Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago, the WaPo published an article criticizing the Trump Administration for politicizing the selection of non-political Veterans Law Judges (VLJ) - the administration refused to sign off on the appointment of VLJ nominees who were registered Democrats. The article, however, did not accuse the Board of any wrongdoing, as it was not BVA management who rejected the nominees based on political affiliation.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to contact the media to bring into the gross mismanagement at the Board. Many people, including union officials, have tried to contact Congress and get Congress to intervene. But, no one in Congress cares abut how the gross mismanagement at the Board is affecting veterans.

Case in point, when the Chairman of the Board told Congress that Board attorneys read tens of thousands of pages of evidence and draft a decision within 8-10 hours, no one asked any following up questions. Unfortunately, the consequences of such extreme workloads have dire effects on veterans as Board attorneys and judges are more likely to remand cases, as remands are easier and faster to write.

But, for veterans, this endless cycle of remands means that there is no finality to their cases and they simply die off while waiting for a decision. For the veterans who do receive a decision, there is an 80 percent likelihood that the decision is legally incorrect (per the Stanford study). Thus, even if a veteran receives a decision, he or she must spend years litigating their cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Ultimately, veterans sustain irreparable harm by the delay, as they are not getting any younger.

See Chairman's testimony to Congress below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6148&v=AACgoVzBKKg&feature=emb_logo

From: 1:44:00 - 1:45:10

Stanford Study:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/06/new-research-finds-flaws-veterans-claims-system/

https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/19-005.pdf

I forgot to mention that for each case that VA loses at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, VA must pay the veteran's attorney in accordance with the “Equal Access to Justice Act”. Each year, VA spends upwards of millions of dollars a year to defend poorly written BVA decisions in federal court. That money comes from U.S. taxpayers. Worst of all, veterans suffer became the money that VA spends to defend error filled BVA decisions comes at the expense of healthcare services for veterans.

Here's an interesting article about the EAJA fees that VA pays to veterans' attorneys. The article was written in 2015 when the production quota at BVA was much lower. Management has since increased the quota for attorneys by 35 percent. Due to the significant increase in the production quota, approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions contain a legal error warranting reversal in federal court (per the Stanford study). I estimate that VA now pays well in excess of $30 million a year to defend poorly written BVA decisions.

https://www.veteranslawblog.org/va-office-of-general-counsel/

Have you ever considered opening your own BVA appeals law firm? These production requirements sound like there are enough cases where you could run a volume mill with cheap paralegals. How long would it take for your first reimbursements to come back?

It’s pretty easy to appeal BVA decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Back in 2015, VA only opposed 41 percent of appeals - for the other 59 percent of cases, VA conceded that BVA made an error sufficient to warrant reversal and award of EAJA fees. So for the majority of appeals, you don’t even need to file a brief. Given the significant increase in the quota at BVA, I suspect that VA is conceding a lot more appeals now. Attorneys usually get EAJA fees ranging from 10k to 30k per case for a few hours of work.

A number of BVA attorneys have started their own law firms to take advantage of the lucrative EAJA market. You don’t even have to be a good attorney to win, as a lot of BVA decisions contain glaring errors that are easy to spot. But, I’m hesitant to start my own volume mill because there’s a lot of attorneys in the field.

There are already a few big name firms who have a good foothold on the market. It can be done, but its not as easy as it sounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago, the WaPo published an article criticizing the Trump Administration for politicizing the selection of non-political Veterans Law Judges (VLJ) - the administration refused to sign off on the appointment of VLJ nominees who were registered Democrats. The article, however, did not accuse the Board of any wrongdoing, as it was not BVA management who rejected the nominees based on political affiliation.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to contact the media to bring into the gross mismanagement at the Board. Many people, including union officials, have tried to contact Congress and get Congress to intervene. But, no one in Congress cares abut how the gross mismanagement at the Board is affecting veterans.

Case in point, when the Chairman of the Board told Congress that Board attorneys read tens of thousands of pages of evidence and draft a decision within 8-10 hours, no one asked any following up questions. Unfortunately, the consequences of such extreme workloads have dire effects on veterans as Board attorneys and judges are more likely to remand cases, as remands are easier and faster to write.

