COLUMBUS (TDB) -- A Washington Times story is flying furiously around the Internet today because it says that U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown seems to be lining up against the Vietnam Veterans of American. The Vietnam Vets want to preserve a new law that allows disabled veterans to hire and pay lawyers to press their claims for benefits. Brown, D-Ohio, apparently sounded like he is less than enthusiastic about their pet cause, and his stance triggered a lot of e-mailing and angst.
Congress changed the law to allow paid lawyers because the Department of Veterans Affairs can be a difficult agency to deal with, and bureaucracy can swamp the unskilled but deserving. The Washington Times story follows, and Brown is in the last paragraph -- the paragraph that created the buzz. It arrived in the mailbox with this note: Read the last part concerning your Senator.
"VETERANS GROUPS OBJECT TO CHANGE ON LAWYER FEES
"By Sean Lengell
"THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"Veterans groups fear unscrupulous lawyers will prey on ex-military personnel seeking medical claims from the Department of Veterans Affairs when a Civil War-era law is replaced later this year.
"The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and other groups are challenging the new law that allows lawyers to collect fees for representing injured veterans earlier in their appeal, undermining the long-standing practice of pro bono representation.
"We're leery about the fact that now we'll see attorneys on TV advertising services to veterans that they can get elsewhere at no charge," DAV Executive Director David Gorman said. "We just think that a lot of [veterans] will unnecessarily go to these attorneys."
"The new statute, which passed in December and is scheduled to take affect in June, permits veterans challenging a claim dispute with the VA to hire a lawyer as soon as they appeal. Previously, veterans could hire lawyers or other legal agents only after the VA's Board of Veterans' Appeal reached a decision on their case, thus exhausting the administrative appeals process. The new law doesn't affect a veteran's right to legal counsel at any time of the claim process on a pro bono basis, which veterans groups like the DAV help arrange for ex-service personnel. "We think [the pro bono system] is the bedrock of the VA compensation system," Mr. Gorman said.
"The original law dates to the 1860s and placed a limit of $10 that lawyers could charge veterans on claims cases. The $10 cap remained until the late 1980s, when lawyers were barred from collecting any fees until the final step in the appeals process.
"But supporters of the new law, sponsored by Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican, say the old policy has outlived its usefulness, and that removing barriers limiting veterans' ability to seek legal representation gives them more legal options.
"'Senator Craig feels strongly that veterans are adults and should be able to hire an attorney if they wish," Craig spokesman Jeff Schrade said.
"And not all veterans groups oppose the law. Vietnam Veterans of America says the new statute reverses more than a century of discrimination against veterans.
"'It's outrageous to think that an enemy combatant or an illegal alien has the right to hire an attorney, but a disabled veteran doesn't,' said Rick Weidman, the group's executive director for policy and government affairs. The Disabled American Veterans only opposes the law because the group risks losing relevance if veterans hire a private attorney instead of using the group's own legal services, said Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law Ltd., a veterans-advocacy group.
"'The veterans of this country do not have a worse enemy than the DAV,' Mr. Bernklau said. DAV National Commander Bradley Barton has pleaded with Congress to repeal the law. 'Veterans and other beneficiaries should be able to file claims for benefits and receive fair decisions from the VA without the necessity to hire and pay a large portion of their benefits to attorneys," Mr. Barton said last week at a joint hearing of Senate and House veterans affairs committees.
"The Veterans of Foreign Wars and AMVETS also oppose the new guidelines, which also will significantly slow down the number of benefits claims with the VA. There already is a backlog of about 400,000 claims, the DAV says.
"Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, says Veterans shouldn't need a lawyer to get their benefits, and that he is hopeful a deal can be worked out to change the law."
Showing posts with label Department of Veterans Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Veterans Affairs. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Cincinnati Enquirer Reader: Why No Walter Reed News?
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- The metro daily in Cincinnati wounded itself today by publishing a reader's letter that pointedly questioned the newspaper's judgment as a serious journalistic enterprise. The letter asked why a new broadcaster in the Reds' radio booth merited larger front-page importance than the medical mistreatment of injured Iraq War soldiers at the Army's biggest hospital. "Vets care outrage more important than baseball," was the headline over the Rev. John C. Karrer's letter to the editor.
"At a time when we are being told to 'Support the troops,' etc., I find it sad that the front page on March 2 had a big article 'Now Warming Up: Marty & Thom' about Thom and Marty Brennaman on Reds radio, and a very small item headlined "Soldier care at issue/Walter Red hospital chief fired.' At least we now know what is more important here in Cincinnati, and supporting our troops is way down the list."
But wait that's not the end of the story. There is a completely bizarre turn in the Enquirer's actions.
Rev. Karrer's letter of complaint about short-shrifting the news happened to appear on the same Opinion Page that carried a a six-column banner headline demanding superior treatment of wounded soldiers -- "Our injured vets deserve better." So the paper now appears to be jumping in and pounding the table on a topic it seems to have downplayed as a major news story.
"That is not right. We must do better. We can do better," the Enquirer says of the nation's responsibility to care for its wounded, adding that "How we care for our veterans is a national issue that is very much a local story in every community of the country, including our own."
