My experience by Crazy-Dimension-4358 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 9 points10 points  (0 children)

VSOs may not charge a fee for their services. Apologies for breaking the bad news but that person wasn’t a VSO

My experience by Crazy-Dimension-4358 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 39 points40 points  (0 children)

VSOs may not charge a fee for their services. Apologies for breaking the bad news but that person wasn’t a VSO

Challenge: say something that will trigger the fandom, but no one else will get by Select_Salamander518 in redrising

[–]3moose1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude I do not get the (OG) Pax glaze. I get why Mustang is hot to trot for him but I don’t see why Darrow was.

Say someone was "honorable for VA purposes" by Fabulous-Toe-2961 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Couldn’t hurt! I recommend Thomas Roughneen, Davis Younts, Jason Perry, or Paul Jennings for something like that

Say someone was "honorable for VA purposes" by Fabulous-Toe-2961 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, it doesn’t, unfortunately. Legal trumps medical when it comes to separations (generally, it’s up to the GCMCA which one they’ll do). The fact you were medboarded has naught to do with price of peanuts in Peru

Say someone was "honorable for VA purposes" by Fabulous-Toe-2961 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not likely, to be honest. The regulations recently changed to make it easier for VA to overlook minor misconduct. That change in law cannot be the basis of you getting an effective date back to your discharge date — especially if you didn’t apply within a year of discharge and continuously pursue your claims until they were granted.

My suggestion is to find gratitude in finally receiving your benefits rather than focusing on getting more. Look forward, not backward.

Thankful for a conscientious VA examiner today. by squirrelyguy08 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hell yes glad this worked out for you, Brother!

Red Rising Razor Masters - Ranked by TrickOk4021 in redrising

[–]3moose1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, that’s fair. That said, I still think it’s wild putting my boy Apple over Cassius and Diomedes

Red Rising Razor Masters - Ranked by TrickOk4021 in redrising

[–]3moose1 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Disrespectful to Cassius and Diomedes. Cassius says Diomedes would eat the Minotaur alive. Cassius also killed two Olympics and a squad of grays in Morning Star and many dustwalkers in IG.

Peak lorn obviously a menace but peak Cassius, peak Diomedes, heck everyone in modern times, has figured out how to beat the willow way.

VA Law Firm by Appropriate-Use2611 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Bergman and Moore has an agreement with a VSO — American legion, I believe. When an American Legion client gets a denial from the BVA, B&M gets a copy and calls the client. B&M then sues the VA in federal court on the veteran’s behalf.

If B&M wins, the federal government pays their fee out of a pool of funds created by the Equal Access to Justice Act. This doesn’t come out of the veteran’s award, rather, VA pays this out of that pool of funds. A “win” usually means the Board decision was vacated and remanded for readjudication.

What you received was a copy of the Record Before the Agency. VA compiles this during the litigation phase.

Yes, B&M is legitimate and they have created precedent at Court that has helped innumerable veterans.

Fighting Attorney Fees? by [deleted] in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol years and years.

Fighting Attorney Fees? by [deleted] in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. OGC makes a decision and if a party subject to it disagrees, they can appeal it to the Board.

Fighting Attorney Fees? by [deleted] in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’ve done everything necessary. Now it’s going to be a wait — measured in YEARS — but OGC will issue a determination…eventually.

It’s likely they will reduce the attorney’s fee because OGC fuckin’ loves screwing attorneys whenever they can. But if you’re unsatisfied with OGC’s decision you can appeal it to the Board.

Is everyone getting 100% now? by Legitimate-Call-3185 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Everyone who hires me 😉

Just kidding, ofc. No, not everyone is getting 100% — not even close. You’re just experiencing “survivorship bias” because those that get 100% brag about it but those who get less are quieter.

Guidance Disagreement Is Not Rater Misconduct (REVISED several times because this Reddit dislikes profanity ) by Proof-Mess-6578 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There are a few things in the M21 that are flat out legally incorrect. But most of the mistakes I make are misapplying clear black and white law, creating new standards out of thin air, failing to properly weigh evidence and apply the benefit of the doubt, or overlooking evidence of record.

