VA Denies Vet's Disability Claim--Cites Membership In VoteVets As Reason
I know they're making it harder for vets to get disability, but this is outrageous:
The VA rejected an Afghanistan veteran's disability claim for PTSD last month, citing his membership in VoteVets.org as a reason for the denial.
Staff Sergeant Will King retired from the Army in late 2003, after serving in both the first Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. As one of the first troops into the Afghan theater after 9/11, Will had been awarded a Bronze Star after participating in fierce fighting in the Shah-e-Kot Valley in March 2002. I know, because I was there with him.
As the months turned to years after his retirement, however, Will started having problems as the Iraq War dragged on. Depressed and unable to sleep, he thought it might be PTSD. Because, as those who study PTSD know, this is perfectly normal: The symptoms of PTSD frequently have a delayed onset that can take months or years to fully materialize. That's why, in April 2007, Will filed a claim with the VA for combat-related PTSD. The VA eventually agreed with Will and diagnosed him with mild PTSD. But Will felt like his condition was worse than that. And to boot, he thought it was getting worse. So Will appealed, and filed another disability claim with the VA in November 2007: He felt his symptoms were serious enough to warrant an increase in his disability rating from "mild" to "moderate."*
Unfortunately for Will, the VA denied his claim six months later, in May 2008. And while I won't challenge the VA's ultimate decision (I'm not a doctor), I find it repulsive that they cited Will's membership in VoteVets.org as a reason to deny his claim.
This is what the VA told Will in his denial letter:
The examiner states your PTSD symptoms are still present but you do not report symptoms at a degree or level which appears to suggest more severity. The examiner concurred with the previous diagnosis and assigned Global Assessment of Functioning Score of 52, stating you have occasional suicidal ideation but are able to cope with these symptoms and continue to function. The treatment reports from Memphis show you are currently involved with VoteVets.org, an advocacy group for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. You indicated involvement with this advocacy group makes you feel coping with your symptoms is worthwhile. The treatment note of March 10, 2008, indicates no homicidal or suicidal ideation and no thought disorder.
VoteVets.org should therefore immolate?
Why does the VA hate our soldiers?
Wow. Outrageous, disgusting... there are no adjectives to sufficiently describe the level of anger this creates for me.
The subtext is clear: it's VoteVets or more help - you decide.
Um, your headline is rather misleading. I would expect better of this site. He was not denied because he's a member of VoteVets. They cited his acknowledgment that his involvement in the organization was helpful to him in managing his PTSD and used this as further rational for their decision. It could just as easily been the same if he'd said his involvement in the Young Republicans or the local PTA helped him.
Chilling....
Thought disorders include diagnoses like schizophrenia, paranoia, delusions, etc. Having no active suicidal or homicidal ideation is not a criterion for PTSD. It is truly disgusting that the VA used votevets.org as ammunition against this soldier. It sounds like he was just trying to find a "safe" place for support and understanding while coping with his PTSD.
The way we have been treating your vets is truly a sin.
Ah, I see what they did there. It's not so much VoteVets in particular, but the VA feels that those involved in organizations who give them social support as well as a sense of meaning and accomplishment are less likely to commit suicide. Of course, most psychologists feel the same way. Why the VA is satisfied with "good enough" mental health care for our troops is beyond me.
I agree with gremlin@5. This is a cheap shot, made worse by the fact that you've got much better material to work with, which wouldn't cheapen your credibility like this does..
A GAF of 52? are you kidding me?!
A GAF of 50 or below means you have "Serious symptoms OR any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning."
So he gets nothing? Ridiculous.
The modern version of Catch 22:
Working with other veterans makes you feel better, if you're feeling better you are not getting worse, if you're not getting worse, you must be getting better, if you are getting better you don't need our help. Thank you for your service.
The bush policy, "go to Iraq and die or come home after serving and receive no health care so commit suicide, so we don't have to care for you".
Btw, the vice prez has a message for you. ("F. U.")
Just like the Bush Administation, give billion dollar deals to rich cronies, then scimp on the military. I truly think the Repugs have lost their minds!
