Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:54 PM) Tbird Accepted To 2015 Conference: V-Wise: Another Entrepreneurship Project Of The Whitman School Of Management Http://ow.ly/ej9Qg
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:13 PM) Arng11 Thank You For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign.
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 02:57 PM) Thank You Ms T For Starting This Web Site For All Veterans, You Helpd Me And My Family And I'll Be Forever Gratful To You & Hadit.com
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:19 AM) Thank You All For Helping With The Funding The Site. It Is Really Helping!
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:18 AM) Britton Pm Me And I. Can Check This Out For You
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 06:44 AM) What Does ''you Missed Your Quota For Postives Votes Today'' Mean??
@  coriemboh : (19 November 2014 - 08:29 AM) Hold Time For Peggy Was Approximately 1 Minute. That Was 17 Minutes Ago. They Really Need To Change This Hold Music.
@  Tbird : (17 November 2014 - 02:42 PM) Stretch Thanks For The Extra Contribution To Our Fundraiser This Month.
@  maxwell18 : (16 November 2014 - 09:04 PM) I Still Have To Bitch About The Navy Hosp Cutting My Meds By 2/3 On My Norco. I Contacted Customer Service Or What Ever You Want To Call It Who In Turn Contacted The Navy Hosp Pensacola Commander Who In Turn Did Nothing. Thanks To All The People That Are Affair Of There Jobs And I Feel That Medical Malpractice Should Come Into Place. I Guess Just Do What Ever They Want To Because They Can, But Don't Give A Sh T For The Vets That Suppose To Being Supporting From All The Military  organizations. This Is Not The Way They Have Been Trained And Promised To Do. 
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:26 AM) Delayed Onset Tinnitus - Ref To Va Training Letter 10-028 - Link - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/single-Judge-Application-Va-Training-Letter-10-028-Delayed-Onset-Tinnitus/
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:03 AM) Here's A Good Tinnitus Link To Check Out From M21-1 Change Dated Jan 10,2014 - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/tag/section-B-Duty-Military-Occupational-Specialty-Mos-Noise-Exposure-Listing-Fast-Letter-10-35-Tinnitus-Hearing-Loss-Vbms-Rating-Decision-Tools/
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:08 AM) "rolled" Not Ruled! :)
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:07 AM) Thanks. I Have Seen The Fast Ltr 10-35 And Have Seen Cases Where The Va Has Apparently Agreed That Tinnitus Can Have Delayed Onset. I Did Not In Looking Over The Fast Ltr See Where They Had Ruled 10-028 Into That. And, I Am Not Sure In The Vas Issuance Of ‘policy’ Type Letters How They Might Roll In Previous Instructions Into Newer Ones. Maybe There Is Some Intranet Traceability Capability? I Was Just Curious As There ‘appeared’ To Be Conspicuous Absence Of That 10-028. I Am Assuming 10-028 Was Written In 2010. But It May Be I Should Not Assume Anything.
@  carlie : (15 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Asiadaug - You Might Be Looking For Fast Letter 10-35, Http://www.hadit.com/forums/topic/40962-Va-Fl-10-35/ Also Check Out This Link To Links For Delayed Onset Tinnitus - They All Refer Back To Fast Letter 10-35, Https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=Chrome-Instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=Utf-8#q=Tinnitus, Delayed Onset, Va Fast Letter
@  Tbird : (15 November 2014 - 07:50 AM) Asiadaug Searched All Over For Va Training Letter 10-028 But No Luck So Far.
@  Asiadaug : (15 November 2014 - 02:12 AM) Several Cases I've Run Across Mention Va Training Letter 10-028 With Apparent Discussion About Delayed Onset Of Tinnitus. I Have Been Unable To Locate That Trng Ltr. Any Suggestions?
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Stretch Thanks For Contributing To Our Fundraising Campairg
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 04:01 AM) Atomicwidow Thank Your For Donating To Our Funding Campaign.
@  Tbird : (11 November 2014 - 07:00 AM) Veterans Day 2014 - Veterans Thank You For Your Service And Your Sacrifice.
@  Tbird : (10 November 2014 - 07:19 AM) Semper Fi Marines

Photo
- - - - -

Important Topics - Please Review This Thread.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
291 replies to this topic

#241 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
  • Interests:I enjoy researching and debate of claims for
    Clear and Unmistakable Error (C&UE).
  • Service Connected Disability: 100+
  • Branch of Service: USA
 

Posted 29 July 2010 - 04:00 PM

http://www1.va.gov/v...asp?pub_ID=1391




Department of Veterans Affairs




VHA DIRECTIVE 2006-013 Veterans Health Administration Washington, DC 20420 March 7, 2006




QUALIFICATIONS FOR EXAMINERS PERFORMING COMPENSATION AND PENSION (C&P) MENTAL DISORDER EXAMINATIONS







1. PURPOSE: This Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive establishes policy for VHA clinicians and managers regarding the professional qualifications required to perform Compensation and Pension (C&P) examinations for mental disorders.







2. BACKGROUND




a. On February 9, 2005, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) issued C&P Fast Letter 05-01, Qualifications for Examiners Performing Compensation and Pension (C&P) Mental Disorder Examinations. C&P Fast Letter 06-03 revises those instructions and provides additional guidance. This VHA Directive is issued concomitantly to provide congruent directions to VHA personnel.




b. The objective of a C&P mental disorder examination is to obtain competent, critical, objective, and unbiased results. To ensure that examination providers are competent to provide findings and opinions that are valid and necessary for rating purposes, individuals who conduct C&P mental disorder examinations must have specific qualifications. As discussed in subparagraphs 4a and 4b, only certain individuals are permitted to conduct initial mental disorder examinations. In addition to those individuals, certain other individuals are permitted to conduct review or increase mental disorder examinations as discussed in subparagraph 4c.




c. To maintain the integrity of the patient-provider relationship, it is preferable that a veteran’s treating physician not perform the C&P examination for mental disorder.




3. POLICY: It is VHA policy that each mental health professional who conducts a VHA C&P examination for mental disorder must be appropriately qualified.




4. ACTION: Each facility Director, or designee, is responsible for ensuring that the:




a. Mental Health Professional Conducting C&P Examinations for Mental Disorders is Clinically Privileged. The mental health professional who conducts a C&P examination for a mental disorder must be clinically privileged, as governed by applicable law and the policies established at individual VHA facilities, to perform and/or supervise the performance of the following activities as required for all C&P examinations for mental disorders. The mental health professional must be able to:




(1) Diagnose all mental disorders, including personality disorders, using the nomenclature in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).

THIS VHA DIRECTIVE EXPIRES MARCH 31, 2011

VHA DIRECTIVE 2006-013 March 7, 2006




(2) Provide an assessment of each veteran using the multi-axial system as set forth in DSM- IV with a narrative explanation of the Axis V determination.




(3) Determine when clinician-administered psychometric testing is necessary and integrate the results of such testing into the examination reports.




(4) Assess the need for, and effectiveness of, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment.




(5) Provide a prognosis with respect to each mental disorder or condition.




(6) When necessary, comment on the significance of the veteran’s prior mental health assessments (as reported) with respect to symptoms, occupational history, social history, and global assessment of functioning.




