FACEBOOK
TWITTER
Attorneys Fight for Veterans Against VA and VSOs
The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) organization is targeting the use of attorneys by veterans (the Attorneys for Veterans right) to obtain benefits to which veterans are entitled, sending veterans into the hands of the veritable enemy— the Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs).
The ‘Attorneys for Veterans’ or ‘choice’ legislation took effect in June 2007 and now the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) seeks a roll-back after years of working against the right of veterans to obtain legal counsel.
The adversarial system veterans face is bad enough but with the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs now being pushed by VSOs that have become part of the problem in denying and delaying veterans disability claims, the DAV seeks to make a horrible situation worse.
Don’t veterans deserve the right to legal counsel as early as possible when they confront a hostile bureaucracy? Just what the hell is the DAV’s problem?
A letter by veterans advocate Kurt Priessman to the Senate and House Veteran Affairs Committee Chairpersons and members reveals the main issues.
March 15, 2010
Good Evening,
Recently the DAV, after testimony by its Commander, Roberto Barrera, sought to overturn legislation providing basic choice to veterans to seek attorneys to represent them ((Public Law) P. L. 109-461) [the 'Attorneys for Veterans' legislation]. Many individuals I correspond with are in complete disagreement and feel that the Veterans Service Organizations in the rural areas cannot do an adequate job as they are undermanned, overworked, lack training and resources, and despite many representatives doing yeoman’s duties are at a distinct disadvantage.
To portray attorneys as complete scoundrels is absolutely unwarranted, as is portraying veterans as complete dolts, and many veterans feel this position by the DAV is a flagrant misrepresentation fed by a definite conflict of interest. In fact, many veterans feel that there should be an expansion of the attorney – claimant relationship to allow veterans the opportunity for attorneys to begin representation at the onset of the claim.
Many of the basic fundamentals of the Constitution are denied veterans serving on active duty (Feres Doctrine, etc.), and this is no less than a restriction of a veterans right to due process. There can be little doubt that rather than being advocates for veterans, there are too many instances of delays and denials, discouragement of valid claims, and failures of the Department of Veterans Affairs adversarial system and its extensions, the VFW, the DAV, AmVets, and the American Legion.
As example, the VFW argued my claim had no merit, that it was legally held by the Haas Stay (repudiated directly by the Haas staff attorney Ethan C. Kallet, Esq.), and would not assist me in attempts to solicit information concerning any phase of my claim. In essence, they appear to be instruments of the DVA, repeating whatever the VBA says.
Please convey this sentiment to members of the Senate and House Veteran Affairs Committee Chairpersons and members of the respective Committees. There can be no less an evil than the DVA’s action in Cushman vs Shinseki, (2008-7129), decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the conversation with Chief Justice Roberts in Astrue vs Ratliff, who was startled that ’in litigating with veterans, the government more often than not takes a position that is substantially unjustified’. Veterans deserve a choice at the earliest opportunity possible, we cannot afford to continue a 1,000,000 claim backlog, or a process lasting eight (8) years or more to decide.
Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Priessman, MSgt, USAF (Ret)
B.A., M.B.A., C.P.M., Veteran Advocate
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=21912
Posted by Yanira Farray on Mar 17 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under Benefits, Vet News, Veteran Service Organizations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
It’s my understanding that the Disabled American Veterans has nothing against lawyers helping vets and has long championed pro bono services by attorneys. The DAV, and I certainly agree, just doesn’t think lawyers ought to collect fees when vets get their rightful, earned benefits (and, yes, in some cases lawyers do game the system with delay tactics to get bigger retro payments that translate into fatter fees for themselves). While you are free to disagree with this or any other viewpoint, you ought to at least get your facts straight. Contrary to your assertion, DAV National Commander Barrera’s testimony earlier this year did not make any reference to the attorney legislation you so vigorously defend. And if there is any “flagrant misrepresentation” at play in this matter, I suggest anyone interested in the facts to take a look at the success of claimants represented by attorneys vs. those with the DAV as their representative (and by that I mean claim allowance rates, not remands, strikingly demonstrated in cases at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims). Attorneys are not the enemy; they do indeed have an important role in the veterans arena. They just shouldn’t be allowed to take taxpayers’ money that rightfully belongs to veterans.