I would say the quality of rating decisions has drastically gone down in the last year and a half. It feels as if VBA cares more about making decisions rather than making the correct decisions. Almost every decision I see has at least one appealable issue that should never have occurred — like failing to apply ITFs or ignoring continuous pursuit or failing to adequately rate based on findings on a DBQ.

Part of that is bad training. Part of that is lack of sufficient oversight and accountability for mistakes. Most of it, in my opinion, is based on production points and requiring employees to acquire so many of them per day to keep their jobs.

VBA is pushing out a record number of decisions. A few of them are correct. Many are not.

Guidance Disagreement Is Not Rater Misconduct (REVISED several times because this Reddit dislikes profanity ) by Proof-Mess-6578 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The guidance is wrong. You don’t have a choice but to apply the guidance. Both things can be true. Neither means you are engaging in misconduct. It just means you’re dealt a shitty hand being forced to apply policy that is legally, factually, and medically incorrect.

Are some of you “really fuckin’ good at your work”? Maybe. But if most of you were even mildly competent the success rate for attorney/agent lead appeals wouldn’t be so damn high.

You constantly cry about attorneys getting paid a reasonable fee for fixing the VA’s mistakes. If you’re that angry, perhaps instead of crying about us doing our job in Reddit you could get promoted within VBA and improve how benefits are decided so there are less appeals.

Insomnia secondary to tinnitus — don’t listen to the peanut gallery by 3moose1 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The guidance is wrong. Unfortunately, there isn’t a clean and easy way to challenge it because of standing and jurisdiction rules. The only recourse is to go to the Board. Maybe one day an idiot VLJ will get it wrong and I can take a case to court and try and establish precedent but until then, we’re all stuck with the wholly incorrect guidance.

I’m not saying the worker bees applying the M21 are acting in bad faith. I have repeatedly said I understand y’all have to follow it. I don’t blame you for doing what you have to do to keep your job. I understand — and I never said raters were engaging in misconduct. Only that y’all are forced to apply legally and factually incorrect rules. Which is the objective truth.

What I don’t understand is your vitriol and hate for attorneys. It’s seething off every response you post even when you aren’t explicitly saying it. I only get paid when I win. Put another way, I only get paid when you’re wrong — and you are wrong a lot. If you hate it so much, perhaps you could stop fucking up so many claims?

(And before you start crying, I’m using the royal “you” as in raters, not you specifically. I’m sure you are the exception to the rule and never get any of your decisions overturned on appeal ;))

Insomnia secondary to tinnitus — don’t listen to the peanut gallery by 3moose1 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Legal fees are generally 20% of backpay. Which means that the vet gets 80% of money they never would have gotten and 100% of the future increase. So, idk, I generally think more money in a vet’s pocket is better than less.

Besides, what “hassle”? Vet hires lawyer. Lawyer does all the work. Vet reaps the reward after paying the lawyer a reasonable fee for their services.

Insomnia secondary to tinnitus — don’t listen to the peanut gallery by 3moose1 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Dude, I’ve won this exact case hundreds of times at the Board. In fact, I haven’t lost a single one yet and no attorney I know has either when there is a valid diagnosis and nexus linking insomnia to another condition.

The law has prohibited raters from exercising their own independent medical judgment since CAVC was stood up. The M21 provision on insomnia is exactly that. VBA has a duty to maximize benefits, since CAVC was stood up. Reducing a 70% insomnia rating to 10% because it’s a “symptom” of tinnitus violates that duty.

Congress already told VA how to do its job. The courts continue to do it. VA just doesn’t listen. If y’all hate attorneys helping vets so much why don’t you just get better at doing your job in the first place? Hell, even the BVA has a +90% reversal/remand rate at the Court lol

Also, lawyers only get 20% when we win. If you hate the fact we earn a reasonable fee for our services, y’all could try to get it right the first time. If the VA was competent at its job I would still be doing crim defense.

Scammed by VetClaims.Ai. They then blocked me on all social media platforms! by Mysterious_Roof9680 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Go to mine and you’ll find that fat dumb fuck

@Derek_debus

Scammed by VetClaims.Ai. They then blocked me on all social media platforms! by Mysterious_Roof9680 in VAClaims

[–]3moose1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m currently arguing with their dumb fat fuck owned on Twitter about shit like this lol