(7) Identify veterans presenting with complex diagnostic questions or other issues that are beyond the examiner’s expertise, and refer those veterans identified to a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist who has the expertise necessary to complete the C&P mental disorder examination.




b. Examiner Qualification Requirements for Initial Mental Disorder Examinations Are Met. Mental health professionals with the following credentials are qualified to perform initial C&P examinations for mental disorders. They are:




(1) Board-eligible psychiatrists (those who have completed a psychiatry residency and who are appropriately credentialed and privileged) and board-certified psychiatrists.




(2) Licensed doctorate-level psychologists.




(3) Doctorate-level mental health providers under close supervision by a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist.




(4) Psychiatry residents under close supervision by a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist.




(5) Clinical or counseling psychologists completing a one-year internship or residency under close supervision by a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist. NOTE: Close supervision means that the supervising psychiatrist or psychologist met with the veteran and conferred with the examining mental health professional in providing the diagnosis and the final assessment. The supervising psychiatrist or psychologist must co- sign the examination report.




c. Examiner Qualifications Requirements for Review or Increase C&P Mental Disorder Examinations Are Met. Mental health professionals with the following credentials are qualified to perform review or increase C&P mental disorder examinations. They are:

2

VHA DIRECTIVE 2006-013 March 7, 2006




(1) Mental health professionals qualified to perform initial C&P mental disorder examinations (see preceding subpar. 4b).




(2) Other mental health professionals, such as licensed clinical social workers, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants, any of whom must be under close supervision by a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or licensed doctorate-level psychologist. NOTE: Close supervision means that the supervising psychiatrist or psychologist met with the veteran and conferred with the examining mental health professional in providing the diagnosis and the final assessment. The supervising psychiatrist or psychologist must co- sign the examination report.




d. Documentation of Qualified Examiners is Completed. As required in the C&P examination worksheets, examining mental health professionals must sign the reports and, if applicable, obtain the signature of the supervising psychiatrist or psychologist. All signatures must include the individual’s professional credentials (i.e., MD, PhD). NOTE: These signatures denote compliance with the requirements of this Directive.




e. Examinations are Returned as Inadequate for Rating Purposes, if Necessary.




A C&P examination for mental health disorder may be returned to VHA by VBA as inadequate for rating purposes, when the exam:




(1) Does not include the examiner’s credentials and signature,




(2) Does not include the signature of a board-certified or board-eligible psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist.




5. REFERENCES: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR (Text Revision), American Psychiatric Association, June 2000.




6. FOLLOW-UP RESPONSIBILITY: The Office of Patient Care Services is responsible for the contents of this Directive. Questions may be directed to (202) 273-8434.




7. RESCISSIONS: None. This VHA Directive expires March 31, 2011.




S/Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, MSHA, FACP Under Secretary for Health

DISTRIBUTION: CO: E-mailed 3/8/2006 FLD: VISN, MA, DO, OC, OCRO, and 200 – E-mailed 3/8/2006








#242 RSG

 
RSG

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Interests:nothin
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 02 August 2010 - 08:36 AM

Both bases were contaminated,
TI also had radioactivity, found..

The reports cited are for two bases. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard(HPNSY) and The Treasure Island(TI) naval base. HPNSY is referred to as Hunters Point Annex. HPNSY is the more contaminated of the two. The poll only ask if we were stationed at TI.
HPNSY is where most of the radioactive wastes are. This base was the main decontamination station for ships from the nuclear weapons testing and for many of the ships from Yankee Station during Viet Nam. It was doing many if not all of the birdfarms. It was closed in I believe 1974. TI was closed much later. HPNSY was also the home to Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory(NRDL) They put together all the nuclear weapons used in the Pacific. They also experimented extensively with radiation and the bay area.



#243 RSG

 
RSG

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Interests:nothin
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 02 August 2010 - 08:39 AM

There was a lot of asbestos in those old barracks, you could actually see it floating around inside the building.



Possibly asbestos exposure due to the amount of the stuff in the old buildings. I'd think that you would need to somehow document that you were in areas at TI that were contaminated, perhaps as part of a work party or some other events.




#244 RSG

 
RSG

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Interests:nothin
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 02 August 2010 - 08:40 AM

I know that all the Barracks on the north end of the isalnd were built on top of a toxic waste site that is now covered in multiple feet of concrete....

I was at TI in 1972 awaiting discharge. The barrack I was assigned to were old WW2. An inside converted basketball floor and showers. Now I have a question, would this not be further evidence of Chemical exposure to further substantiate a claim for A.O. both on land and offshore waters? I have a non-Hodgkins Lymph node. It never caused me pain, it's just a mass on the right side of my neck.



#245 RSG

 
RSG

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Interests:nothin
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 02 August 2010 - 08:43 AM

I feel the contamination would have affeted everyone who was stationed there....From the time the NAvy took over the island...

I was in the Navy from 89-95. I went to the basic and advanced shipboard firefighting schools in 89. does this affect me or is it for earlier service?




#246 Tbird

 
Tbird

    Founder HadIt.com established 1997

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • GooglePlus:+TbirdHadIt
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 07 August 2010 - 02:53 AM

Hi I've updated our Pass It On Cards. They are in a PDF format you can print them out cut them there are 12 to a page. If you have found HadIt.com helpful and would like to pass it on to other veterans this is an easy way to do it.

I hope you find them helpful, feel free to leave a few anywhere veterans gather, veterans centers, veterans hospitals, public libraries, be creative. Please make sure though, that if you want to leave some at any business you ask permission first.

Here you go http://www.hadit.com...it_on_cards.pdf

#247 Pete53

 
Pete53

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21895 posts
  • Location:Dallas or close to it Texas
  • Interests:My Family
  • Service Connected Disability: 100%
  • Branch of Service: USA
 

Posted 07 August 2010 - 07:22 AM

Sweet :biggrin:

#248 johnjjr

 
johnjjr

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Service Connected Disability: 100%
  • Branch of Service: USMC
 

Posted 07 August 2010 - 07:35 AM

Tbird,

Thanks for this wonderful tool. Prior to becoming so disabled that I could no longer work, I was in business for myself. As a cost saver, I printed my own business cards on perforated business card stock. When I had to retire, I had quite a bit of blank stock left. Just tried printing your card on my stock and it fits perfectly. With your permission, I'll be printing and leaving cards wherever I am allowed. Thanks again for this tool and for this great site.

Edited by johnjjr, 07 August 2010 - 07:36 AM.


#249 Tbird

 
Tbird

    Founder HadIt.com established 1997

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • GooglePlus:+TbirdHadIt
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 08 August 2010 - 02:19 AM

Excellent Johnjr - Yes print and pass out as many you want. I know the card stock you speak of, I used it also. Thank you for passing it on.

Tbird,

Thanks for this wonderful tool. Prior to becoming so disabled that I could no longer work, I was in business for myself. As a cost saver, I printed my own business cards on perforated business card stock. When I had to retire, I had quite a bit of blank stock left. Just tried printing your card on my stock and it fits perfectly. With your permission, I'll be printing and leaving cards wherever I am allowed. Thanks again for this tool and for this great site.



