by Kristina Derro

The VA has recently agreed to review the cases of nearly 17,000 “Brown Water” Vietnam Era veterans who have claimed disabilities related to Agent Orange exposure. VA previously denied a number of these claims without properly determining whether they served in Vietnam’s inland waterways (“Brown Water”) or in other locations where they would have been exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides.

Many of these claims were held by VA while litigation was ongoing concerning “Blue Water” veterans and their exposure to herbicides, and were later denied. A review of these claims found that many of the so-called “Blue Water” veterans actually served in “Brown Water” or inland waters of Vietnam, and should have received the same presumptions of service-connection as those veterans who had “boots on the ground” in Vietnam. Unfortunately, their claims were denied by VA without looking up proper documentation to prove whether they actually served in “Brown Water”.

This recent agreement by VA allows certain veterans who were previously considered “Blue Water” veterans to have their claims reevaluated for evidence of “Brown Water” service, or evidence of service in other locations where VA acknowledges that herbicides may have been used.

by Jim Fausone

Time is running out to apply for retroactive bonus pay for 145,000 military personnel who were forced to remain on duty beyond their original discharge date, following the September 11th attacks. Congress has approved back pay of $500 for each month of involuntary service; the average lump-sum due is between $3,500 and $3,800. Applications must be submitted by October 21, 2010. The DoD is still trying to track down about 90,000 veterans.  I suspect a large number of the missing veterans are National Guard and Reserve troops.  You can submit your application online at www.defense.gov/stoploss.  If you have a relative or friend that maybe eligible for this payment, please pass the information along.

by Jim Fausone

There has been some confusion on whether a veteran with a Traumatic Brain Injury is entitled to a Purple Heart. In a sign of confusion over the issue, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman said last week that soldiers with concussions were not eligible for the Purple Heart. DOD then took the position that “While not every service member exposed to IED blasts will suffer the lasting consequences associated with TBI, every service member who is exposed to an enemy generated explosion and receives medical attention should receive the Purple Heart”. It is reported that some Army commanders and medical officials were not award the Purple Heart for concussions. Read more about the problem below:

http://www.propublica.org/article/congresswoman-calls-for-review-of-purple-heart-decisions

by Jim Fausone

SGLI is a VA program that provides low cost group life insurance to members of the Military and Uniformed Services, including commissioned officers of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, cadets and midshipmen of the service academies. Members are automatically insured under Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) for the maximum amount of $400,000 unless an election is filed reducing the insurance by $50,000 increments or canceling it entirely.

In addition the SGLI coverage now includes Traumatic Injury Protection.  This coverage provides service  members protection against loss due to traumatic injuries and is designed to provide financial assistance to members so their loved ones can be with them during their recovery from their injuries.  The coverage ranges from $25,000 to $100,000 depending on the nature of the injury.

Make sure if you are entitled to the insurance you demand the lump sum payment.  It is best for you to manage the money rather than let VA or its insurer Prudential handle your money.

  http://www.military.com/benefits/survivor-benefits/servicemembers-group-life-insurance

by Jim Fausone

Upon the death of a service member, his or her family is entitled to death benefits from service life insurance.  The financial press recently broke the story that Prudential Financial did not pay the lump sum to the families as expected.  Instead, Prudential Financial Inc. would withhold lump-sum payments of life insurance benefits for survivors of fallen service members.  The families, which were entitled to lump sums, were simply given checks to draw down on the amounts owed.   

Prudential held $662 million of survivors’ money in its corporate general account as of June 30, according to information provided by the VA.  Prudential’s general account earned 4.2 percent in 2009, mostly from bond investments, according to regulatory filings. The company has paid survivors holding Alliance Accounts 0.5 percent in 2010. This is financial greed at its worse.   The company earned 3.7% on other people’s money.  

If you know someone in this situation, have them contact us.  The victims of this greed need to consider a class action to make Prudential pay the ill-gotten gains to the families of our fallen American heroes.

http://http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-14/how-prudential-cut-a-deal-with-the-va.html

by Jim Fausone

As many VA watchers know, VA adopted a new law “Relaxation of Evidentiary Standard for Establishing In Service Stressors in Claims for PTSD” dated July 13, 2010.                                      

We at Legal Help for Veterans, PLLC have received the first rating decision taking this law into account. The VA conceded the Vietnam Vet’s stressor exposure based on the new rule.  This Army veteran had a Vietnam Service Medal and Campaign Medal.  VA granted a 10% rating and set an effective date of July 13, 2010.  VA did not evaluate the stressors under the old law. If it had, the effective date would have been 9 months earlier.  Is this going to be the way VA handles these PTSD cases? VA concedes the stressor under the new law and does not evaluate or give an effective date back to the filing of the claim.  It seems to me this is improper when the law was changed to make VA’s life easier not to swindle vets on the effective date and retro payments.  

 Yes, we are going to appeal.  I believe the Court will remand and make VA look back to the date of filing the claim using the old law.

By Jim Fausone

If you have a disability rating from VA, the first step is done. But you will want to get rated at 100% permanently disabled if appropriate.  It is just one way that a disabled vet can take care of his family now and in the future. Without that designation, the vet’s family is not eligible for many benefits including medical insurance or college costs. Also, the VA may not pay a survivor’s benefit to the surviving spouse unless they can prove the vet’s death is directly related to his military service.  Most vets don’t want their spouse to have to fight the VA.  A recent article on this subject is worth reading.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_6ee6516a-d8c5-55ab-a850-e7700f4cf26b.html

by Jim Fausone

We see soldiers discharged for or diagnosed with “personality disorder” all too often in our veteran disability practice. As a result, the veteran is not going to receive VA benefits.   Personality disorder is a “preexisting condition” so there will be no grant of VA disability compensation. After an article in The Nation magazine, the Defense Department changed its policy and began requiring a top-level review of each case to ensure post-traumatic stress or a brain injury wasn’t the underlying cause rather than a pre-existing condition. The Army had been discharging 1000 vets per year with personality disorder.  However, the annual number of personality disorder cases dropped by 75% after the new policy was implemented. Only 260 soldiers were discharged on those grounds in 2009.

At the same time, the number of post-traumatic stress disorder cases has soared. By 2008, more than 14,000 soldiers had been diagnosed with PTSD – twice as many as two years before. The Army is now looking at if it misdiagnosed and discharged thousands of veterans in the last few years. The article attached discusses this problem and highlights the need to challenge a VA denial of claims for personality disorder.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-08-15-incorrect-ptsd-dismissals_N.htm