Aidpage is a social
network for
mutual support.
Ask for help
Offer help
Sign up now
Talking about:
2 posts
519 visits

Judges overstepping. A veteran's observation.

haiki started this conversation
 

 

=

How can state court judges waive away disability rights, and arbitrarily award as alimony a portion of a veteran’s disability rated compensation, determined on a case-by-case basis of a veteran’s whose disability rating that maybe, is factored in as critical? Judgment as if all disabilities are exactly the same? State court judges are overstepping those whose authority it belongs, in the practice of medicine, reevaluation, and rehabilitation of the veteran. And in doing so, ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law is quite clear, along with violating the canons of standard conduct for judges, violating “Authority for schedule for rating disabilities.” 38 USC 1155, "..., in no event shall such a readjustment in the rating schedule cause a veteran's disability rating in effect on the effective date of the readjustment to be reduced unless an improvement in the veteran's disability is shown to have occurred.” Violating as well, 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 1408.

=

As veterans’ all too well know, state court judges upon eyeing a veterans disability compensation, and as well as Social Security disability, as alimony, the standards of judicial jurisprudence, and law are totally ignored. However, the following federal judge’s ruling supports the standard for which state court judges are governed.

State can't deny kids Medicaid services, judge says.

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2008/06/16/medicaid_children_lawsuit.html

=

“The decision last week by U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash pertains to the case of a 13-year-old developmentally disabled girl, Anna C. Moore of Danielsville in north Georgia. Her doctor prescribed 94 hours of private duty nursing care a week for her, but the state Department of Community Health approved only 84 hours.

=

The Atlanta federal judge found the state does not have the discretion to deny funding for services prescribed by a treating physician. "The decision affirms that treating physicians, and not the state, should make those decisions," said the girl's attorney, Joshua Norris of the nonprofit Georgia Advocacy Office.”

=

VETERANS LAW JOURNAL

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:se1h9j9w5GMJ:www.cavcbar.net/Fall_2004.pdf+the+statutes+in+broadly+precluding+judicial+review+of+the+contents&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

=

A Quarterly Publication of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Bar Association

=

“Thus, the Federal Circuit found that “[t]he statutory scheme … consistently excludes from judicial review all content of the ratings schedule as well as the Secretary’s actions in adopting or revising that content.” Looking at the legislative history, the Federal Circuit pointed out that “[t]he language in the legislative history is not limited to the percentages of the disability ratings, as appellants argue, but matches the statutes in broadly precluding judicial review of the contents of the disability rating schedule in toto.”

=

What needs to be done? As explained above briefly, you know your fellow veterans’ are taking a beating from judges in state divorce court. Seizing veterans’ VA disability compensation. Being awarded as alimony. These judges, although recognizing federal law, somehow justify their interpretation of 38 USC 5301 and 10 USC 1408, and the Supremacy Clause as not being perhaps strong enough. Now comes, 38 USC 1155, “Authority for schedule for rating disabilities”, this is possibly just what the disabled veteran needs to overcome the state court’s opposition and uncertainty, with a law that leaves no room for ambiguity in it’s meaning.

=

I don’t believe 1155 argument has ever been tried, or introduced in court. Now is the time to test this. Once introduced, the court will have to deal and rule on this. If there are any upcoming veterans' court divorce proceedings, or even possibly pending cases, the introduction of 1155 could possibly be the one thing that will remove, hopefully forever, another burden from our disabled veterans, at an unfortunate time in their lives. I hope you found this advice worthwhile. Please post this notice on your bulletin board, email, or newsletter, there may be a veteran that can benefit from this advice Thank you.

=

Click here to add your comment...
haiki

Judges overstepping. A veteran's further observation.
=

How can state court judges waive away disability rights, and arbitrarily award as alimony or, as in other cases just take, a portion of a veteran’s disability rated compensation, determined on a case-by-case basis of a veteran’s whose disability rating that maybe, is factored in as critical? Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." §12132 (2000 ed.). The entity being the VA, and the State court judgments as if all disabilities are exactly the same? State court judges are overstepping those whose authority it belongs, in the practice of medicine, reevaluation, and rehabilitation of the veteran. The law is quite clear, along with violating the canons of standard conduct for judges, violating “Authority for schedule for rating disabilities.” 38 USC 1155, "..., in no event shall such a readjustment in the rating schedule cause a veteran's disability rating in effect on the effective date of the readjustment to be reduced unless an improvement in the veteran's disability is shown to have occurred.”