#250 hedgey

 
hedgey

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts
  • Location:VARO is Buffalo, NY
  • Interests:100% IU P&T - 70% for PTSD + a few other 10%'s. 80% schedular
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: usa
 

Posted 08 August 2010 - 10:16 AM

I have business card blanks too, from long ago when I thought my life would go a different way. This is so cool, to be able to use it for such a T-riffic purpose. I've got an appt. on Tuesday at the VA clinic - I'll leave a little stack of these puppies on the table.

Oooh, I get to use something that I've been hanging onto for years. Pack Rat Woman is once again vindicated :biggrin:

#251 Tbird

 
Tbird

    Founder HadIt.com established 1997

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • GooglePlus:+TbirdHadIt
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 08 August 2010 - 10:55 AM

Oh, that is excellent. Every once in awhile I pull something from my garage like a laminator and I think I sure am glad I held onto that. My garage is where I keep my junk. My home is designed around feng shui idea it gives the house an airy and flowing feel. I have a very uncluttered home, when my house starts to get cluttered it makes my mind worse, which is already pretty cluttered without any help.

I try be kind of zen about things it's a constant battle with my PTSD though, but I do find it helpful to try and be in the moment when I can.

I have business card blanks too, from long ago when I thought my life would go a different way. This is so cool, to be able to use it for such a T-riffic purpose. I've got an appt. on Tuesday at the VA clinic - I'll leave a little stack of these puppies on the table.

Oooh, I get to use something that I've been hanging onto for years. Pack Rat Woman is once again vindicated :biggrin:



#252 RSG

 
RSG

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Interests:nothin
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 08 August 2010 - 11:27 AM

I will use them.....

#253 Tbird

 
Tbird

    Founder HadIt.com established 1997

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • GooglePlus:+TbirdHadIt
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 08 August 2010 - 11:34 AM

This is great! Thank you all for your support.

#254 johnjjr

 
johnjjr

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Service Connected Disability: 100%
  • Branch of Service: USMC
 

Posted 08 August 2010 - 01:27 PM

I have the first appt at the clinic on Tues. so I'm usually the first one in the waiting area. Gee, I wonder who put those bookmarks in every magazine in the place?

#255 Tbird

 
Tbird

    Founder HadIt.com established 1997

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • GooglePlus:+TbirdHadIt
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 09 August 2010 - 01:24 AM

That reminds every so often I print out the Law about TDIU and a little article then I leave them around in my travels through the VA.

I have the first appt at the clinic on Tues. so I'm usually the first one in the waiting area. Gee, I wonder who put those bookmarks in every magazine in the place?



#256 halos2

 
halos2

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1488 posts
  • Location:Mo
  • Interests:Vets advocate.
  • Service Connected Disability: 100%
  • Branch of Service: usaf
 

Posted 09 August 2010 - 05:16 AM

Ran off 2 sheets worth to drop off some to enquiring minds today at the VAMC. Thanks tbird. They look fabulous too! BTW where did you find a Feng Shui specialist in your area? I am 157 miles north of you, and my home needs it severly, I mean pack rat horder severly...My mind is in a state of disrepair too to the MAX!!:blink:

#257 Tbird

 
Tbird

    Founder HadIt.com established 1997

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • GooglePlus:+TbirdHadIt
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 09 August 2010 - 07:56 AM

Well lucky for me I had a friend I hired. Sounds like the first thing you need to do is to hire someone who specializes in helping hoarders, they really do have folks that do that for a living, also some cleaning services in the city specialize and indicate that they are sensitive to that kind of issue. Once you get the assistance to get rid of all the stuff you don't need, you can work on the feng shui one step at a time.

Ran off 2 sheets worth to drop off some to enquiring minds today at the VAMC. Thanks tbird. They look fabulous too! BTW where did you find a Feng Shui specialist in your area? I am 157 miles north of you, and my home needs it severly, I mean pack rat horder severly...My mind is in a state of disrepair too to the MAX!!:blink:



#258 stillhere

 
stillhere

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USA
 

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:32 AM

Strange but it is now working. Not sure if someone paid for the domain or not but it is running now.

#259 RSG

 
RSG

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Interests:nothin
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 12 August 2010 - 06:55 AM

If anyone needs paper documentation, I have a binder full...Let me know and I will scan and email it to you.....

#260 allan

 
allan

    Content Contributor

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13030 posts
  • Location:Eastern Washington State
  • Service Connected Disability: 40%
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 12 August 2010 - 08:33 AM

RSG,
there was also a building I spent a week going to maintenence training courses to that had a nuke accident during the late fifties.
The Building was so hot after the island sold to private developers in the 1990's i'm not sure if they ever got it cleaned up.

Also hundreds of fiftyfive gallon drums of plutonium discs were barried under the island after the US agreed to stop developing nuke weapons with USSR.
One other thing I discovered in my research was bio weapons such as Sarin was also stored there and tested 50 miles off of SanFrancisco coast.
Agent Orange was used on the base and was found in the base water supply, but since the Island is not in Vietnam, I doubt a claim for exposure would be approved.

I lived in the base barracks for two months and worked at the post office during medical hold. I have many illnesses associated with AO and radiation exposure.
A claim for anything now would likely take 20 yrs to be possibly approved.

Allan

#261 allan

 
allan

    Content Contributor

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13030 posts
  • Location:Eastern Washington State
  • Service Connected Disability: 40%
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 12 August 2010 - 08:35 AM

RSG,
there was also a building I spent a week going to maintenence training courses to that had a nuke accident during the late fifties.
The Building was so hot after the island sold to private developers in the 1990's i'm not sure if they ever got it cleaned up.

Also hundreds of fiftyfive gallon drums of plutonium discs were barried under the island after the US agreed to stop developing nuke weapons with USSR.
One other thing I discovered in my research was bio weapons such as Sarin was also stored there and tested 50 miles off of SanFrancisco coast.
Agent Orange was used on the base and was found in the base water supply, but since the Island is not in Vietnam, I doubt a claim for exposure would be approved.

I lived in the base barracks for two months and worked at the post office during medical hold. I have many illnesses associated with AO and radiation exposure.
A claim for anything now would likely take 20 yrs to be possibly approved.

Allan

#262 RSG

 
RSG

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Interests:nothin
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 12 August 2010 - 09:19 AM

ALLAN,
I spent a lot of time there in "A" school, and a lot of time in the barracks, studying etc. Months. months and months...I have diabetes, insulin dependent, neuropathy, soft tissue stuff that I accquired when i was 35, at least that's when I found out...I am aware that A.O. was used there. that is what I feel my diabetes came from.. I started passing out while in school for no apparant reason.....I figured it was high blood sugar later....nobody ever checked, even me, I didn't know what was up.... I went to the BVA with all the evidence already with my claim, but dropped it, and pursed the immediate issues I had....l.So I think the BVA and the VA knows, if they already put it in my file....The Northwest end of the Island where the barracks were (Site 12), is now covered in concrete, I think the radiation area was on the east side of the island, but I don't remember without looking it up again. I would like to see that article on the water supply and the offshore testing. You must be refering to project SHAD........Tnx
RSG


RSG,
there was also a building I spent a week going to maintenence training courses to that had a nuke accident during the late fifties.
The Building was so hot after the island sold to private developers in the 1990's i'm not sure if they ever got it cleaned up.