VA disability is a catch-22....if there are any signs that vets are getting better....the VA pulls the rug out from under them....and the doctor gets blamed for this...when in fact it is the VA administration who calls all the shots.
gremlin @ 5:
I agree with Gremlin. Nicole, I love your work, but this IS rather misleading. Are we missing something?
yes. I am a clinician and I agree with gremlin's statement above: I think you've construed this inaccurately. The documentation indicates the dude's symptoms are not of high enough acuity to warrant immediate intervention--perhaps even emergency intervention--and observes that his involvement with VoteVets provides a support system that lessens the likelihood that he will require such intervention.
I think C&L can afford to be a little more circumspect in how it spins such things. God knows the way the VA has been doing business is horrifying. But progressives don't need to resort to shady shadings of the truth to prove it.
Really it boils down to his stating he was able to cope with the symptoms and was able to function, which is all the VA (or any insurance company) needs to deny/delay claims.
If he admitted to be a member of freeperville or BillO'Racist.com they would give 100% disability and a photo-op with herr dubyah.
preliminary diagnosis:
your either with us or against us...itis
I'm not buying this one. This sounds to me like a doctor performing a psychiatric interview and coming to a reasonable conclusion.
I'm sure that the soldier told the doctor that his involvement with VoteVets is something that he looks forward to. That fact indicates that his level of depression isn't as bad as it could be. There are a significant number of psychiatrically diagnostic measurements that can come from that simple statement.
Not only that, but "coping with the symptoms" implies that the soldier wasn't interested in taking medication.
It's also unclear what a movement from mild to moderate means. Maybe this is public knowledge, but, if so, I'm not familiar with it. I was expecting that asterisk to lead to a more accurate discussion as to what that meant. Is it an increase in medication? An increase in benefits? Something else altogether?
In summary, if it was his book club that "makes [him] feel coping with [his] symptoms is worthwhile", no one would be saying anything. As it is, the headline makes it sound like the VA did detailed research and found him being a member of a group they didn't like, which seems to be untrue, based on the statement that he told them about it to begin with.
im sorry, but i used to do psych screenings
if a person reported even occasional suicidal ideation, they were immediatly referred for treatment and given at least a partial disability rating
we are dishonering thousands of brave men and women, and will be forced to deal with the after effects for years to come
elvis @ 15:
Actually, Nicole is right, but you have to follow her link to the VoteVets article and read the whole thing. It is outrageous.
Is John McBush going to lose his 100% disability since he can "work" full time as a Senator and run for POTUS at the same time and he gets $58,000 a year tax free because he's disabled???? sounds like good ole boy politics as usual in Washington with the Republic party is in charge of the inmates.
elvis @ 15:
I have to agree too. This is a little too much like right-wing scare tactics and fearmongering for me. Let's not fight fire with fire.
Okay, but why name VoteVets, as opposed to stating simply that the guy is involved with a political or activist group that gives him some community support? I'm not sure this is entirely about a group and not about the group in question.
William Faulk @ 20:
you dont get it, do you?
just because someone looks forward to a meeting of likeminded individuals, or a support group, doesnt mean that he can cope with the day to day struggles of life or a job
this doc did a shit job
Powkat @ 11:
You said it!...... un fucking believable!!!
There is no way they were dumb enough to put that in writing.
Who would expect anything less than this Stalinist response from the VA as run by CCCP Bushco?
PeyotePyro @ 8:
This is my read as well. But there should be a case manager working with this vet to track his progress. IOW, to record what's working and what isn't. The fact that this vet is "self treating" is not evidence of a lack of a problem, quite the opposite.
What incompetent, insensitive jerks. I think the VA is just exascerbating vets' problems instead of helping. Good lord.
Powkat @ 11:
That's it!! Thank you!
get a second opinion
Everyone is right. First, Ms. Belle did a an exceptionally poor job of presenting the story. She didn't even include the 'smoking gun' and the whole thing comes across as very much like some right wing hysterical sillyness.
That being said, if you go read the entire thing, it does seem to have some...hmm...it doesn't 'threaten' nor does it say 'you are x, therefore y'. But, then again, Tony Soprano never, ever said "Clip Joe." He didn't have to. Nor, did he want to.
This seems to be what is going on here. The VA is very obviously saying, "You are living and being productive, therefore the new classification is warranted" and they are just as obviously saying, "...so, do you really want to keep hanging out with a bunch of US hating fags?"
