VA Petitions for Rehearing in PTSD Case

Veterans for Common Sense reports on their PTSD lawsuit against the VA:


"On Friday, July 1, 2011, the Department of Veterans Affairs filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  VA's petition asks the Court of Appeals to assign a panel of eleven judges to rehear and revisit the issues previously addressed in the May 10, 2011, decision of a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals.

That prior decision ruled, in favor of VCS and Veterans United for Truth, that VA is violating the Constitutional right of veterans to timely mental health care and service-connected disability compensation.   VCS and Veterans United for Truth have not yet filed a response to VA's petition.

The Lancet medical journal mentioned the VCS / VUFT court decision showing that VA mental health care was heavily criticized.

The San Diego Union Tribune discusses the landmark Appeals Court opinion in hopes "that the judiciary's scathing critique will spur Congress and the President to help disabled veterans immediately."

USA Today also cites the court case showing individual veterans struggles with the claims backlog." 

More Information: 

• Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki (5/10/2011): http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/10/0816728com%20.pdf
• http://www.veteransptsdclassaction.org/

Federal appeals court to decide suit over wounded veterans

The LA Times reports:

"Court-ordered mediation has failed to settle a lawsuit over delayed and denied care for wounded veterans so the case now goes to a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, the court reported Tuesday.

Two veterans groups brought suit in 2007, alleging systemic failures in the Department of Veterans Affairs' processing of disability claims. They noted that 3,000 veterans die each year while their appeals are pending, and 18 veterans commit suicide each day on average, many suspected to be acts of despair by those with untreated post-traumatic stress disorder.

In a push for an out-of-court settlement after an Aug. 12 hearing in the case, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski suggested that lawyers for the veterans and the government "go and get a sandwich together." Kozinski said he saw goodwill on both sides to do right by those hurt while serving their country and ordered the parties to seek help from the court's mediation service.

More than a month later, the veterans' pro bono lawyer, Gordon Erspamer, and Department of Justice attorney Charles Scarborough reported to the court that they were "unable to reach any agreement to utilize mediation as a vehicle for resolving the appeal."

Kozinski indicated at the hearing that the court might find it difficult to compel the veterans agency to process claims faster. A district court judge who heard the veterans case last year declined to intervene, saying the claim denials and treatment delays were unjust but beyond the court's power to rectify. It was that decision that prompted Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth to appeal to the 9th Circuit.

The 9th Circuit panel, which includes Judges Proctor Hug Jr. and Stephen Reinhardt along with Kozinski, has no deadline for issuing a decision. Most appeals take at least a few months to be decided and complicated cases can remain under deliberation for more than a year."

By Carol J. Williams
September 16, 2009

---

MORE:

• 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
• Veterans for Common Sense
• Veterans United for Truth

Cushman v. Shinseki: Constitution Requires Fairness in Veterans Disability Claims

Noting that the "right of due process of applicants for veterans' benefits is an issue of first impression for this court" the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed a Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) judgment where a veteran's due process right to a fair hearing was violated by tainted medical evidence.

Spelling out what would seem to an ordinary person to be patently obvious, but seems to have eluded CAVC for decades, the court ruled a veteran "has a constitutional right to have his claim for veteran’s disability benefits decided according to fundamentally fair procedures."

Read the Full text on Findlaw; Cushman v. Shinseki offers hope to a great many Americans!

And thanks again to Larry Scott of VA Watchdog for giving this the publicity it deserves!

Boone v. Shinseki: Was Veterans' Appeal Timely?

Paralyzed Veterans of America's attorneys are frequently involved in cases involving veterans' rights. One recent example is Boone v. Shinseki, in which a veteran filed an appeal with the VA which sat on it instead of telling the veteran of his error or forewarding the appeal to the appropriate court. From PVA's Legal Issues Page:

"Paralyzed Veterans’ attorneys represented the veteran in the recently decided case of Boone v. Shinseki in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Since its decision in Henderson (see below), the Court has been struggling with jurisdictional issues such as the one presented by this case: Did a veteran file his appeal on time if he inadvertently filed it with VA instead of the Court, and then VA waited too long to send it to the Court?

While Paralyzed Veterans argued that there are legal reasons the veteran should be allowed to continue his appeal, the Court found in Boone and similar cases that the veteran had actually filed a motion for reconsideration with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. This holding preserves a possible future appeal for the veteran but avoids other jurisdictional questions.