Also hundreds of fiftyfive gallon drums of plutonium discs were barried under the island after the US agreed to stop developing nuke weapons with USSR.
One other thing I discovered in my research was bio weapons such as Sarin was also stored there and tested 50 miles off of SanFrancisco coast.
Agent Orange was used on the base and was found in the base water supply, but since the Island is not in Vietnam, I doubt a claim for exposure would be approved.

I lived in the base barracks for two months and worked at the post office during medical hold. I have many illnesses associated with AO and radiation exposure.
A claim for anything now would likely take 20 yrs to be possibly approved.

Allan


Edited by RSG, 12 August 2010 - 09:28 AM.


#263 allan

 
allan

    Content Contributor

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13030 posts
  • Location:Eastern Washington State
  • Service Connected Disability: 40%
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 12 August 2010 - 05:01 PM

U.S. Navy announces PCB and Dioxin Contamination present at the former Treasure Island Naval Air Station
and at Hunters Point Shipyard
http://bluewaternavy...ure Island1.htm



Is contaminated housing poisoning military families?
http://www.grist.org/article/base/








#264 RSG

 
RSG

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Interests:nothin
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 13 August 2010 - 10:33 AM

This doesn't surprise me at all, Seems like iot will take forever for the people to get really involved in these issues, and get them resolved. They will be somehow shoved under the carpet.......



U.S. Navy announces PCB and Dioxin Contamination present at the former Treasure Island Naval Air Station
and at Hunters Point Shipyard
http://bluewaternavy...e%20Island1.htm



Is contaminated housing poisoning military families?
http://www.grist.org/article/base/









#265 allan

 
allan

    Content Contributor

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13030 posts
  • Location:Eastern Washington State
  • Service Connected Disability: 40%
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 13 August 2010 - 10:54 PM

RSG,

The only right thing for Congress, the DOD and the dept of Veterans Affairs Secretary to do, is to put Naval Station Treasure Island on the contaminated base list, the same as Guam and provide any veteran benefits for illnesses associated with, dioxins, heavy metals, radiation and bioweapons.

It's time they quit hiding the truth about these exposures and there harmfull effects.

Allan

#266 RSG

 
RSG

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Interests:nothin
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 14 August 2010 - 04:46 AM

I understand that to be the case, but it will take years and years to ever have the the GOV. admit there was a problem, if it would happen at all.....Somebody with real pull would certianly go along way in resolving those issues...But I really don't think anybody cares that much, yet...... I found out all the info I submitted a couple years ago
and submitted it here and this is as far as it has gotton....



RSG,

The only right thing for Congress, the DOD and the dept of Veterans Affairs Secretary to do, is to put Naval Station Treasure Island on the contaminated base list, the same as Guam and provide any veteran benefits for illnesses associated with, dioxins, heavy metals, radiation and bioweapons.

It's time they quit hiding the truth about these exposures and there harmfull effects.

Allan



#267 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
  • Interests:I enjoy researching and debate of claims for
    Clear and Unmistakable Error (C&UE).
  • Service Connected Disability: 100+
  • Branch of Service: USA
 

Posted 18 August 2010 - 09:29 AM

Here is the PDF that James Breckenridge was kind enough to post.

Attached Files



#268 jbasser

 
jbasser

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6281 posts
  • Location:KY
  • Interests:Fishing.
  • Service Connected Disability: 100+
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 18 August 2010 - 09:37 AM

Thanks Carlie.
Asbestos has no presumptives attached but the latency period it takes to develop asbestos can take up to 45 years. This depends on how heavy the exposure was.
I would at least like the VA to have a screening program like the AO registry for folks whose rating was actual asbestos involvement like Naval Laggers or insulators.
At least they can be screened over time to ensure they have not contracted the deadly diseases associated.

This may be something to ask the Veterans Committe to look at,

J

#269 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
  • Interests:I enjoy researching and debate of claims for
    Clear and Unmistakable Error (C&UE).
  • Service Connected Disability: 100+
  • Branch of Service: USA
 

Posted 20 August 2010 - 07:58 AM

http://cfr.vlex.com/...orneys-19774782


TITLE 38 - PENSIONS, BONUSES, AND VETERANS' RELIEF




CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS




PART 14 - LEGAL SERVICES, GENERAL COUNSEL, AND MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS




14.629 - Requirements for accreditation of service organization representatives; agents; and attorneys.




The Regional Counsel of jurisdiction will resolve any question of current qualifications of a service organization representative, agent, or attorney. The claimant, the service organization representative, agent, or attorney, or an official of the organization for which such person acts, or a Department of Veterans Affairs Adjudication Officer or Service Center Manager may appeal such determination to the General Counsel.



(a) Service Organization Representatives. A recognized organization shall file with the Office of the General Counsel VA Form 21 (Application for Accreditation as Service Organization Representative) for each person it desires accredited as a representative of that organization. In recommending a person, the organization shall certify that the designee:




(1) Is of good character and reputation and has demonstrated an ability to represent claimants before the Department of Veterans Affairs;




(2) Is either a member in good standing or a paid employee of such organization working for it not less than 1,000 hours annually; is accredited and functioning as a representative of another recognized organization; or, in the case of a county veteran's service officer recommended by a recognized State organization, meets the following criteria: (i) Is a paid employee of the county working for it not less than 1,000 hours annually; (ii) Has successfully completed a course of training and an examination which have been approved by a Regional Counsel with jurisdiction for the State; and (iii) Will receive either regular supervision and monitoring or annual training to assure continued qualification as a representative in the claim process; and




(3) Is not employed in any civil or military department or agency of the United States. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5902) (b) Agents.

(1) An individual desiring accreditation as an agent must establish that he or she is of good character and reputation and is qualified to render assistance to claimants in the presentation of their claim(s). An individual desiring accreditation as an agent must file a completed application with the Office of the General Counsel on VA Form 21a on which the applicant submits the following: (i) His or her full name and business address; (ii) Information concerning the applicant's military and civilian employment history (including character of military discharge, if applicable); (iii) Information concerning representation provided by the applicant before any department, agency, or bureau of the Federal government; (iv) Information concerning any criminal background of the applicant; (v) Information concerning whether the applicant has ever been determined mentally incompetent or hospitalized as a result of a mental disease or disability, or is currently under treatment for a mental disease or disability; (vi) Information concerning whether the applicant was previously accredited as a representative of a veterans service organization and, if so, whether that accreditation was terminated or suspended by or at the request of that organization; (vii) The names, addresses, and phone numbers of three character references; and (viii) Information relevant to whether or not the applicant has any physical limitations which would interfere with the completion of a comprehensive written examination administered under the supervision of a VA Regional Counsel.

(2) Applicants must achieve a score of 75 percent or more on a written examination administered by VA as a prerequisite to accreditation. No applicant shall be allowed to sit for the examination more than twice in any 6-month period. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5904) © Attorneys.





(1) An attorney may represent a claimant upon submission of authorization as described in 14.631(a) or (b).

(2) If the claimant consents in writing, an attorney associated or affiliated with the claimant's attorney of record or employed by the same legal services office as the attorney of record may assist in the representation of the claimant.