But, for veterans, this endless cycle of remands means that there is no finality to their cases and they simply die off while waiting for a decision. For the veterans who do receive a decision, there is an 80 percent likelihood that the decision is legally incorrect (per the Stanford study). Thus, even if a veteran receives a decision, he or she must spend years litigating their cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Ultimately, veterans sustain irreparable harm by the delay, as they are not getting any younger.

See Chairman's testimony to Congress below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6148&v=AACgoVzBKKg&feature=emb_logo

From: 1:44:00 - 1:45:10

Stanford Study:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/06/new-research-finds-flaws-veterans-claims-system/

https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/19-005.pdf

I forgot to mention that for each case that VA loses at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, VA must pay the veteran's attorney in accordance with the “Equal Access to Justice Act”. Each year, VA spends upwards of millions of dollars a year to defend poorly written BVA decisions in federal court. That money comes from U.S. taxpayers. Worst of all, veterans suffer became the money that VA spends to defend error filled BVA decisions comes at the expense of healthcare services for veterans.

Here's an interesting article about the EAJA fees that VA pays to veterans' attorneys. The article was written in 2015 when the production quota at BVA was much lower. Management has since increased the quota for attorneys by 35 percent. Due to the significant increase in the production quota, approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions contain a legal error warranting reversal in federal court (per the Stanford study). I estimate that VA now pays well in excess of $30 million a year to defend poorly written BVA decisions.

https://www.veteranslawblog.org/va-office-of-general-counsel/

Have you ever considered opening your own BVA appeals law firm? These production requirements sound like there are enough cases where you could run a volume mill with cheap paralegals. How long would it take for your first reimbursements to come back?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago, the WaPo published an article criticizing the Trump Administration for politicizing the selection of non-political Veterans Law Judges (VLJ) - the administration refused to sign off on the appointment of VLJ nominees who were registered Democrats. The article, however, did not accuse the Board of any wrongdoing, as it was not BVA management who rejected the nominees based on political affiliation.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to contact the media to bring into the gross mismanagement at the Board. Many people, including union officials, have tried to contact Congress and get Congress to intervene. But, no one in Congress cares abut how the gross mismanagement at the Board is affecting veterans.

Case in point, when the Chairman of the Board told Congress that Board attorneys read tens of thousands of pages of evidence and draft a decision within 8-10 hours, no one asked any following up questions. Unfortunately, the consequences of such extreme workloads have dire effects on veterans as Board attorneys and judges are more likely to remand cases, as remands are easier and faster to write.

But, for veterans, this endless cycle of remands means that there is no finality to their cases and they simply die off while waiting for a decision. For the veterans who do receive a decision, there is an 80 percent likelihood that the decision is legally incorrect (per the Stanford study). Thus, even if a veteran receives a decision, he or she must spend years litigating their cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Ultimately, veterans sustain irreparable harm by the delay, as they are not getting any younger.

See Chairman's testimony to Congress below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6148&v=AACgoVzBKKg&feature=emb_logo

From: 1:44:00 - 1:45:10

Stanford Study:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/06/new-research-finds-flaws-veterans-claims-system/

https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/19-005.pdf

I forgot to mention that for each case that VA loses at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, VA must pay the veteran's attorney in accordance with the “Equal Access to Justice Act”. Each year, VA spends upwards of millions of dollars a year to defend poorly written BVA decisions in federal court. That money comes from U.S. taxpayers. Worst of all, veterans suffer became the money that VA spends to defend error filled BVA decisions comes at the expense of healthcare services for veterans.

Here's an interesting article about the EAJA fees that VA pays to veterans' attorneys. The article was written in 2015 when the production quota at BVA was much lower. Management has since increased the quota for attorneys by 35 percent. Due to the significant increase in the production quota, approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions contain a legal error warranting reversal in federal court (per the Stanford study). I estimate that VA now pays well in excess of $30 million a year to defend poorly written BVA decisions.

https://www.veteranslawblog.org/va-office-of-general-counsel/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if my previous post published, but this absolutely needs to be sent to a reporter. Any reporter would be lucky to have this thread and write an expose - particularly as it benefits veterans, and fits the themes of any great investigative article. This thread alone provides ample support. People can speak anonymously as well. I think weight be number to this situation but it truly is shocking and disturbing and needs sunlight

Does no one care about this? I understand not caring about attorneys in gutter jobs but aren't veterans suffering from these poor decisions?