• Read the Boone decision»
• Read the Boone pleadings:Memorandum»Reply»
• Listen to the oral argument»

MORE: http://www.pva.org/site/PageServer?pagename=rights_gc

VA Settles Class-Action Lawsuit over 2006 Laptop Theft for $20 Million

From Larry Scott at VA Watchdog:

"Veterans will be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses caused by theft. Any remaining funds will be donated to vets' charities.

---

Larry Scott ---
Let's go back to the Spring of 2006.

Veterans went into a panic when it was discovered that a laptop computer containing the personal information of millions of veterans and many active-duty military members had been stolen.

That laptop was recovered and the FBI determined no data had been breached.

But, many vets, believing their information to be at risk, signed up for credit protection services.

For a very complete background on this incident, go to this page...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/va%20data%20theft%20news.htm

A number of lawsuits were filed against the VA. They were later consolidated... and today, we have the outcome.

It's a $20 million settlement. And, the VA must be congratulated for working out this settlement.

In simple terms, the money will be used to reimburse vets for any out-of-pocket expenses caused by the laptop theft, such as buying a credit protection plan. Any funds left over go to vets' charities.

In the near future, we will have info on how to sign up for reimbursement.

Below is a press release regarding the settlement.

Here is the motion for preliminary approval (download).

Here is the settlement agreement (download)..."

---

See the full article by L. Scott, with many more links, here.
VA Watchdog is frequently updated at
http://www.vawatchdog.org

PTSD Treatment Class Action Suit Launched

The National Veterans Legal Services Program recently filed a class action lawsuit charging that the U.S. Army is denying OEF/OIF veterans the benefits to which they are entitled to treat Post-Traumatic Shock Disorder (PTSD).

According to its press release (selected links added):

PRESS RELEASE

NVLSP SUES ARMY FOR DENYING LIFETIME BENEFITS & HEALTHCARE TO THOUSANDS OF VETS WITH PTSD

Advocates say veterans from Iraq & Afghanistan were shortchanged the support they are entitled to

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 18, 2008

WASHINGTON – In a class action lawsuit filed on December 17, 2008 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) charged that for many years, the U.S. Army shortchanged an entire class of soldiers who returned from service in Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the benefits to which they are entitled.

"I experienced firsthand the horrors of war" said Juan Perez, an Iraq veteran and one of five plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "My expectation was that the military would be there for me, and my country would be there for me. Instead, the way I was treated felt more like a slap to the face."

The five veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan filing suit in the case seek to represent the large number of soldiers the Army found to be unfit for continued military service because of their PTSD, but who then were illegally deprived of the disability benefits and free health care to which they were entitled under federal law.

“I don't think we can do enough for the veterans who put themselves in harm's way to fight the war on terrorism,” said James J. Kelley, a partner with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs on a pro-bono basis with counsel from NVLSP. “Sometimes the intervention of the court is required to ensure that the right thing is done.”

For many years, the law has required the Army to assign a disability rating of at least 50% to all those it discharged for PTSD. A rating at 30% or more entitles a soldier to monthly disability benefits for the rest of the soldier’s life, to free health care for the soldier and his or her spouse for the rest of their lives, and to free health care for their children while they remain dependents.

Instead of following the law, the Army rated the PTSD suffered by these soldiers as less than 50% disabling in a transparent effort to avoid its responsibility to care for its wounded soldiers. In most cases these soldiers were rated well below the 30% rating level needed to qualify for monthly disability benefits and free health care.

On October 14, 2008, the Department of Defense called a halt to the Army’s illegal conduct by ordering the Army to assign at least a 50% rating to those soldiers discharged due to PTSD in the future. The lawsuit filed by NVLSP seeks to hold the Army accountable for its failure to take any steps to rectify its failure to follow the law for those discharged in the last six years with a less than 50% rating, prior to the Department of Defense’s order in October 2008.

One in five veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffers from PTSD or major depression, according to a study by the RAND Corporation announced in April 2008.

“Every American should be outraged that our veterans are being tossed aside when they can no longer serve and without the benefits they are entitled to,” said Bart Stichman, co-executive director of NVLSP. “The denial of benefits hurts these veterans and their families in countless ways. They deserve better, and this lawsuit could potentially help thousands.”

