VAs

VA’s $16 billion health records overhaul may be scrapped if fixes aren’t made

[ad_1] House lawmakers warned that they may kill off the Department of Veterans Affairs costly and complicated electronic health records…

2 years ago

VA’s $16 billion medical records overhaul could triple in cost

[ad_1] Veterans Affairs officials announced Wednesday they will delay the planned deployment of the department’s new electronic medical records to…

2 years ago

Senators vow to block VA’s hospital closure commission

[ad_1] A bipartisan group of senators, including the chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, on Monday announced plans to…

2 years ago

Transgender veterans still waiting on VA’s promise of surgery options

[ad_1] One year after Veterans Affairs officials announced they would take steps to provide gender confirmation surgeries for transgender veterans,…

2 years ago

Sweeping changes to VA’s medical facilities across America on hold due to missing nominee

[ad_1] The Veterans Affairs Asset and Infrastructure Review Commission has only eight months left to finalize its report on the…

2 years ago

Overhaul of VA’s medical records still on track to finish in 2028 despite delays, officials say

[ad_1] Despite serious errors with the department’s electronic records overhaul so far, Veterans Affairs officials told lawmakers on Thursday they…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; the ultimate “lesson of our cases is that, while a pro se claimant’s ‘claim must identify the benefit sought,’ the identification need not be explicit in the claim-stating documents, but can also be found indirectly through examination of evidence to which those documents themselves point when sympathetically read.” Shea v. Wilkie, 926 F.3d 1362, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, the claim-stating documents pointed, when sympathetically viewed, to a history of symptoms of abdominal pain that yielded a diagnosis of gastritis. And that’s not all. The veteran’s gastritis was expressly linked to service by VA’s own medical examiner—in the context of an examination sought by the Agency as part of the development of Mr. Martinelli’s other claims.; The Secretary says the veteran is out of his depth in suggesting to the Court that melatonin use indicates sleep issues. But even if that were true, the veteran retorts, the Secretary forgets the Court’s ability to take judicial notice of facts generally known. See Tagupa v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 95, 100-01 (2014). Indeed, one need look no further than a basic medical dictionary to conclude that his in-service prescription was favorable, material evidence. Melatonin is “a hormone . . . implicated in the regulation of sleep, mood, puberty, and ovarian cycles. It has been tried therapeutically for a number of conditions, including insomnia and jet lag.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 1110 (33d ed. 2020). The Board has a responsibility to explain why it rejects favorable, material evidence. Garner v. Tran, 33 Vet.App. 241, 250 (2021).;

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; the ultimate “lesson of our cases is that, while a pro se claimant’s ‘claim must…

3 years ago

Changes to VA’s community care program raise concerns about vets’ health care access

[ad_1] Veterans Affairs leaders are phasing out the department’s office in charge of community care programs, a move that some…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; George v. McDonough, 991 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 2021) confirming that the law as it was understood at the time did not require VA to rebut the presumption of sound condition with clear and unmistakable evidence that the condition was not aggravated by service; 1970 presumption of sound condition; In 1970, VA’s implementing regulation did not require clear and unmistakable evidence of lack of aggravation by service for rebuttal. See 38 C.F.R. §3.304(b) (1970); Instead, if the presumption of sound condition applied, the burden fell on VA to rebut the presumption with clear and unmistakable evidence that an injury or disease that manifested in service preexisted service. See George, 991 F.3d at 1229-30 (noting that VA’s 1970 version of the regulation, permitting VA to rebut the presumption of soundness with only clear and unmistakable evidence that the disorder preexisted service, prevailed until 2003); 38 U.S.C. § 311 (1970) (current version § 1111); » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; George v. McDonough, 991 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 2021) confirming that the law as it…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; writ; The Board’s decision to remand this matter, in order to obtain additional, and impliedly negative evidence, is an exercise of “naked and arbitrary power.” See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 366 (1886) (Matthews, J.); In Wolfe v. Wilkie, 32 Vet.App. 1 (2009), we issued a writ even though the petitioner had the ability to appeal the matter to the Court. The circumstances here are similar in that regard and equally as egregious. This is illustrative of systemic legal errors that can be corrected in the context of a petition. See Mathis v. Shulkin, 137 S. Ct. 1994, 1995 (2017)(Sotomayor, J., concurring) (noting the continuing “dialogue over whether the current system for adjudicating veterans disability claims can be squared with VA’s statutory obligations to assist veterans in the development of their disability claims.”); (Gorsuch, J., dissenting)(“Congress imposed on the VA an affirmative duty to assist—not impair—veterans seeking evidence for their disability claims.”). The conduct of VA here is certainly emblematic of a systemic, bureaucratic disorder, which we are uniquely ordained to deal with;

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; writ; The Board’s decision to remand this matter, in order to obtain additional, and impliedly negative…

3 years ago
Show more Posts