Ms. Belle gets the D and the VA gets the F-.
"The treatment note of March 10, 2008, indicates no homicidal or suicidal ideation and no thought disorder."
obviously he should go into the va and "show" his examiner that the has very violent perhaps homicidal thought processes, contrary to their conclusions.
This is a perfect example of the boneheaded "logic" used by VA claims raters to deny benefits. I wish this came as a total surprise but in fact, veteran lawyers have fought examples like this hundreds of times, if not thousands over the years.
gh0st @ 33:
i agree for the most part but what the story does stimulate the need to look into this issue more
Dur..."You are living and being productive, therefore the new classification is warranted”
Obviously should read "unwarranted."
This one is a bit reaching. after i read the text, i could not find that his participation in the organization was the reason for the denial of further treatment. This may have well been the reason, but to surmise that it was so strictly from the wording on the claim denial did not hold water for me. I also dislike jumping to conclusions that may or may not be warranted. Isn't that something the other side is well know for.
DannyEastVillage @ 16:
really well said, danny.
gremlin @ 5:
i would like to see the similar letters to vets who belong to other support and/or advocacy organizations, like the young republicans or the local pta . . . or perhaps churches? surely votevets.org isn't the only organization effectively helping vets to cope
I am a vet and certainly not a fan of the VA, but I agree with Gremlin. I think there is a misreading of the intent of the letter here. I am involved in these sorts of treatments/reports. It appears to me the counselor is merely repeating some specifics from the interview and noting that the veteran had a positive experience in his relationship with VoteVets. It could easily and I think fairly be read as an encouragement to continue the relationship.
I also think it is not possible for us to conclude what sort of treatment he is or is not getting based on this letter. We just do not have enough evidence here to infer much of anything. I have read the material at VoteVets.org and I still feel we do not have a complete understanding of the circumstances. I recommend a reserved response. Encourage further investigation, but retain a civil tone.
.
But, but, but I thought the VA wasn't a PARTISN ORGANIZATION...
.
I agree with Gemlin and the other nay sayers here. While the vet in question is certainly being treated far more shabbily than hazardous service to one's country warrants, the reason for this denial of claim was not that he was a member of VoteVets, in particular, but that he was a functioning member of any group -
I used to work with an organization that helped to file benefits claims for veterans. This is neither unusual nor demonstrably political language for a denial of claim.
What they are saying is that he is performing tasks (travel, lobbying members of congress) which could be "reasonably" assumed to indicate basic competencies. I am not defending their decision, but it is a severe stretch to make the assumption that it is based on the organization he is engaged with, as opposed to the activities he is engaging in for that organization.
I am as likely to be appalled by the conduct of the VA as the next non-vet, but this sounds/looks more like a case of the system at work in its typical infuriating fashion as opposed to some more chilling political witchhunt.
gremlin @ 5:
Agreed Gremlin
I'd love to use this as political fodder, but from reading the denial letter it seems more to me that it's claiming the positive benefits of being in votevets. ie. surrounding oneself with like-minded individuals who have had and are having similar experiences is enabling him to cope with his depression, hence the classification of mild (as opposed to moderate, which may mean no such support structure) should stand.
That being said, if a veteran feels that he needs more help and the government is denying him that then that's a tragedy in itself. If he feels he needs additional support and help then he should get it....period.
DannyEastVillage @ 16:
What you said. I agree. Many problems with VA and US gov's treatment of vets... not sure this is one of them.
That's standard for the VA. By participating in any organization where you have close contact with others and are able to sustain that contact, then you may have PTSD but it is mild.
Sorta like *plays well with others*.
gremlin @ 5:
Agreed. However, it's like denying a person medical treatment because watching baseball makes them feel better.
vote vets is a support org
you lose benefits if you can attend meetings in a support org???
thats what many of you are saying in this thread
i want mccain stripped of his disability rating...that cocksucker is running for prez
joedoakes @ 9:
gremlin @ 5:
The claim that his participation with VoteVets was cited as a reason for his denial was made in the original source and repeated here are C&L:
And if you read the original post, which includes much more of the VA's letter, you'll see that his ability to participate with VoteVets was cited as proof that he is not unemployable, pivotal to their decision to deny his claim.
