

Tybor said lawyers in this specialty are scarce because the federal government, since the Civil War, has prohibited lawyers from formally representing veterans in the claims process until their appeals, upon denial, reach Washington, D.C.

Their payment was also limited. The same Civil War-era laws mandated that in the appellate process attorneys can be paid a maximum of between $10 and $100, Tybor said. A law that took effect July 1 allows attorneys in the appellate stages to receive a contingency fee of up to 20 percent of the funds awarded to the veteran.

Kurt:

Thoughtful and inciteful petition to fix a problem. I tend to think that you can blame both parties for our problems at the VA.