(3) A legal intern, law student, or paralegal may not be independently accredited to represent claimants under this paragraph. A legal intern, law student, or certified paralegal may assist in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of a claim, under the direct supervision of an attorney of record designated under 14.631(a) or (b), if the claimant's written consent is furnished to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such consent must specifically state that participation in all aspects of the claim by a legal intern, law student, or paralegal furnishing written authorization from the attorney of record is authorized. In addition, suitable authorization for access to the claimant's records must be provided in order for such an individual to participate. The supervising attorney must be present at any hearing in which a legal intern, law student, or paralegal participates. (See 20.606).

(4) Unless revoked by the claimant, consent provided under paragraph ©(2) or paragraph ©(3) of this section shall remain effective in the event the claimant's original attorney is replaced as attorney of record by another member of the same law firm or an attorney employed by the same legal services office.

Note to 14.629: A legal intern, law student, paralegal, or veterans service organization support-staff person, working under the supervision of an individual designated under 14.631(a) as the claimant's representative, attorney, or agent, may qualify for read-only access to pertinent Veterans Benefits Administration automated claims records.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5904) (The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control numbers 29000018 and 2900 0605.) [53 FR 52421, Dec. 28, 1988, as amended at 55 FR 38057, Sept. 17, 1990; 68 FR 8545, Feb. 24, 2003]






Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/...2#ixzz0x9eeTjwY



----------------------------------------------------


http://www4.va.gov/ogc/accreditation.asp




Accreditation




Accreditation Forms:

  • VA Form 21 - Application for Accreditation as Service Organization Representative
  • Va Form 21a - Application for Accreditation as a Claims Agent or Attorney

These accreditation applications may be mailed to the address indicated on the form, faxed to the Office of the General Counsel (022D) at (202) 495-5457, or attached (as a pdf file) to an e-mail sent to ogcaccreditationmailbox@va.gov.








Accreditation Inquiries:



Accreditation questions, comments, and requests for correction of information reported by the Office of the General Counsel's online accreditation search application may be sent to ogcaccreditationmailbox@va.gov.






Representation Forms:

  • VA Form 21-22 - Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as Claimant's Representative
  • VA Form 21-22a - Appointment of Individual As Claimant's Representative



These appointment forms must be filed with the VA office that has jurisdiction over the claim (generally a VA Regional Office or the Board of Veterans' Appeals). Do not file these forms with the Office of the General Counsel.




Fee Agreements:

A copy of every fee agreement between a VA claimant and an accredited agent or attorney for purposes of representation pursuant to a properly filed VA Form 21-22a must be filed with the Office of the General Counsel within 30 days of its execution. See 38 C.F.R. § 14.636(g)(3). Fee agreements may be mailed to the Office of the General Counsel (022D), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, or may be attached (as a pdf file) to an e-mail sent tofeeagreements.ogc@va.gov. For more information about naming pdf files for submission to the Office of the General Counsel see the "Fee Agreements" section of our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. Do not send any other documents regarding the adjudication of the claim or copies of such documents to the Office of the General Counsel. A copy of the fee agreement must also be filed with the VA office that has jurisdiction over the claim if the agreement calls for VA's direct payment of fees out of a past-due benefits award. See 38 C.F.R. § 14.636(h)(4).






With respect to VA's direct payment of fees, please also complete and submit form SF 3881, "ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form," to the fee coordinator at the regional office that has jurisdiction over the claim (see "Regional Office Contacts" below). VA needs the information that you provide on the form to process fee payments through its Financial Services Center in Austin, Texas. Complete the "Financial Institution Information" portion of the form if you want direct deposit of your fee payments. You are "enrolled" upon initial submission of the form and need not resubmit it for each case in which you represent a claimant pursuant to a direct-pay fee agreement. Submit a new SF 3881 only when you need to update your "Payee/Company Information" or "Financial Institution Information."




Regional Office Contacts:

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has assigned at least one staff member (Agent and Attorney Fee Coordinator) at each of its Regional Offices to act as the primary point-of-contact for accredited agents and attorneys who represent claimants before the Department. Please address questions regarding specific claims to the Fee Coordinator at the Regional Office that has jurisdiction over the claim. VBA's Fee Coordinator directory is available at the following link: http://vaww.va.gov/ogc/docs/afc.xls




Remote Access to Electronic VA Records:

Under 38 C.F.R. §§ 1.600 through 1.603, accredited service organization representatives, claims agents, and attorneys may obtain read-only remote access to the electronic Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) claims records of the claimants they represent. To see if you are eligible for this service, please review VA's regulations and then contact a centralized VBA network Information Security Officer (ISO) at vba.networkisos@va.gov. You will be referred to the appropriate regional office ISO for further processing if it appears that you meet the basic qualifications for remote access to the records.




Frequently Asked Questions:

For more information about accreditation, continuing legal education, fee agreements, and other representation matters, please review the Office of the General Counsel FAQ page at http://www.va.gov/ogc/accred_faqs.asp.




Statutes and Regulations:




Chapter 59 of title 38, United States Code, governs the representation of claimants for veterans benefits and the accreditation of representatives, agents, and attorneys.Title 38 is available in its entirety at the U.S. Government Printing Office website at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html




Sections 14.626 through 14.637 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, implement the statutes in chapter 59 governing the representation of claimants for veterans benefits and the accreditation of representatives, agents, and attorneys. An unofficial searchable version of the Code of Federal Regulations including title 38 is available at the Government Printing Office website at http://ecfr.gpoacces...&tpl=/index.tpl. Because both websites may not reflect recent changes in the law, interested individuals should check multiple sources to ensure accuracy.




Section 101 of Public Law 109-461, enacted on December 22, 2006, amended chapter 59 of title 38. Section 101 amends the law governing the recognition of individuals for the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for benefits before VA. It requires VA to: (1) regulate the qualifications and standards of conduct applicable to accredited agents and attorneys; (2) annually collect information about accredited agents' and attorneys' standing to practice or appear before any court, bar, or Federal or State agency; (3) proscribe accreditation of individuals who have been suspended or disbarred from any such entity without reinstatement; (4) add to the list of grounds for suspension or exclusion of agents or attorneys from further practice before VA; and (5) subject veteran service organization representatives and individuals recognized for a particular claim to suspension and exclusion from further practice before VA on the same grounds as apply to agents and attorneys.




Section 101 also amends the fee provisions in chapter 59. Under these amendments, accredited agents and attorneys may charge fees for services provided after the claimant files a notice of disagreement in the case, rather than after the Board first makes a final decision in the case. The amendments also authorize VA to: (1) restrict the amount of fees agents or attorneys may charge and subject fee agreements between agents or attorneys and claimants to review by the Secretary, such review to be appealable to the Board; and (2) collect an assessment from any agent or attorney to whom VA pays fees directly from past-due benefits. Further, the amendments eliminate fee matters as grounds for criminal penalties under 38 U.S.C. § 5905.
(Link to full text of Public Law 109-461)




On May 22, 2008, VA published in the Federal Register final rules to implement section 101 of Public Law 109-461. The rules are effective 30 days from date of publication. (Link to Federal Register Notice)







#270 deltaj

 
deltaj

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 734 posts
 

Posted 21 August 2010 - 09:26 PM

This is not to be construed as legal advice. I suspect this post is for Glenn McBride who had problems with VARO in Virginia the other day. First, note that McBride's problem allegedly did not occur during a V.A. medical examination. Secondly, there is a Supremacy clause in federal law but the cited Office of General Counsel Precedent cites regulations, not laws. Thirdly, all of us have a right to free speech under the Constitution. I do recognize, however, that V.A. has a no solicitation policy that may limit free speech rights at V.A. facilities. Having read McBride's account of what allegedly occurred the other day, and since this V.A. facility was in Virginia, I can't help but wonder where STATE law in Virginia comes into this. I searched online under permission to record AND Virginia. This led to a rather interesting website entitled Virginia Recording Law Citizen Media Law Project. This discussion of Virginia Recording Law got me thinking about how Virginia law might have an impact on McBride's situation and whether he had any rights under Virginia state law to record any conversations with V.A. personnel. This is a question on which McBride is going to need expert legal help in evaluating his situation.