Most Americans only pay lip service to veterans.

That, and, I think all of the players (BVA management, veterans groups, and politicians mainly) have decided that quantity is more important than quality. Think of BVA like a factory where they produce decisions on appeals. The main metric they care about is how many decisions get pumped out the door. Congress is happy because the number of decisions issued has increased so they can point to “success.” Therefore BVA management is happy when those numbers increase. The Veterans groups seem to be happy as well.

The issue of employee mistreatment and dedication to the mission can’t really be separated. They all seem to be congratulating themselves because the number of decisions has increased when BVA has a revolving door of staff attorneys who onboard and then leave once they’ve burned out, which, for many people, happens within 2 years, if not sooner. The brain power and talent lost due to staff turnover is bad for the Board and ultimately the people who the Board serves.

Anyone in the private sector who ran a department where the employees leave as soon as they can, and those that haven’t left are completely miserable, would have been fired a long time ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if my previous post published, but this absolutely needs to be sent to a reporter. Any reporter would be lucky to have this thread and write an expose - particularly as it benefits veterans, and fits the themes of any great investigative article. This thread alone provides ample support. People can speak anonymously as well. I think weight be number to this situation but it truly is shocking and disturbing and needs sunlight

Does no one care about this? I understand not caring about attorneys in gutter jobs but aren't veterans suffering from these poor decisions?

Most Americans only pay lip service to veterans.

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago, the WaPo published an article criticizing the Trump Administration for politicizing the selection of non-political Veterans Law Judges (VLJ) - the administration refused to sign off on the appointment of VLJ nominees who were registered Democrats. The article, however, did not accuse the Board of any wrongdoing, as it was not BVA management who rejected the nominees based on political affiliation.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to contact the media to bring into the gross mismanagement at the Board. Many people, including union officials, have tried to contact Congress and get Congress to intervene. But, no one in Congress cares abut how the gross mismanagement at the Board is affecting veterans.

Case in point, when the Chairman of the Board told Congress that Board attorneys read tens of thousands of pages of evidence and draft a decision within 8-10 hours, no one asked any following up questions. Unfortunately, the consequences of such extreme workloads have dire effects on veterans as Board attorneys and judges are more likely to remand cases, as remands are easier and faster to write.

But, for veterans, this endless cycle of remands means that there is no finality to their cases and they simply die off while waiting for a decision. For the veterans who do receive a decision, there is an 80 percent likelihood that the decision is legally incorrect (per the Stanford study). Thus, even if a veteran receives a decision, he or she must spend years litigating their cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Ultimately, veterans sustain irreparable harm by the delay, as they are not getting any younger.

See Chairman's testimony to Congress below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6148&v=AACgoVzBKKg&feature=emb_logo

From: 1:44:00 - 1:45:10

Stanford Study:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/06/new-research-finds-flaws-veterans-claims-system/

https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/19-005.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if my previous post published, but this absolutely needs to be sent to a reporter. Any reporter would be lucky to have this thread and write an expose - particularly as it benefits veterans, and fits the themes of any great investigative article. This thread alone provides ample support. People can speak anonymously as well. I think weight be number to this situation but it truly is shocking and disturbing and needs sunlight

Does no one care about this? I understand not caring about attorneys in gutter jobs but aren't veterans suffering from these poor decisions?

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if my previous post published, but this absolutely needs to be sent to a reporter. Any reporter would be lucky to have this thread and write an expose - particularly as it benefits veterans, and fits the themes of any great investigative article. This thread alone provides ample support. People can speak anonymously as well. I think weight be number to this situation but it truly is shocking and disturbing and needs sunlight

Anonymous wrote:The above link to the Stanford study is not working. Here's the new link:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/06/new-research-finds-flaws-veterans-claims-system/

https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/19-005.pdf

Anonymous wrote:I'm not being hyperbolic - 60 Minutes would be a perfect venue for this. And would force management to at least provide statements that they know are false.