Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

That completely sounds like a troll comment.

So, that raises a whole host of issues. First, quality will suffer. Which likely means more remands from the court. Second, that means judges have more to review. So, who actually thinks they’re going to be able to (want to) do that many? Maybe they will just sign cases and never review them. Third, such a quota would average to about one case per day during a five day work week. I don’t think when you receive a 20 issue case you’re getting that done in a day. Fourth, 250 is just not reasonable. And if they want that, then they should offer overtime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

That completely sounds like a troll comment.

So, that raises a whole host of issues. First, quality will suffer. Which likely means more remands from the court. Second, that means judges have more to review. So, who actually thinks they’re going to be able to (want to) do that many? Maybe they will just sign cases and never review them. Third, such a quota would average to about one case per day during a five day work week. I don’t think when you receive a 20 issue case you’re getting that done in a day. Fourth, 250 is just not reasonable. And if they want that, then they should offer overtime.

No one is saying that a quota of 250 cases a year will be easy. It will definitely be challenging. But, it is definitely attainable within a 40 hour work week for most attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

Don’t engage. It’s the loser troll that got fired years ago cause they suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

Don’t engage. It’s the loser troll that got fired years ago cause they suck.

I think everyone knows that. We've got nothing better right now, so why not engage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

Don’t engage. It’s the loser troll that got fired years ago cause they suck.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

lol you must have one boring life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

If it means decisions are issued faster and the denials are easier to get JMR’d, at least the private attorneys would be perfectly fine with this outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

If it means decisions are issued faster and the denials are easier to get JMR’d, at least the private attorneys would be perfectly fine with this outcome.

The private bar wouldn’t earn so much money on JMRs if BVA attorneys and judges made less mistakes. It’s astounding that nearly 80% of BVA decisions contain errors so egregious that VA feels compelled to concede the error and agree to a remand.