Edited by deltaj, 21 August 2010 - 09:31 PM.


#271 Chuck75

 
Chuck75

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1486 posts
  • Location:Georgia
  • Service Connected Disability: 100%
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 21 August 2010 - 10:34 PM

Remember this-- If a law does not specifically prohibit an action, and the action does not harm someone, somehow, it's kinda hard to say the action is illegal.
As a federal employee, the examiner is mostly exempt from prosecution while doing his or her "duty".
If the cellphone in your pocket happened to be live, or a pinhole camera was in your clothing, so what. Rules are written, and only sometimes have the effect of law.
In many cases, rules are written for the guidance of bureaucrats, and have no real direct impact on a non bureaucrat. The actions by the bureaucrat under the "rule" may have serious implications for the citizen. Under most cases local law is not operable on federal land. However, the federal "authority" in charge of the facility does have options that may allow local law to be enforced. There is also a large difference between "report for" and "submit". The VA likes to consider them synonymous. Another issue come to mind as well that has to do with "adequate to rate". I believe that the VA is blatantly guilty of "Fraud Waste and Abuse" when the already existing medical records are adequate to rate a claim, and a C&P is ordered. Another issue came up concerning C&P exams that include some types of medical tests that have a real chance of doing harm to a veteran, and the veteran refuses the test based upon competent medical advice unless proper precautions are taken. (And the VA decides to not provide the precautions, or it cancels the entire C&P exam.)

As to the "rules" regarding recording and state vs federal law.

A sort of example has to do with sales tax. Generally, stuff bought on a federal facility, such as a military base, is not taxed at the time of sale.
State laws vary, but due to internet purchases that are not taxed, most states enacted laws that require state residents to pay tax on those purchases. If the wording in the state tax sales law does not specifically exempt purchases on a federal facility and limit the law to internet sales only, a state can impose the same requirement to pay sales tax on the resident as it does on internet sales. Requiring and collecting are two totally different things.

The whole state, federal, and international legal situation/jurisdiction bit can get utterly out of hand.

The above are my opinions only, and are not "legal advice" or legal guidance.



DATE: 02-13-91



CITATION: VAOPGCPREC 04-91 
Vet. Aff. Op. Gen. Couns. Prec. 04-91 


TEXT: 


Failure to Submit to Medical Examination--Insistence on the Presence of an Attorney and Use of a Recording Device



QUESTION PRESENTED:

Has a veteran failed to report for a scheduled examination for purposes of 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 if he or she appears but refuses to be examined unless accompanied by a private attorney and allowed to record the evaluation? 



COMMENTS:

 1. This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the possible "right" of Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) beneficiaries to be accompanied by an attorney during scheduled VA medical examinations. The veteran appeared for a scheduled psychiatric examination but refused to be examined unless the veteran's attorney was present and the veteran was permitted to use a tape recorder during the evaluation. Section 3.329 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that every person applying for or in receipt of compensation or pension shall submit to examinations when required by VA under proper authority. Section 3.655 of that title provides for discontinuance of benefits when a veteran fails "without adequate reason" to report for examination. Determination of the facts surrounding a claimant's failure to report is a factual matter which rests with VA adjudication and appellate personnel. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.100 and 19.111. This opinion addresses the legal issue of whether denial of assistance of counsel and use of a recording device in connection with a VA-required examination constitutes adequate reason for failure to submit to examination for purposes of section 3.655.

2. A "right to counsel" in administrative proceedings does not exist unless it can be found in some constitutional clause, statutory measure, or regulation. Barker v. Hardway, 283 F.Supp. 228 (S.D.W.Va.), aff'd, 399 F.2d 638 (4th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 905 (1969); Suess v. Pugh, 245 F.Supp. 661 (N.D.W.Va.1965) (proceeding before Professional Standards Board of Veterans Administration). Turning first to the United States Constitution, we note that the sixth amendment provides for the assistance of counsel " i n all criminal prosecutions." It has no bearing on the question of assistance of counsel in civil matters before administrative agencies. Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (1960); Smith v. United States, 250 F.Supp. 803 (D.N.J.1966), appeal dismissed, 377 F.2d 739 (3d Cir.1967); Suess, 245 F.Supp. at 665. The fifth amendment is less specific than the sixth and contains a very powerful guarantee, requiring that one not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amendment V. However, in interpreting that clause, the courts have been reluctant to find that "due process" includes a right to representation by counsel in administrative activities of an investigatory or preliminary nature. E.g., In Re Groban, 352 U.S. 330, 335 (1957) (no right to assistance of counsel in testifying at an investigatory proceeding); Bowles v. Baer, 142 F.2d 787, 789 (7th Cir.1944) (investigations held in private, without representation by counsel-- held no provision of the Constitution required public hearing); see also Hannah, 363 U.S. at 440-51 (no right to cross-examine witnesses before commission performing investigative function). See generally Torras v. Stradley, 103 F.Supp. 737, 739 (N.D.Ga.1951) (noting cases recognizing distinction between fact-finding functions and those involving determination of legal rights).

3. In applying this case law to the situation under consideration, we note that medical examinations conducted by VA are investigative in nature. Within VA, there is a clear delineation between the role of the Veterans Health Services and Research Administration (VHS & RA) and that of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). Compare the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, Pub.L. No. 100-527, § 7, 102 Stat. 2635, 2640 (1988), with 38 U.S.C. § 4101(a). As set out in 38 C.F.R. ss 2.67 and 3.100(a), authority is delegated to VBA personnel to make findings and decisions as to entitlement of claimants to monetary benefits under laws administered by VA. Thus, even though medical examinations conducted by VHS & RA provide important information relevant to claims for benefits, the examinations are not conducted by the same individuals who 
participate in benefit decisions, and the reports of those examinations represent only one piece of information which will be considered by adjudication personnel in determining eligibility for benefits. Given the nature of the examination function, there is thus, in our view, no constitutional right to the presence of an attorney at a VA medical examination.

4. With regard to pertinent statutory provisions, assistance of counsel for persons appearing before administrative agencies is addressed in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the first two sentences of 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). The first sentence provides that " a person compelled to appear in person before an agency or representative thereof is entitled to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or, if permitted by the agency, by other qualified representative." The second sentence adds that " a party is entitled to appear in person or by or with counsel or other duly qualified representative in an agency proceeding." The legislative history of the predecessor to this provision indicates that the second sentence was intended to supplement the first sentence by providing a rule to govern situations where appearance of an individual is not compelled.
92 Cong.Rec. 2156 (1946) (statement of Senator McCarran). Since the veteran in this case was required to appear for examination at the risk of termination of benefits, we believe that only the first sentence of section 555(b) is for consideration here.