=

I now wondered, if state court judges are allowed to take away a veteran’s disability compensation without a medical license, or medical knowledge, how does the Board of Veterans Appeals, who are continually faced with determining a veteran’s disability, or other medical claim, adjudicate these medical questions?
=

38 C.F.R. PART 20—BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS: RULES OF PRACTICE
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title38/38-2.0.1.1.5.html
=

§ 20.101 Rule 101. Jurisdiction of the Board.
“(b) Appellate jurisdiction of determinations of the Veterans Health Administration. The Board's appellate jurisdiction extends to questions of eligibility for hospitalization, outpatient treatment, and nursing home and domiciliary care; for devices such as prostheses, canes, wheelchairs, back braces, orthopedic shoes, and similar appliances; and for other benefits administered by the Veterans Health Administration. Medical determinations, such as determinations of the need for and appropriateness of specific types of medical care and treatment for an individual, are not adjudicative matters and are beyond the Board's jurisdiction. Typical examples of these issues are whether a particular drug should be prescribed, whether a specific type of physiotherapy should be ordered, and similar judgmental treatment decisions with which an attending physician may be faced.”
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 511(a), 7104, 7105, 7108)
=

§ 20.901 Rule 901. Medical opinions and opinions of the General Counsel.
“(d) Independent medical expert opinions. When, in the judgment of the Board, additional medical opinion is warranted by the medical complexity or controversy involved in an appeal, the Board may obtain an advisory medical opinion from one or more medical experts who are not employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Opinions will be secured, as requested by the Chairman of the Board, from recognized medical schools, universities, clinics, or medical institutions with which arrangements for such opinions have been made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. An appropriate official of the institution will select the individual expert, or experts, to give an opinion.”
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7109)

=
Even the Social Security Administration… has medical evidence standards they must follow.
42 USC 423 “In making any determination the Commissioner of Social Security shall make every reasonable effort to obtain from the individual’s treating physician (or other treating health care provider) all medical evidence, including diagnostic tests, necessary in order to properly make such determination, prior to evaluating medical evidence obtained from any other source on a consultative basis.”

=
As veterans’ all know too well , state court judges, as incompetent as they are in the knowledge required to determine medical necessity and procedures, upon eyeing a veterans VA disability compensation, as alimony, the standards of judicial jurisprudence, and laws are totally ignored.
=

The major test in applying 38 USC 1155 will be, "state family law must not do major damage to clear and substantial federal interest[s]," We, as veterans’ believe when it comes to a veteran’s health issues, it will indeed, interfere, damage, federal interests.
=

38 USC 1155, "..., in no event shall such a readjustment in the rating schedule cause a veteran's disability rating in effect on the effective date of the readjustment to be reduced unless an improvement in the veteran's disability is shown to have occurred.”
=

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+38USC1155.

=
Even the Social Security Administration with a more than comparable disability caseload relies on professional medical opinions and evaluations. As we see in Title 42 USC sec. 421. But state court judges, having no medical expertise what-so-ever, are unique, special, and not having to apologize, or justify the seizing a veterans’ VA disability compensation.
=

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7--SOCIAL SECURITY
42 Sec. 421. Disability determinations
=

“(h) Evaluation of mental impairments by qualified medical professionals “
=

“..shall be made only if the Commissioner of Social Security has made every reasonable effort to ensure that a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist has completed the medical portion of the case review and any applicable residual functional capacity assessment.”
=

“..the possibility that such review could result in the termination of benefits, and the right of the individual to provide medical evidence with respect to such review.”
=

“Travel Expenses for Medical Examinations, Reconsideration Interviews, and Proceedings Before Administrative Law Judges Provisions authorizing payment of travel expenses either on an actual cost or commuted basis, to an individual for travel incident to medical examinations, and to parties, their representatives and all reasonably necessary witnesses for travel…”
=
State court judges disrespect for veterans’ is evident, and they continue to further disable the already disabled veteran.

reply to haiki