Printer Friendly Page

LAWMAKER MOVES TO REPEAL "ATTORNEYS FOR

VETERANS" LEGISLATION -- Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY)

introduces HR 1318 to repeal the authority for agent

or attorney representation in veterans benefits

cases before the VA.

 

Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY)

 

Story below:

---------------

The players are lining up in the "Attorneys for Veterans" fight on Capitol Hill.

Last year, Congress passed "Attorneys for Veterans" legislation that would have allowed vets to hire an attorney to represent them in the VA claims process after the VA issued an initial denial of claim.

But, there was a backroom deal to have that repealed as soon as the 110th Congress convened.  That deal is still in the works, although repealer legislation has not been introduced as of yet.

Background on all of this, with backlinks, is here...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/
nf07/nfFEB07/nf021407-1.htm

Now, the repealer legislation has been introduced by Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY).  The bill is HR 1318.  Here is the information on the bill...

-----

HR 1318
Sponsor: Lewis, R. (R-Ky.)
Official Title:
A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to repeal the authority for agent or attorney representation in veterans benefits cases before the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Introduced: March 5, 2007
Committees: House Veterans' Affairs
Cosponsors: No reported cosponsors
March 5, 2007 — Read twice and referred to: House Veterans' Affairs. Congressional Record p. H2164

-----

We need to fight this legislation.  Time to get on the phone or send an email to your Rep. and Senators and tell them this repealer bill CANNOT pass.

Veterans deserve the RIGHT to hire an attorney, if they wish, to represent them in the VA claims process.

The biggest foe of "Attorneys for Veterans" is the DAV.  They have fought it tooth-and-nail and helped set up the deal to get repealer legislation introduced.

Below are some comments from an attorney who represents veterans.  The arguments for attorneys are sound and punch big holes in the DAV's weak case:

 

"It appears to me that DAV's description of the broken VA claims system, and of how long VSOs have been trying to get Congress to fix the system, to no avail, totally undermines their arguments against allowing attorneys to represent claimants after a NOD is submitted. At the time the claimant has submitted a NOD VA has already denied the claim(s), which means that if the claimant was represented by a VSO, the VSO failed to obtain benefits for the claimant. Having given a VSO the opportunity to obtain their benefits, and having received a denial, why shouldn't a veteran have the opportunity to seek other assistance?

I totally agree with DAV that veterans should not have to pay an attorney to obtain benefits to which they are rightfully entitled, but as DAV admits, VA's claims system is broken, and if an attorney believes the veteran's claim has merit, and agrees to take the case, why shouldn't that attorney be compensated for his or her work? Pursuant to the new law VA must promulgate regulations which insure what the attorney charges is "reasonable," and this will protect the veteran from being overcharged. That is similar to current VA regulations which allow an attorney to receive no more than 20 percent of past due benefits. (While attorneys may now charge as much as 30 percent of past due benefits, VA will not deduct the 30 percent; the attorney must collect that amount directly from the veteran. VA will only deduct the 20 percent when that is the amount noted in the attorney-client contract. So attorneys charging 30 percent must take their chances with the veteran, just as in civil cases.)

Another point DAV failed to address is that compensation paid for attorney representation is ONLY from past due benefits; the veteran would not have to pay one penny to an attorney from the monthly disability compensation checks he or she receives after the claim is granted. And as you know, unless a disability improves a veteran receiving disability compensation will receive that compensation for the rest of his or her life. In the case of a single veteran in his or her 20s, receiving 100 percent disability for life (about $24,000 per year), that would amount to over $1.5 million just to age 80, with the attorney who obtained the grant receiving not one penny of that money! And that figure does not take into account annual cost of living (COLA) increases, additional sums for dependents and educational benefits! While receiving that amount would a veteran be upset with paying an attorney 20 percent of the past due benefits, i.e., the amount due the veteran from the date of his or her claim to the date of the grant, for obtaining those benefits?"

"DAV presented no evidence whatsoever for its conclusion of "the increased demands that will arise as a consequence of congressional action to allow lawyers into the claims process." But let me suggest why there will be no "increased demands" on the RO by allowing "lawyers into the claims process," and in the end, would actually be beneficial to veterans. VSOs very rarely (actually, almost never) request a copy of a veteran's claims file, and fully review it, when they undertakes representation. Thus, VSOs are generally ignorant of the evidence in the claims file.

At best, they are privy to only that evidence which is submitted after they undertake representation. Attorneys understand that state bar ethics regulations require that in order to properly represent a client they must have full knowledge of a client's case. Thus, attorneys in almost all cases obtain a complete copy of the claims file when they undertake representation. Their arguments and their requests are based on the totality of the evidence.

Most of the Board of Veterans' Appeals remands are based on a failure by the RO of the duty to assist (DTA), i.e, failure to obtain records, provide exams, etc. Since VSOs are generally representing most veterans in the claims process before the RO, it is the VSOs who are failing to assure that the DTA is fulfilled. Having attorneys representing veterans at the RO level will generally eliminate these remands because attorneys will remind the ROs that they have not fulfilled this duty, so that if and when the case gets to the Board there will no DTA issues. This will result in additional work for the ROs before the case gets to the Board, but will reduce the work for the ROs after the case gets to the Board, because the case will not be remanded for DTA issues.

This will also result in fewer Board remands. It will not substantially increase the work of the ROs because if the Board must remand for DTA issues the ROs would be required to perform the actions relevant to the DTA either before or after a Board remand. In essence, it's another example of the "pay me now or pay me later" theory; the DTA must be fulfilled either before or after the case gets to the Board. But the real benefit is the time saved by not having the case remanded by the Board for DTA issues. Therefore, I believe attorneys will actually reduce the overall time it takes for a claim to be properly adjudicated. And as you probably know, remand delays are one of the things about which veterans constantly complain."

"As a FINAL thought I again believe DAV's own words undermine its position:  By having 260 VSOs across the country DAV essentially admits that a veteran needs outside help in bringing and developing claims because of the "broken" VA claims process. By permanently employing these VSOs DAV essentially admits it has little chance of "fixing" the "broken" VA claims process. And finally, although veterans do not pay these VSOs DAV does pay them; they are not working for free. Thus again, DAV essentially admits non-VA personnel who provide services to veterans in the VA claims process must be paid for those services."

---------------

Larry Scott  --