5. The predecessor to section 555 was described in congressional committee reports as prescribing "the rights of private parties in a number of miscellaneous respects which may be incidental to rulemaking, adjudication, or the exercise of any other agency authority." H.R.Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 18, reprinted in 1946 U.S.Code Cong.Service 1195, 1206; S.Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1945). The reference to "any other agency authority" suggests a broad application of the section. Further, a section-by-section analysis in the House report on the measure stated broadly " t he section is a statement of statutory and mandatory right of interested persons to appear themselves or through or with counsel before any agency in connection with any function, matter, or process whether formal, informal, public, or private." H.R.Rep. No. 1980, supra, at 31.

6. Given that Congress intended the provision to apply to a broad range of agency functions, the question remains as to whether Congress intended that any limitations apply with respect to the scope of representation activities. This issue was addressed in House floor debate on the measure by Congressman Walter of the Committee on the Judiciary, who stated " t he representation of counsel contemplated by the bill means full representation as the term is understood in the courts of law." 92 Cong.Rec. 5652 (1946). Thus, it appears that the scope of 
representation was intended to be consistent with that recognized in judicial proceedings. A review of analogous situations in judicial proceedings reveals that medical examinations in both adversarial and nonadversarial settings are almost uniformly conducted without the presence of attorneys. For example, parties do not have the right, under discovery rules, to have an attorney present during mental or physical examinations conducted by physicians pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. E.g., Wheat v. Biesecker, 125 F.R.D. 479 (N.D.Ind.1989) (by attending the examination the attorney might have to choose between participating at trial as a litigator of as a witness); Cline v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 118 F.R.D. 588 (S.D.W.Va.1988) (nature of psychological examination particularly dictates against allowing the attorney to be present).

7. Courts considering the issue of assistance of counsel in administrative proceedings have frequently ignored the possible applicability of the APA. Wasson v. Trowbridge, 382 F.2d 807, 812 (2d Cir.1967) (APA not mentioned in discussion of right of military academy cadet to counsel during expulsion hearing); Schawartzberg v. United States Board of Parole, 399 F.2d 297 (10th Cir.1968) (upheld regulation excluding counsel from parole hearings without mentioning APA). In F.C.C. v. Schreiber, 329 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1964), modified on other grounds, 381 U.S. 279 (1965), the Ninth Circuit held that application of the "right to counsel" as provided in the APA varies with the circumstances of the case. In its turn, the Supreme Court noted, in F.C.C. v. Schreiber, 381 U.S. 279, 290 (1965), that administrative agencies should be free to fashion their own procedures and pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their "multitudinous duties."

8. Significantly, it has been held that, under the social security statutes, a claimant for social security benefits may not insist on the presence of an attorney during disability examinations conducted by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Neumerski v. Califano, 513 F.Supp. 1011 
(E.D.Pa.1981). The reasoning in Neumerski is illuminating. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the presence of counsel was justified because the proceedings had been given an adversarial taint by the agency's request for further examination. Consistent with the legislative history of the APA the court pointed out that attorneys have no right to be present at medical or psychological examinations in truly adversarial civil litigation. 513 F.Supp. at 1016. Quoting from Brandenberg v. El Al Airlines, 79 F.R.D. 543, 546 (S.D.N.Y.1978), which labeled as "frivolous" the claim that an attorney should be present at such an examination, the court indicated that " t his is especially true in psychological examinations which depend on 'unimpeded one- on-one communication between doctor and patient.' " 513 F.Supp. at 1017. In addition to the concern that the presence of an attorney would undermine the communication process of an examination, courts have also recognized that there is very little an attorney can contribute in certain settings. Cf. Cruz v. Skelton, 543 F.2d 86, 96 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 911 (1977) (parole board hearing does "not present a forum in which the special analytical, research or forensic skills of the lawyer are necessary, nor even likely to prove particularly helpful"). In light of these considerations, we cannot conclude that the APA provides a right to be represented by counsel at the examination itself.

9. Turning to relevant VA statutes and regulations, we note that there is no provision in title 38, United States Code, or in VA regulations, specifically granting a claimant the right to have his or her attorney, or other representative, present during a medical evaluation. Further, the involvement of claimants' representatives in VA proceedings is clearly not without limits. For example, while the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(e) state that claimants "are entitled to representation of their choice at every stage in the prosecution of a claim," this provision is specifically made subject to the general provisions governing representation by attorneys and other representatives of claimants and beneficiaries in the "preparation, presentation, and prosecution" of matters affecting veterans' benefits. See 38 U.S.C. § 3404(a); 38 C.F.R. § 14.626, et seq. See also 38 
U.S.C. § 4005(a) (representation rights to be accorded in administrative appeals pursuant to VA regulations); 38 C.F.R. § 19.150 (full right to representation by "authorized" individuals in all stages of an appeal). Even assuming that a regularly scheduled medical examination represents a "stage in the prosecution of a claim" for purposes of section 3.103(e), the scope of representation must be considered in light of the generally recognized limitations on the role of attorneys in judicial and administrative proceedings. Such limitations, as discussed above, generally preclude the presence of attorneys at medical examinations, particularly those of a psychiatric nature. Thus, the provisions of titles 38 of the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations cannot be read to grant attorneys authority to participate in such activities. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a veteran does not have a right to be accompanied by counsel at a scheduled VA examination and cannot justifiably refuse to submit to examination on the basis of denial of counsel.

10. Similarly, there is no constitutional, statutory, or regulatory requirement that would allow beneficiaries to use recording devices during VA medical examinations. Again, it must be noted that the examinations at issue are investigative and preliminary in nature. Further, while case law on the subject is not extensive, it supports the conclusion that one has no "right" to record such activities. See, e.g., Baer, 142 F.2d at 788-89 (no constitutional infirmity where court reporter ordered to leave investigative-hearing room); In Re Neil, 209 F.Supp. 76, 77 (S.D.W.Va.1962) (APA does not extend to any party the right to bring a stenographer to report the proceedings at an agency hearing); Torras, 103 F.Supp. at 740 (witness in investigative proceeding did not have right under the APA to the presence of a personal stenographer). As discussed above with respect to the presence of an attorney, use of a recording device would threaten to impede free communication between the examinee and the examining physician. VA regulations do not authorize the use of recording devices at medical examinations, and we find that their use is not otherwise required by law. Thus, denial of the use of such a device would not be an adequate reason to refuse to submit to examination.


HELD:

Neither the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, nor VA statutes and regulations provide a right to counsel at medical examinations scheduled by VA for evaluation of beneficiaries, including psychiatric evaluation.
As, under the relevant constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions, there is no "right" to be accompanied by an attorney to this type of agency activity, refusal to participate unless accompanied by an attorney may be considered a failure to report for purposes of VA regulations at 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 providing for discontinuance of benefits for failure to report for examination.

Similarly, a beneficiary may not insist on using a recording device at a VA medical examination, and refusal to participate due to absence of such a device may be considered a failure to report for purposes of VA regulations governing termination of benefits. 
 


VETERANS ADMINISTRATION GENERAL COUNSEL 
Vet. Aff. Op. Gen. Couns. Prec. 04-91 





#272 Tbird

 
Tbird

    Founder HadIt.com established 1997

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • GooglePlus:+TbirdHadIt
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 22 August 2010 - 02:29 AM

The VA is federal property and my understanding is that is covered under federal law.