Stichman said that because of public outrage following investigative reporting into poor treatment of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2007, his office was swamped with calls from law firms wanting to provide free help to these veterans. Because of this outpouring of concern, NVLSP launched the Lawyers Serving Warriors(TM) project, which offers free legal help to active duty personnel who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom and are facing administrative separation, or going through a medical or physical evaluation board. They also help Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have received an inappropriate discharge or disability rating, or are having difficulty with a claim with the VA for disability compensation, or a claim for Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance benefits.

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans seeking help from Lawyers Serving Warriors™ are urged to visit the website at www.lawyersservingwarriors.org and submit information through the “Request Free Legal Help” button on the left side of the screen.

More information and the legal complaint for the lawsuit are available at www.LawyersServingWarriors.org.

ABOUT NVLSP

The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) is an independent, nonprofit veterans service organization that has been serving active duty personnel and veterans since 1980. NVLSP strives to ensure that our nation honors its commitment to our 25 million veterans and active duty personnel by providing them the federal benefits they have earned through their service to our country. NVSLP offers training for attorneys and other advocates, connects veterans and active duty personnel with pro bono legal help, publishes the nation’s definitive guide on veterans benefits, and represents and litigates for veterans and their families before the VA, military discharge review agencies, and federal courts. For more information go to www.nvlsp.org.

ABOUT MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Morgan Lewis is an international law firm with more than 1,500 lawyers in 22 offices located in Beijing, Boston, Brussels, Chicago, Dallas, Frankfurt, Harrisburg, Houston, Irvine, London, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, Palo Alto, Paris, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Princeton, San Francisco, Tokyo, and Washington, D.C. For more information about Morgan Lewis, please visit www.morganlewis.com.

CONTACT FOR NEWS MEDIA/PRESS INTERVIEWS:

Ami Neiberger-Miller, Public Affairs, www.nvlsp.org"

MORE INFORMATION:

• The Complaint (PDF)
  
• RAND Invisible Wounds of War Study
  

Appeal with Representation at Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Beginners in the area of Veterans Claims may wish to consult the "Appeal with Representation" page of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

In addition to useful topics such as Rules of Practice and Procedure, Time Limits (very important!) and Forms and Fees, there is a link to a page blandly entitle Representation, which states:

"If you think this Court can consider your appeal, you should get advice from an attorney or from a service officer in a veterans organization or a state or county veterans affairs office.

You may represent yourself, but VA will be represented by its attorneys. Your case may be better presented if you are represented.

The Public List of Practitioners at this website may help you. It shows people who are allowed to represent appellants in this Court and have said that they are available to do that. Most charge a fee. The Court does not recommend or appoint them, or anyone else, to represent you.

You can also request assistance from The Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program. The Pro Bono Program offers free representation by a qualified lawyer if you meet their eligibility requirements. To learn more about this Program, go to www.vetsprobono.org or call the Pro Bono Program at their toll free number: (888) 838-7727."

The site has a host of other useful information: http://www.vetapp.uscourts.gov

VA Can't Be Stopped from Using Religion, Says 7th Circuit

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Nicholson, the 7th Circuit ruled (August 5, 2008) that taxpayers lack standing to sue the Department of Veterans Affairs for incorporating religion into its health care programs.

On April 19, 2006 the Foundation sued in District Court under 42 USC 1983 to end certain VA practices that it claimed violated the separation of church and state:

• The clinical focus of the Chaplain Service
• The spiritual assessments that the VA gives to patients
• The provision of pastoral care to VA outpatients
• The integration of spirituality/religion into VA treatment programs.

The VA argued that spirituality should be integrated into care, but it is up to patients to decide whether that involves religion. Its "spiritual assessments" ask patients about their faith (such as how often they attend church, or how important the Bible or other scripture is in their lives) to help it figure out what each patient needs.

U.S. District Judge John Shabaz granted summary judgment to the VA, ruling Lemon v. Kurtzman was controlling and that the VA program satisfied the "Lemon" test.

On appeal, the VA lawyers challenged the Foundation's standing to sue, citing the recently decided Hein case, and the three-judge panel agreed.

• Freedom From Religion Foundation Complaint
• Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Nicholson Ruling
• Report in the Green Bay Press Gazette
• FFRF press release Aug 7, 2008

Thanks for the heads-up from VA Watchdog!