Perhaps you should read the sources that C&L quotes before jumping to conclusions.
I'd like to weigh in with gremlin on the non-alarmist side on this issue. It does not seem like this is a refusal of treatment because of the vet's involvement with VoteVets as much as an acknowledgment of the healing that VoteVets has afforded the patient. At least that is my reading of the excerpt from the doctor's report.
I think this sort of overreaction and spin puts C&L in a bad light and it should be removed or given some more context to make the case.
Is anybody interested in starting up a fund to help support these veterans.
We progressives could step up to the plate and fill the void that the conservatives have created by not supporting our soldiers.
These men and women will fall through the cracks unless care is given to them now.
I have no idea how to set up a trust or whatever vehicle would be used to do this.
If someone here knows how to do this it would be really cool if you would set it up.
A web site could be set up and linked to the blog-roll.
This would be a good progressive cause and give people a chance to support the troops.
I don't have a lot of money and I am unemployed but I will give up food for a day and use that money for this good cause.
If a web site can be set up maybe everybody here could help contribute to it.
A project like this would provide the blogroll community a chance to be active and make a real difference.
Where can I send my money?
I'm quite serious about this.
Somebody step up and give me an addy where I can send my money to help get the ball rolling.
gremlin @ 5:
Agreed.
Well, it makes sense, doesn't it? His involvement in VoteVets (or any group that engages in the struggle t bring our service people HOME) is proof that he is completely sane!
yeah, bit of a stretch to blame this on his involvement with votevets.org.
credibility is expected here, not sensational headlines to rile us up.
There are plenty enough real outrages every day.
anyone?
formervet @ 34:
No. He shouldn't "show" anything unless he is actually experiencing it. To do otherwise is malingering, which affects the health care of every other Service member; the doctor-patient interaction becomes detective work rather than health care.
How can they get away with that?
Vets are still fighting for disability from agent orange of 40 years ago, and now the VA is denying the next generation their disability.
Why does the VA hate our heroes?
gremlin @ 5:
I could not disagree more. Yes, that is what it said, but it is not what it meant. The message was a clear hint that his politics affected his results, with plausible deniability. There really is no other reason to SPECIFIY the group whose activities were helpful in the letter. That could easily have been left out with a generic reference, which would have implied the identity of the group was not important. The subtext of specifying the group was that its identity made all the difference.
Doubt? If you insist. Benefit of the doubt? Not deserved, IMO.
I'm impressed.
Usually, the sort of knee-jerk spin regularly performed around here (where often--not always, but often--the sole criteria is not "is it factual?," but rather "does it make conservatives look like SAAAATAN?") runs largely unnoticed. This time, it's being challenged.
We know the reality of the situation: vets are told they'll be taken care of, but when they're no longer "usable," they're left virtually-forgotten with substandard care and three or four Mallard Fillmore strips a year thanking them for their service.
What's needed is solid reporting of that reality--not blown-out-of-proportion nonsense suggesting conspiracies of political-based punishment.
Keep it up, guys. The more noise you make, the less such nonsense we'll see in the future. (CHANGE!! YES WE CAN!! and so on.)
Looks like those millions of magnetic ribbons, and VoteVets.org are the only support our troops get. I'd put my money on votevets.org, rather than the Tony Orlando wannabes.
We should be better than this on the left. This story is VERY misleading. From that note, we see that his involvement in votevets isn't a reason for denial of his claim, rather it's cited as social support toward assessing his risk of suicide.
The thing that kills me is that we plenty to point out w/o being misleading.
PeyotePyro @ 8:
I have to agree... a simple straightforward interpretation of the ruling indicates the examiner felt his involvement in VoteVets does more for him than a Republican-run VA ever could.
Perhaps General Jesus could write a letter to the VA thanking (or repudiating?) them for prescribing membership in advocacy organizations instead of actual psychiatric and medical treatment? I'm sure the Church of Scientology already has.
Headline is WAY misleading.
more of that bush/cheney support for the troops.
bush and cheney are saving money so they can pay blackwater
those grossly outrageous salaries for killing.
i guess this is one of those things that macain finds "no that important".