It is also my understanding that you cannot record any VA visit without express permission from that facility.

So my advice do not go to the spy shop, do not do anything illegal. You can ask if you can record the exam however if they say no, well than that's it. No is the answer.

Personally I would like to do lot's of things like take photo's, video, recording and such when I visit the VA, but I don't because it isn't legal unless you get their permission.

HadIt.com does not endorse nor recommend doing anything illegal.

#273 allan

 
allan

    Content Contributor

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13030 posts
  • Location:Eastern Washington State
  • Service Connected Disability: 40%
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 22 August 2010 - 11:03 AM

You can request a transcript of the VA's recording they make during hearings. However, the transcript I recieved was so messed up, no one could make since of it. Most of it just repeatedly said it was garbled. Or so they claim.

#274 Chuck75

 
Chuck75

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1486 posts
  • Location:Georgia
  • Service Connected Disability: 100%
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 03 September 2010 - 04:13 AM

Some interesting trivia concerning Asbestos--

Asbestos insulation used in homes and other places was often called "Rock Wool".
Home siding and "ersatz" slate roofing contained large amounts of asbestos.
Automotive clutch and brake linings contained asbestos.
Common home washing machines made within the last twenty or so years may have clutch pads that contains asbestos.
Older home and industrial heating systems, particularly hot water and steam heating systems may have asbestos pipe insulation
The old "drum" furnaces that are still around were generally originally coal fired, and converted to gas or oil. These may have significant amounts of asbestos insulation.
Older ceiling and floor tile may have some asbestos content.
Even old "insulated" cookie sheets made before a certain date may have contained a large amount of asbestos in the insulation.
Old electric and gas stoves may have asbestos in the oven lining. (These should be mostly gone by now)

Navy
Ships built before certain dates contained massive amounts of asbestos insulation. Ships used for shore bombardment and fire support
were subject to repeated concussive shock. This had a tendency to shake loose stray asbestos fibers and dust, and then circulate them via the ship's
ventilation systems. Ships in overhaul during the Vietnam era generally had most of the asbestos insulation removed, and replaced with fiberglass insulation.
(Also somewhat dangerous, but not in the same league as asbestos.)
Cargo ship winches had brakes with asbestos linings, as did many winches used with ships anchors.
The majority of ships used in and around Vietnam did originally have asbestos insulation, since they were often vessels originally built for WWII or the Korean war.
While the amount of asbestos exposure varied by specialty, virtually any shipboard sailor of the Vietnam era was exposed to some level of asbestos.
In general, those serving on ships that frequently "fired their guns" had a greater chance of exposure to airborne asbestos "dust"
Since asbestos related disease can have an extremely long period between exposure and development to a diagnosable level, the Vietnam (particularly navy)veterans are still at risk.
(If A.O. related Diabetes and Heart disease doesn't get them first!)

Vietnam era military in general
Many of the older barracks still in use during the Vietnam era were equipped with hot water or steam heat. Again the commonly used insulation was asbestos.
Some older armored vehicles had asbestos insulation.
Asbestos based brake and clutch lining was fairly common.

Here is the PDF that James Breckenridge was kind enough to post.



#275 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
  • Interests:I enjoy researching and debate of claims for
    Clear and Unmistakable Error (C&UE).
  • Service Connected Disability: 100+
  • Branch of Service: USA
 

Posted 06 October 2010 - 06:16 AM


The Disability Claims Process for Veterans Living Abroad Explained


http://www.vba.va.go...ign/process.htm

#276 Jayg

 
Jayg

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Location:East Texas
  • Interests:American Military history especially the War Between the States
  • Service Connected Disability: TDIU
  • Branch of Service: US Army
 

Posted 15 October 2010 - 10:33 AM

You can request a transcript of the VA's recording they make during hearings. However, the transcript I recieved was so messed up, no one could make since of it. Most of it just repeatedly said it was garbled. Or so they claim.

Yeah, I got one of those. Same thing. Besides, all this is moot. Those VA quacks have carte blanche and are exempt from LAW< never mind rules. My last few C&Ps would have put some people in prison otherwise. Isn't it against the law to falsify government records? Not at VA!

One rebuttal of a C&P exam I submitted ran over 30 pages including the copies of records I submitted proving the lies. Exam said I had antalgic gait but exam summary said gait was steady and even indicating no altered gait! Said no uneven shoe wear but the photos of the shoes I wore proved otherwise. Also said there were no other records indicating altered gait. But what is a Trendelenburg lurch? Pronounced truncal shift? there are many others. The examiner pushed my limbs to get the desired range of motion results til I jerked and yelled coming off the table onto the floor from the pain. Hey! No witnesses allowed and she denied touching me to my face, right there. They stated my radiological exams made no statements of conditions those reports clearly did. The list is far too long to go on here. There were a couple others almost as bad. Those rebuttals and their perfidy may have had some influence in getting my claim approved in the face of abysmal C&P exams. I don't know. But it's clear that they were not accepted as true. But I have no doubt those same people are still there doing the same things.

These people are a power unto themselves and care nought for rules, regulations or law. Change will have to come from the top. That's the only way to break up this mess.


#277 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22327 posts
  • Location:Tampa FL
  • Interests:VA law and history of the Blues
  • Service Connected Disability: 100%
  • Branch of Service: Army
 

Posted 15 October 2010 - 10:38 AM

I got a transcript of a DRO Hearing. The transcript left out the part where the DRO Officer agreed with us. I had a lawyer.

#278 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
  • Interests:I enjoy researching and debate of claims for
    Clear and Unmistakable Error (C&UE).
  • Service Connected Disability: 100+
  • Branch of Service: USA
 

Posted 15 October 2010 - 10:54 AM

I got a transcript of a DRO Hearing. The transcript left out the part where the DRO Officer agreed with us. I had a lawyer.


john999,
Quite convenient fot them.

#279 stillhere

 
stillhere

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Service Connected Disability: 100
  • Branch of Service: USA
 

Posted 17 October 2010 - 07:51 AM

Since we can not start a new new topic in the state benefits forum I wanted to let those vets in Virginia that don't already know, that on the ballot on Nov.2nd will be an amendment to our constitution to allow for tax exempt for real estate tax for 100% disabled veterans!!

Now this is something well over due and I hope all vets will vote for it and also all their relatives. Virginia has always been a leader when it comes to the military and our state is made up of many retired veterans, active duty and disabled veterans. Lets show our gratitude to them by voting this change as unanimous as possible!!

PLEASE VOTE YES FOR AMENDMENT NO#2!!


Thank you!

#280 jbasser

 
jbasser

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6281 posts
  • Location:KY
  • Interests:Fishing.
  • Service Connected Disability: 100+
  • Branch of Service: USN
 

Posted 17 October 2010 - 08:21 AM

Good Post Still Here. We can pin this topic as it is a very important one. My state is also considering an ammendment for 100 percent Disabled Vets who are 65 or older to get tax exempt status.

I asked them to ammend the bill to cover all 100 percent disabled Veterans. It has been stalled and kicked from Committe to committe and will likely not happen.

This item also gives me an idea on a SVR show to go over each state and their veterans benefits.

John




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users