Paralyzed Veterans of America - Legal Issues

Paralyzed Veterans of America, which has substantial experience helping veterans secure their legal rights, makes some of the fruit of that experience available free on the web.

From the PVA Legal Issues page:

Paralyzed Veterans of America's (Paralyzed Veterans) attorneys have litigated hundreds of cases on behalf of members and other veterans, helping them receive the benefits they have earned. When veterans are denied benefits by Board of Veterans’ Appeals, they have a right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Our professional staff represents claimants in these courts and tracks legal issues that matter to veterans.

Paralyzed Veterans’ attorneys recently secured settlement agreements in the following cases:

The first settlement was in Palaske v. Mansfield. Mr. Palaske is a World War II hero who flew more than 50 combat missions. Michael Horan, Paralyzed Veterans Deputy General Counsel, convinced VA that there was an error in a 1946 decision, and VA agreed to award more than 50 years of retroactive compensation.

The second settlement was in Bernstein v. Mansfield. Mrs. Bernstein is the wife of World War II veteran Frank Bernstein, who died in 1980 from complications from his service-connected diseases. Paralyzed Veterans Assistant General Counsel Jennifer Zajac demonstrated that VA should have granted Mrs. Bernstein surviving spouse benefits at an earlier date, which will result in approximately 13 years of retroactive Disability and Indemnity Compensation benefits to Mrs. Bernstein.

From the PVA Legal Issues page includes a host of resources, as links to it amicus curiae briefs, hot topics, and issues to watch. Its site also includes coverage of many other issues important to veterans, such as Accessible Design, Spinal Cord Research and Sports. There's even a facility for sending e-cards! Check it out - You'll be glad you did: http://www.pva.org

VCS and VUTS File Appeal

From Veterans for Common Sense:

Monday Jul 28, 2008 - As promised, the advocacy group Veterans for Common Sense has filed an appeal in a case in which it accuses the Veterans Affairs Department of putting veterans at risk for suicide and mental health issues through shortfalls in care.

In June, Judge Samuel Conti of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the case was out of his jurisdiction because Veterans for Common Sense could not prove that the problems cited — delays in benefits, lost records, long waits for doctors’ appointments, not enough oversight and veterans turned away from hospitals with suicidal thoughts — applied to every veteran, and were therefore not systemic.

However, Conti said in his ruling that those problems need to be tended to, and that individual veterans could sue VA. He said the power to change the system ultimately rests with Congress and VA.

But Veterans for Common Sense, in conjunction with Veterans United for Truth, appealed because they believe the courts do have jurisdiction and can force change. They have requested an expedited hearing, citing new statistics that show a veterans’ suicide hotline receives 250 calls a day from people in distress.

The case brought to light several problems within the system, including an e-mail from a woman who oversees mental health workers at a Temple, Texas, VA facility in which she said her center did not have the resources necessary to diagnose veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and advised them instead to diagnose “adjustment disorder” — a short-term diagnosis no longer applicable to veterans who have had symptoms for more than six months.

The case also disclosed an e-mail that showed more than 1,000 veterans in VA’s care attempt suicide every month.

“For these reasons, plaintiffs believe they should continue to fight, that their cause is valid, and that Judge Conti was incorrect in holding that the courts are without power to grant veterans a remedy,” attorneys for Veterans for Common Sense said in a statement.

• Original: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/10770
• More posts on this case: http://lawyersforwarriors.blogspot.com/search/label/VCS%20v.%20Nicholson

VCS v. Nicholson: Trial notes problems but fails plaintiffs

From Army Times:

June 27, 2008 - A judge determined Wednesday that he does not have the jurisdiction to change the way the Veterans Affairs Department cares for returning service members in a lawsuit Veterans for Common Sense filed against VA Secretary James Peake.

"The grievances are misdirected," Judge Samuel Conti wrote in his decision for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. "The remedies to the problems, deficiencies, delays and inadequacies complained of are not within the jurisdiction of this court."

But though he found for the defendants, the judge laid out in an 82-page decision many problems he identified within VA from three weeks of testimony. Veterans for Common Sense complained that VA needs better oversight to ensure programs are in place and well-run, and that delays and gaps in mental-health care have led to problems for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, including lost jobs, ruined relationships, homelessness, accidental overdoses in VA facilities and suicide while under VA care.

Conti said the plaintiffs "have demonstrated that their members have suffered injuries in fact."