PeyotePyro @ 8:
I'm guessing because they can't get the funds they need to do it right, and they probably *do* have people that are worse off that they are begging for funds to help. Cut them some slack and write your congressmen for more funds for the VA - they're juggling alligators on a tightrope with no net.
Yep,not quite dead yet!send em back, use em up and throw them away! Support the troops indeed!!
America is for right thinking Americans. It is not for people who disagree. It is not for soldiers who come home from war and can't cope. It is for true Americans, Republicans, white people. The rest of you are just here to help the economy run.
steve @ 64:
Had you bothered to read the source you would have read:
"Given that VoteVets.org has been highly critical of both the Bush administration and the VA in the past, this is troubling, to say the least.
In fact, Will spent a total of only 48 hours in Washington, D.C. with VoteVets.org in March--hardly enough time to determine whether or not he is consistently able to "control and manage" his symptoms. But more importantly, why is Will's association with a veteran's organization even being brought up?"
William Faulk @ 20:
dude, this is one of MY SOLDIERS
he risked his life to defend ME
I want to do EVERYTHING IN MY POWER to help this person
and this doesn't sound like what is happening here
we got a VA technocrat and we got a SOLDIER
I give the benefit of the doubt to my SOLDIER
if my SOLDIER says he needs help, and the records agree, fuck what the technocrat says
help MY SOLDIER
This is pretty disturbing. It seems like there needs to be more regulation on this issue because there are so many variables factoring into the equation.
xoites @ 71:
"Had you bothered to read the source you would have read."
First of all, I did read it, so you can fuck off. With the unpleasentries out of the way, on to the substance:
Then the treater is lying? The treater is saying that King indicated that he finds hope in the organization - that's relavent. If King had somehow indicated that this was not discussed at his session or was or was misrepresented, then you've got something
I worked in a VA psychiatry department, and I can tell you that the treaters are not military people and do not operate this way. Could something higher up have happened? Could this be political? Maybe - but there's no evidence for it in this article, though it could very well be a jumping off point for further investigation.
Besides, the headline is misleading - it intimates that membership in votevets was cited as a reason for denial of benefits - clearly not the case. If something is going on at a deeper level, find some evidence beyond conjecture.
[ Deleted, This ends now. Site Monitor]
Maybe the f-off was a bit harsh - but I'd still like to read what xoites has to say....
You all on the left do not appear to support free speech - So by what logic would you demand that your government support activities it simply doesn't like?
Do as I say - Not as I do??
WTF @ 77:
How so?
steve @ 76:
Tough Shit?
Andy K Jong Il @ 78:
See comment @75...
VoteVets.org membership is a substitute for PTSD therapy?
DHSmd @ 61:
We can't reasonably come to that conclusion because we aren't privy to other memos which may, or may not, refer to specific groups/people/books/therapies mentioned by veterans who are seeking disability claims. I'm not saying that the VA/government treats our veterans well, because I don't believe that it does. I just hate coming here and seeing the kind of propaganda and knee-jerk reactions that, to me, have always been hallmarks of the right-wing whackjobs. I thought we were better than that.
We'll See 'bout that @ 80:
Valid point if C&L attempted to block xoites from starting his own blog (he's already got one), but I don't think that's why the post got deleted. Little bit of flaming gets a thread off topic quickly. Ever read the C&L commenting policy?
You wanna pay for the bandwidth to support everyone's right to say whatever they'd like, go ahead. Make your own rules on your own dime.
freepatriot @ 72:
How is a soldier defending you? Is America under some sort of attack?
If some desk-flying shitbag sent me a letter like that, I would learn to cope even better by forming a Red Army sleeper cell.
Just more of the same from the GOVERNMENT. It doesn't matter which party (mask) holds the reins.
From the Atomic Veterans
Agent Orange guinea pigs
SHAD guinea pigs
Operation Whitecoat
Depleted Uranium
Gulf War Syndrome
Pharma-cocktail immunizations (beta testing)
to who knows what else LIES hidden.
The government...
making victims (suckers) of soldiers, and Americans, since the Military Industrial Complex took it over.