The stacked-against-the-veterans system needs attorneys as early as possible to even out the process of a hostile VA.
DAV fought the attorneys for veterans legislation “tooth and nail,” as Larry Scott put it.
Every atty I know who throws in for the veterans against the VA knows this, and the attys get paid peanuts, while the VA crats make bonuses for swatting down claims.
Whose side you on?
As a retired former dir of a county veterans office, I saw over the years the failings of a few DAV veterans service officers who were not trained, were missing from their offices many times, didn’t like helping widows of disabled veterans, gave out wrong information on occasion, forgot to file claims that sat on their desk and other things. I feel there are times when an attorney should be consulted for cases that need it,…not always, but on occasion.
I am also one of those that the DAV don’t wish to have in the system. I am one of the 89 Accredited Agents licensed by the Office of General Counsel. I think the DAV, AMVETS, American Legion, VFW, and others don’t realize that I do initial claims for veterans without a fee because of two reasons. 1. All money should go to the veteran who is disabled. and 2. It’s against the law. I also do claims all over the United States. I do not charge expenses to the Veterans because I believe that I will receive my expenses back out of the fees. I believe that the system is stacked against the veterans. The VA should be forced to pay the expenses and fees of Agents and/or Attorney’s because there is no incentive for the VA to make the right decision the first time. If they only have to pay what the veteran should have received originally then who suffers? It’s the veteran. I am a disabled veteran myself. I have been to the CAVC and COVA (before renaming). The VSO’s refused to take my claim because it was not groundbreaking. I had to represent myself. I have won and eventually hired an attorney for my other claims before the CAVC. We’ve won those also. The money isn’t the issue. The issue is that the VA denies claims and many veterans don’t appeal until it’s too late. I believe that is the game for a lot of Regional Offices. It’s not whether it is an Attorney or an Accredited Agent who represents the veteran. The VSO’s don’t want to give up some power.
[...] 3, 2010 by Michael Leon · Leave a Comment ShareLast month, Veterans Today ran a piece critical of efforts on the part of veterans service organzitions impeding [...]
I am the spouse of a disabled veteran. In 2002 we went to vso and filed a claim. In 2006 my husband received 100% disability. During the nearly four year battle we sought help from DAV and veteran services both were a waste of time. The first place submitted paperwork to open the case then a year later we heard it was incomplete. We went to Cleveland DAV in the same building a couple doors down from VA to get help. It was rediculous. It seemed the guy handling our claim was more interested in overriding the younger man helping us (his assistant/trainee) and backlogging everything. I think it was more of a macho battle going on in the organization. Nothing got done. Months and years passed as I ordered the veterans records myself and ordered doctor records from everywhere. I submitted request, disagreements, scheduled appeals and submitted more records. I jumped through more hoops for VA and it was an exasperating process but finally I got the final doctor letter that sealed the case.
My take is VA is like dealing with an insurance company. They are not going to pay you unless you can prove beyond any doubt that in a court of law, with the documentation you have to show the court that the court would rule in your favor.
VA has a whole staff of lawyers who do nothing else but figure how they can get around the claim. Just like insurance companies have their underwriters and lawyers to renig on any possible claim that comes in. What griped my rear was after we gave up with the service organizations, (my career has been as a loan processor and underwriter so I am used to getting documentation)and I as the spouse did all the work and filed all the papers over the course of several years we got a letter from DAV commending themselves on how they got our claim approved. Are these guys a joke or what. An attorney who is educated in what the VA is looking for (what they can’t get around)would have been a Godsend.