"Given the dire consequences many of these veterans face without timely receipt of benefits or prompt treatment for medical conditions, especially depression and [post-traumatic stress disorder], these injuries are anything but conjectural or hypothetical," Conti wrote. As VA concedes, he wrote, "delays in health care, especially for mental health issues, and delays in receipt of disability benefits, which are often the primary or sole source of income for a veteran, can lead to exactly the type of injuries complained of" by Veterans for Common Sense.

In fact, he said, the actions sought by Veterans for Common Sense, including a time limit on how long an appeal can take, would likely improve the situation.

"This issue ... is whether this and other relief sought by [Veterans for Common Sense] are within the power of the court to grant," Conti wrote. "The Court finds that [Veterans for Common Sense's] individual members would have standing to sue."

The trial brought to light an e-mail showing 1,000 veterans a month attempt suicide while under VA care — written by VA's top mental health doctor with the subject line, "Shh!" It caused a VA employee to forward an e-mail sent to mental health staff at a Temple, Texas, VA facility requesting that mental health workers diagnose adjustment disorder before PTSD because they didn't have the resources to deal with PTSD. And it showed that delays in medical appointments, which VA claimed were 30 days, were actually much longer.

But Veterans for Common Sense had to prove the problems were systemic — that they affected every veteran. Instead, they showed that many of the problems affected a lot of veterans, but not all of them.

Though Veterans for Common Sense intends to appeal the decision, Paul Sullivan, executive director of the organization, said they "stand willing to work with Congress and VA to resolve the many serious problems the court confirmed."

-"June 27, Lawsuit Update: Judge - VA Care Falls Outside His Authority" by Kelly Kennedy

MORE INFORMATION:

• Case Docket (links to 240 court documents)
• Court decision (posted at VCS)
• CBS News / KPIX TV broadcast a thorough review of the verdict. http://blip.tv/file/1027172
  
• Veterans for Common Sense: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/

VCS v. Nicholson and the anti-PTSD Email

After the close of evidence in VCS v. Nicholson, an email came to light concerning instructions to "refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD" (March 20, 2008 email from Veterans Health Administration PTSD Program Coordinator Norma Perez). The email goes on "We don't have time to do the extensive testing that should be done to determine PTSD".

Plaintiffs have requested that this email be considered in determining factual issues, such as whether VA systematically underdiagnoses PTSD and lacks resources to do its job.

MORE INFORMATION:

• Plaintiff's Letter (5/28/2008)
• Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact (5/9/2008)
• Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact (5/19/2008)
• Case Docket

Closing Arguments in Veterans for Common Sense v. Nicholson

You will recall that Veterans for Common Sense v. Nicholson is a class-action in which veterans claiming that medical care was denied or delayed are suing for injunctive relief. That is to say, they want action!

Closing arguments have just finished; for a nice summary of the case so far, with links to court documents, see Closing Arguments in Suit on Veterans’ Mental Care by Michele Storms at http://trialadnotes.blogspot.com

Notice how easily it is to access the various filings and orders here: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/candce/3:2007cv03758/194177/

(And note also that at least one the filings refers to Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, rather than Nicholson. This can be confusing.)

VA Lawsuit Trial Starts

Veterans For Common Sense et al. v. Nicholson, Case No. C 07 3758, U.S.D.C. (N.D. Cal. 2007)" goes to trial this week.

You may access the primary court-filed documents at http://www.veteransptsdclassaction.org/cfd.html (no password or registration required) or, if you have a PACER account, you can get the complete docket & documents at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov.

This class-action lawsuit concerns whether the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs isn't doing enough to provide adequate medical care for Americans who have served in the armed forces.

Learn more: http://www.veteransptsdclassaction.org/

According to an AP article (Lawsuit: Veterans Affairs has failed to prevent suicides by Paul Elias):

"An average of 18 military veterans kill themselves each day, and five of them are under VA care when they commit suicide, according to a December e-mail between top VA officials that was filed as part of the federal lawsuit.

"That failure to provide care is manifesting itself in an epidemic of suicides," the veterans groups wrote in court papers filed Thursday.

A study released this week by the RAND Corp. estimates that 300,000 U.S. troops — about 20 percent of those deployed — are suffering from depression or post-traumatic stress from serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We find that the VA has simply not devoted enough resources," said Gordon Erspamer, the lawyer representing the veterans groups. "They don't have enough psychiatrists."