DannyEastVillage @ 16:
I would rather not see the story at all, than assume from the headline I would find something in it that isn't there. But then, I prefer all the possible links for more direct information have a "home" comment, whereby folks can add "see this..." because the Larry Sinclair/NatPressClub info devolved into Larry Johnson in no time. A "home" comment just for related links would be a great standard item.
I felt the same way that most of these readers did when I read Nicole's post. The headline really doesn't match the substance. But that is only because Nicole doesn't quote the entire letter. I back tracked to the vetsvoice.com article and read it in full. I now believe her headline is 100% accurate in how it describes the depravity of the situation. This is a man who is unemployed, failed out of college (after returning from War), has suicidal ideation (medical speak for 'he thinks about it but hasn't actually put a gun to his head yet') and attended a two day VoteVets.org event. The doctor decided that his capacity to attend a two day event was adequate evidence that he can control his PTSD symptoms. That is a travesty.
Brady @ 89:
VERY WELL PUT and obviously after more than just a cursory reading. More, please.
"The doctor decided that his capacity to attend a two day event was adequate evidence that he can control his PTSD symptoms. That is a travesty."
That's just not true. What about all of the rest of the evidence - and scores on standardized scales?
Look - I think the VA bugdet should be quadrupled considering the $ spent on the war - but there's no evidence for what you're talking about.
Thats nonsense. People who say things like this don't understand the very real implications on staffing levels, staff time, and the detriment it is to others who may really need the help. In a perfect world we would be busting out the seams with trained staff, flush with cash, and able to bend over knee to help people. We don't and we can't, especially when time absorbed on one case is done at the detriment to another. Anyone remotely familiar with healthcare can tell you that its not possible, nor necessarily desirable, to assist everyone who believes themselves at more risk than doctors have assessed. In order to correct possible wrong assessments, as we've seen above, there is a system of appeals that one can appeal to. But that doesn't mean you're going to win your appeal, nor that you SHOULD.
As a social work student back in the day, I did rotations in a hospital counseling center. Simply put, some people did not belong in the intensive crisis care that was provided. Despite their protestations, after consulting and coming to a consensus amongst the psychiatrists and psychologists assigned to a case, it was often decided that the bed simply had to be freed up. There were too many people, whom were so obviously in need of crisis help, that having someone taking up time and care unnecessarily was an injury to THEM.
People who claim that we should just "assist everyone" believe that their position is the just one to take, because often times they themselves have never had the responsibility to make a call on someones mental or physical health, and to essentially follow triage. It is not an enjoyable thing to do, but it is a necessary thing.
May I also pointed out that almost all VA hospitals are represented by labor unions that have fought tooth and nail against many of the idiotic MANAGEMENT decisions that have been responsible for budget cuts and staff reduction. From the bluster you hear on these boards you have some image of VA workers as rabid conservative watchdogs; most are hard working union members. Some, in fact, ARE former veterans.
Simply lodging the blame at the VA isn't going to fix anything. If those who do the actual work in health care (doctors, nurses, social-workers) are going to get the support they need to do their job, and fight ridiculous unilateral decisions made by mid-level administrators, we must be clear who needs to be tackled; Congress and the Senior Executives on top.
While I agree that the headline is a bit of yellow journalism, the link is still very troubling. It falls under the category of "If small attempts to get better earn me penalties, then why should I make attempts to get better?" Reading more of the note, and even ignoring the citation of Votevets in particular, the letter still argues that he isn't suicidal enough, because he is making steps to get better. And not even huge steps. As was said before, there is a Catch-22 logic to it.
There is a bit of paranoia on the part of votevets, but the question is valid: why was it necessary to site his involvement in votevets at all? And I agree that a 48 hour event hardly proves anything, one way or the other. I'm conflicted, but I wouldn't ignore this issue completely
pcd @ 58:
I think the point is for the administrator/evaluator to experience a few brief seconds of what he lives with every day.
also to characterize some pencil pusher who denies his claim as part of any relationship at all, and even the very special doctor patient relationship, is just totally wrong. It's more akin to the motorist - speedtrap cop "relationship".
This is the Republican Bush Administration supporting the troops.
Vote McCain and screw the troops.
I don't know whether his disability claim should have been denied, but the statement of the VA concerning his participation in VoteVets is completely uncontroversial. They simply state that belonging to the organization helps him deal with his PTSD.