But its news coverage of the scandal has clearly fallen short if Rev. Karrer is correct that The Enquirer blew it by opting for fluff over hard news. Is it guilty of incompetence and neglect? Is it just like the brass responsible for Walter Reed? Up until today, there seems to have been little interest in how veterans are cared for locally or anywhere else.
"At a time when we are being told to 'Support the troops,' etc., I find it sad that the front page on March 2 had a big article 'Now Warming Up: Marty & Thom' about Thom and Marty Brennaman on Reds radio, and a very small item headlined "Soldier care at issue/Walter Red hospital chief fired.' At least we now know what is more important here in Cincinnati, and supporting our troops is way down the list."
But wait that's not the end of the story. There is a completely bizarre turn in the Enquirer's actions.
Rev. Karrer's letter of complaint about short-shrifting the news happened to appear on the same Opinion Page that carried a a six-column banner headline demanding superior treatment of wounded soldiers -- "Our injured vets deserve better." So the paper now appears to be jumping in and pounding the table on a topic it seems to have downplayed as a major news story.
"That is not right. We must do better. We can do better," the Enquirer says of the nation's responsibility to care for its wounded, adding that "How we care for our veterans is a national issue that is very much a local story in every community of the country, including our own."
But its news coverage of the scandal has clearly fallen short if Rev. Karrer is correct that The Enquirer blew it by opting for fluff over hard news. Is it guilty of incompetence and neglect? Is it just like the brass responsible for Walter Reed? Up until today, there seems to have been little interest in how veterans are cared for locally or anywhere else.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Vietnam-era Spitting: Scientists Say It Happened
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- There is an obscure corner of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that studies and conducts research into the psychological traumas combat and war can inflict on soldiers. The organization is called the National Center for PTSD, the acronym for post traumatic stress disorder. It publishes mental health medical data that is "accurate, empirically-driven, truly authoritative" for the scientific community across the globe.
The research is conducted by agencies like the VA, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, major universities and international organizations. Recently, it released a report about PTSD, American Indians and native Hawaiians who served in Vietnam. The project was designed to evaluate their homecoming and readjustment experiences. It is entitled "The legacy of psychological trauma from the Vietnam War for American Indian Military Personnel." And it reports that spitting occurred.
Here is a passage from an American Indian vet describing his homecoming:
"I was spit on and called a baby-killer in the mainstream culture when I first came home, and no way would any college accept me or any good job would be open to me. I felt too ashamed and enraged to accept the love my family and community showed me."
Now, if the mental health community were not largely in consensus that spitting took place, would that passage ever have been published by a respected research organization?
Spitting deniers are beginning to box themselves in like the environmentally-challenged extremists who refuse to budge from their contention global warming is an over-hyped myth. Extremists won't accept any research that challenges their small-minded opinions. They are flat Earthers. Are they prepared to say the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder fabricated an "urban myth" spitting incident to circulate across the world on the Internet?
The full text of the REPORT is a fact sheet for mental health professionals and families about the aftereffects of war on Native Americans in our nation. And there is information about the National Center for PTSD HERE. The director, Matthew J. Friedman, is a medical doctor who also holds a Ph.D. and he says the center's work is "fortified by our collaborations, research and clinical and consultation experience."
[UPDATE: 1:52 p.m.: BizzyBlog.com, an Ohio blogger, has been busy compiling spitting stories from across the United States. He's come to the conclusion that homecoming veterans were indeed spat upon during the troubled Vietnam War era, and is scoffing at the "urban myth" camp. The Bizzy work is well worth examining.]
The research is conducted by agencies like the VA, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, major universities and international organizations. Recently, it released a report about PTSD, American Indians and native Hawaiians who served in Vietnam. The project was designed to evaluate their homecoming and readjustment experiences. It is entitled "The legacy of psychological trauma from the Vietnam War for American Indian Military Personnel." And it reports that spitting occurred.
Here is a passage from an American Indian vet describing his homecoming:
"I was spit on and called a baby-killer in the mainstream culture when I first came home, and no way would any college accept me or any good job would be open to me. I felt too ashamed and enraged to accept the love my family and community showed me."
Now, if the mental health community were not largely in consensus that spitting took place, would that passage ever have been published by a respected research organization?
Spitting deniers are beginning to box themselves in like the environmentally-challenged extremists who refuse to budge from their contention global warming is an over-hyped myth. Extremists won't accept any research that challenges their small-minded opinions. They are flat Earthers. Are they prepared to say the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder fabricated an "urban myth" spitting incident to circulate across the world on the Internet?
The full text of the REPORT is a fact sheet for mental health professionals and families about the aftereffects of war on Native Americans in our nation. And there is information about the National Center for PTSD HERE. The director, Matthew J. Friedman, is a medical doctor who also holds a Ph.D. and he says the center's work is "fortified by our collaborations, research and clinical and consultation experience."
[UPDATE: 1:52 p.m.: BizzyBlog.com, an Ohio blogger, has been busy compiling spitting stories from across the United States. He's come to the conclusion that homecoming veterans were indeed spat upon during the troubled Vietnam War era, and is scoffing at the "urban myth" camp. The Bizzy work is well worth examining.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)