The lawsuit also alleges that the VA takes too long to pay disability claims and that its internal appellate process unconstitutionally denies veterans their right to take their complaints to court.

The groups are asking U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti, a World War II U.S. Army veteran, to order the VA to drastically overhaul its system. Conti is hearing the trial without a jury.

"What I would like to see from the VA is that they actually treat patients with respect," said Bob Handy, head of the Veterans United for Truth, one of the groups suing the agency.

Handy, 76, who retired from the Navy in 1970, said he founded the veterans group in 2004 after hearing myriad complaints from veterans about their treatment at the VA when he was a member of the Veterans Caucus of the state Democratic Party. The department acknowledges in court papers that it takes on average about 180 days to decide whether to approve a disability claim.

"I would just like to see the VA do the honorable thing," said Handy, who is expected to testify during the weeklong trial.

Justice Department spokeswoman Carrie Nelson declined comment Friday.

But government lawyers have filed court papers arguing that the courts have no authority to tell the VA how to operate and no business wading into the everyday management of a sprawling medical network that includes 153 medical centers nationwide.

The veterans are asking the judge "to administer the programs of the second largest Cabinet-level agency, a task for which Congress and the executive branch are better suited," government lawyers wrote in court papers.

If the judge ordered an overhaul, he would be responsible for such things as employees workloads, hours of operations, facility locations, the number of medical professionals employed, and "even the decision whether to offer individual or group therapy to patients with" post-traumatic stress, the papers said.

The VA also said it is besieged with an unprecedented number of claims, which have grown from 675,000 in 2001 to 838,000 in 2007. The rise is prompted not from the current war, but from veterans growing older, government lawyers said.

"The largest component of these new claims is the aging veteran population of the Vietnam and Cold War eras," the government filing stated. "As they age, older veterans may lose employment-related health care, prompting them to seek VA benefits for the first time."

Government lawyers in their filings defended its average claims processing time as "reasonable," given that it has to prove the veterans disability was incurred during service time. They also noted the VA will spend $3.8 billion for fiscal year 2008 on mental health and announced a policy in June that requires all medical centers to have mental health staff available all the time to provide urgent care. They said that "suicide prevention is a singular priority for the VA.""

Henderson v. Peake in Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Per Paralyzed Veterans of America:

"The [Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims] recently heard oral argument in the case of Henderson v. Peake. The question before the Court was whether it can have jurisdiction over cases where a veteran files his or her Notice of Appeal (NOA) late because of mental or physical disabilities.

"Some courts have permitted late filing in these circumstances under a theory of equitable tolling, but a recent Supreme Court decision, Bowles v. Russell, has made courts question whether such late filings may still be permitted.

"In Bowles, the petitioner was attempting to appeal the denial of a writ of habeas corpus to the Sixth Circuit, through the benefit of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2107(c) (West 2002), which has a specific, limited time period for filing. A judge gave him a deadline that was longer than the statute’s time period, and he filed his petition within the period allowed by the judge but two days later that the period stated in the statute. Finding that the statute’s filing deadlines were mandatory, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Circuit could not equitably toll the deadline and the filing was therefore late. The Supreme Court also expressly overruled an earlier case that allowed a late filing.

"Paralyzed Veterans submitted a brief as amicus curiae on behalf of Mr. Henderson, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision has no application to the CAVC’s equitable tolling case law, which is premised on the Supreme Court’s decision in Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, a case which was not mentioned or overruled in the Bowles decision.

"Click here to read Paralyzed Veteran’s amicus curiae brief."

Veterans with PTSD - Intake Form for Class Action Case

According to the website set up for a class-action suit in support of veterans with PTSD:

"If you are a U.S. veteran who has a pending claim based on PTSD, please fill out and submit the form below. We will contact you as quickly as we can."
http://www.veteransptsdclassaction.org/intakeform.html

Veterans For Common Sense et al. v. Mansfield

You'll want to keep an eye on a class-action case "Veterans For Common Sense et al. v. Mansfield, Case No. C 07 3758, U.S.D.C. (N.D. Cal. 2007)"

This is a federal lawsuit on behalf of veterans with pending VA claims based upon PTSD.
You are invited to learn more:
http://www.veteransptsdclassaction.org/

New! Here's a page linking to case filings (very useful stuff): http://www.veteransptsdclassaction.org/cfd.html