This post is a case of knee-jerkiness, IMO.
The VA is more concerned about itself. It does not give a rats ass if they do the right or wrong thing. The VA is just one more agency that the republicans put their hands on and watched it turn to shit. I bet the GAO could shed a little light when it comes to salary increases, and bonuses. I bet there is a direct relationship between bonus payment, career advancement, and job perks verses denial of benefits. The complete upper management should be given one last "hellva job Brownies" and immediately fired. Is there any government agency that the republicans has not yet turned to complete shit?
elvis @ 15:
i agree. btw, all's far from lost as there are appeals. someone tell this guy about DAV. they know how to fight this stuff.
I don't understand the hub-bub and accusations. What part of "VA Denies Vet’s Disability Claim–Cites Membership In VoteVets As Reason" isn't true, according to the article in its entirety?
The VA DID deny the disability claim and they DID cite his membership in VoteVets. No need to take umbrage with the poster if the claim is true.
Anyway, perhaps it's time for the masses to organize and demonstrate on behalf of the vets.
gremlin @ 5:
I agree but at the same time, that particular excuse is no reason to deny the veteran of treatment. The VA makes it seem like since King feels better being with Votevets.org that it is a perfectly acceptable form of treatment in lieu of what the VA has to offer. In any case, the VA is just dodging the responsibility of providing care for King. I thought I had seen all of the VA's dodges but this one takes the cake.
Yesssirrrreeeee , makes you feel like joining up for old Georgie and Dickie and go " defend " our country against all those Iraqi " terrorists and insurgents " doesn't it ? Not PC but I pity the fools who did just that ! I feel for the ones who were reserve long before this whole mess started , what a nightmare for them and their families ! We need a draft , when there own are at risk then people would care .
Underground Pirate @ 84:
you don't get how this works, do you
you see, we got a ARMY. it's made of of PEOPLE. Those people collenteer to SERVE in the ARMY, to DEFEND AMERICA
defending my country is not dependent on actually HAVING an enemy
we defend our country during peaceful times too (so the bastards don't sneak up on us)
you might wanna take some basic history classes to understand that we also have an Navy when we AIN'T at war (cuz it's kinda hard to just pop a navy out of your ass on the day you get attacked)
the sad part about having to fight for proper medical treatment for my soldiers is that I have to argue with assholes like you, who don't understand that my soldiers are also protecting people like you who live in ignorance
if I had my druthers, I'd send you to Iraq, and keep my soldiers home
so are you really that stupid, or are you just a moral midget who was trying to make a joke about my soldiers ???
I'm a Nam Vet, with PTSD, and it had a horrible impact on my life, and probably on my parents, for over 25 years. I hope we can realise the consecunces that some of our veterans pay, they did it for you. Nam is no different from Iraq, when you finally come to the logical conclution, what you went through was the result of lies, it becomes a heavy burden, that ruins not only the lives of the veteran, but also as the chickenhawks are wont to say, collateral damage. What happened to this country????????????????
I am a clinician actively treating returning Vets emerging from deployment in IRAQ and Afghanistan. I greet an average of 1.4 new actively pychotic PTSD Vets each month coming through my private practice doors. I recognize the GAF score of 52 as assigned by a previous "examiner." We have no information regarding the experience, or military/non-military employment status of the "examiner." What I wish to emphasize is that the mere MENTION of the VoteVets.org involvement of the Veteran within the denial-of-benefits letter is sufficient to directly call into question the professionalism and objectivity of the administrative official...I would also point out that the GAF score ranges were devised for use with a CIVILIAN clinical population. And are geared toward classification of a normally-occurring range of adjustment compendium issues. For a Vet returning from active duty in a War Zone, facing serious daily PTSD maladjustment and/or suicidal impulse symptoms, the traditional American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV GAF score range is not in total a completely adequate method by which to judge the advisability of returning the impaired Military person to active duty which could (and at this time usually would) entail an immediate return to the same stressors that produced the PTSD in the first place. The inhumanity of this denial procedure is something that must be eradicated from the VA landscape. The absolute Evil of these administrators and medical denial strategists is perpetually amazing. The Congress is allowing this type of inhumane treatment to flourish. This shows how responsive our current central government "leadership" is to the actual needs of our returning Vets. So sad.
Try having 3 VA doctors tell TELL YOU that you have PTSD while at the same time denying to grant benefits. Been fighting these b*stards since 1998!
(_(_) @ 60:
Er, that's not specifically true. I have diabetes. I'm a Vietnam vet. I was approved for disability for my diabetes, based solely on the fact that I was stationed in-country during the period in which Agent Orange was used. I did not have to provide any proof of actual exposure to Agent Orange. The approval process was unwieldy and long, but I attribute that more to the large number of applications the VA has to go through, rather than any nefarious motivation.
pete @ 29:
The terminology is mixed up. The Stalinists and the Fascists had similar proclivities but it is not useful to confuse the two.
"but this is outrageous"
Not so much outrageous as completely illegal and unAmerican!
I am a vet, and I can tell you before Bush came to office, the VA could pull up records and even give you an ID in 10 minutes. Now you have to wait 2 to 3 weeks, and the ID you get comes from a private corp from TX of all places. The strip on the back apparently has some kind of crypto that tells state workers and police you are suspicious if you write or are outspoken. This is there trick to deny, smear and soon incarcerate. Lawyers will never help you either, because they are all extorted.
Huh?!? Denying this vet benefits was NOT predicated on his belonging to VoteVets, at least that's not how I read it... All the vet was saying is that this soldier's symptoms did increase sufficiently in severity to warrant treatment... That was the reason they denied the benys. Let's not create controversy where there isn't any... I agree that soldiers are not being treated fairly by the system but I don't think this is a legitimate example of that poor treatment. Sorry.
Vexed @ 108:
You have not accurately read the denial letter's statements. The denial letter did not in any way suggest that the denial was NOT based on the Veteran's participation in the VoteVets organization. I will again state that I work within the overall system of disability adjudication. I have testified as a defense witness on behalf of major insurance carriers' disability provision contracts, and have qualified as an expert witness before Social Security. I can state on the basis of my 32 years of experience as an examination resource, and expert witness, that what is being done to impaired Veterans is sincerely almost criminal in nature. If you saw what I see in my office each week, with regard to the status of impaired Veterans returning from the Middle East, I think you would have a more clearly informed impression of the dangers that the current Veterans Administration manipulations offer for these impaired personnel. I see an average of 1.4 new legitimately psychotic and PTSD-impaired Vets each month in my office. The suffering of these personnel is immense.
I have no tie to the VoteVets organization. But I again state (echoing my comments in Post #102) that the mere mention of the Veteran's participation in the VoteVets group is sufficient to call into question the legitimacy of the denial. Such a statement in civil court contract law documents review would be sufficient to cast into such serious doubt the legitimacy of the denial, that most courts would roundly reject the document, and the denial, as having an objective basis. The document would be Impeached on the basis of its very content.
The hidden tangible nexus in this case which is being overlooked by almost all Posts to this story is: (1) Who was the "examiner" that assigned the GAF score of 52? Where they a government employee? Where they an Armed Services internal employee, under contract to the VA? Where they an experienced and truly licensed examiner? Or were they an unseasoned psychiatric resident, with extremely limited diagnostic and treatment experience knowledge? Were they functioning with true independence? Are they well-trained in assignment of GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) scores? Were any legitimate standardized psychological testing measures employed in a rigorous objective assessment of the Veterans' condition? And (2) what was the relationship, if any, of the "examiner" to the Veterans Administration?
I predict that eventually what you will see is a fruit-basket-turnover in the senior administrative brass within the Veterans Administration disability programs. Because of the severe damage that their idiotic decisions have wrought for the returning Veteran in the 2005-2008 (and beyond) time period.
A GAF score of 49 or below is an examiner's conclusion that the client is unable to work on a full-time basis.
A GAF score of 50 or above implies an ability to return to some form of full-time employment.
A GAF score assigned to a client that a professional has never seen is unethical, and a clear malpractice action.
A GAF score assigned by an UNLICENSED employee is a clear departure from the Standard of Care.
Only duly licensed personnel may assign GAF scores.
Comments are closed on this entry