From: postmaster@dvnf.2dialog.com
Subject: We've Reached Our Goal
| ||
VAVS Department Executive Committee Report
September 14, 2013
VAVS Quarterly Meetings
Attended by VAVS State Chairman: W. Baumann,
DAV Van Acquisitions: Discuss one (1) Ford Flex for Reno to support Susanville, CA this is due to AMVETS no longer supporting the transportation program. The veterans in northern California have their medical services performed by the VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System, this could be construed as veterans being served by Nevada, the same as veterans in Elko and Ely, NV being served by Salt Lake City, UT. We are planning on purchasing two (2) Ford Flex’s For Las Vegas, NV this year.
One 2007 Ford F-350 Econoline 12 passenger was removed from service; it was sold for five thousand three dollars.
Two Ford F-350 Econoline 12 passenger vans were removed from service in March and April due to excessive mileage. One from Mesquite, NV and one from Laughlin, NV, both were replaced with the new Dodge Caravans. Henderson, NV received one of the new Dodge Caravans and Blue Diamond Area Southwest of Las Vegas, NV received the fourth Dodge Caravan.
The DAV VAVS Chairman and Department HSC have been informed by the VA that the Veterans Transportation System (VTS) program will become a reality by February, 2014, the VA’s Facilities Director is currently working on the implementation program. We will keep you informed. The following is the information we currently have on the program.
VASNHS Veterans Transportation System (VTS) Business Plan Proposal
VTS Vision Statement
VTS will create a state of the art access system using 21st Century technology including rideshare software and hardware. VTS seeks to improve Veteran access to health care by introducing a more systematic approach with transportation services to and from VA health care facilities. VTS recognizes the problems Veterans face when traveling to access VA health care, such as, visual impairment, elderly, or immobilized due to disease or disability, particularly those living in remote and rural areas. VTS will support the establishment of a network of community transportation service providers that could include Veteran Service Organizations (VSO’s); community and commercial transportation providers; federal, state and local government transportation services and non-profits. VTS seeks to improve the lives of our nation’s veterans by providing opportunities to interact with other Veterans and VHA staff to which the Veteran might not otherwise have the transportation opportunity.
Veteran Eligibility and Participation
All veterans that are eligible for VA medical benefits are eligible for transportation services provided by VTS Attendant/Caregivers are eligible to accompany veteran.
VTS especially recognizes the problems Veterans who are visually impaired, elderly, or immobilized due to disease or disability, particularly those living in remote and rural areas, face in traveling to access VA health care.
Established internal policies will be utilized to address issues concerning service limitations, capacity constraints, and priority groups
Outreach
This initiative will not replace current activities, but instead will begin to collaborate with DAV’s Veteran’s Transportation Network (VTN), Voluntary Services, VSO’s, existing internal transportation partners and local transportation providers. The goal of VTS is to improve and enhance veteran transportation services to improve access to VA health care.
VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System has a veteran population within our catchment area totalling approx. +350,000.
1. VASNHS will request 2 vans with Wheel Chair lifts, 3 Drivers, 1 Mobility Manager and 1 Travel Coordinator.
The actual approved amount from VTS VACO for the VASNHS is $225,000.
1. VASNHS is approved for $225,000, 3 Drivers, 1 Travel Coordinator, and 1 Mobility Manager to manage the VASNHS VTS Program. These positions will be fully funded by VASNHS. The National VTS program will also provide this facility 2 Vans with Wheel Chair Lifts.
The VTS program at the VASNHS will be operated through the existing Motor Vehicle Operations within VA Facility Management Service.
The following chart shows what VASNHS will request, if approved, for FY 13. Of the totals, $225,000 is being funded by the VTS Program Office. VTS Program Office will purchase the two vehicles, two vehicle wraps, the Route Match software and up to 5 Mobile Data Computers for VASNHS. Salaries, fuel, maintenance and advertising to support this program will be paid for out of the $225,000 delegated to VASNHS by the VTS Program.
Current Issues.
1. August 14, 2013, Complaint received from Mr. Archer regarding being denied a ride to an off-site non VA medical facility. Although this appointment was made by the VA Low Vision Eye Clinic, the veteran was informed that we do not go to that clinic. His complaint was sent to our national volunteer office, who in turn placed the responding responsibility on the department.
A meeting was held with the VA Director Staff and VA Volunteer Chief and the DAV VAVS, also included in the meeting was the VA Low Vision Clinic Director who indicated the veteran was able to drive on his own. This as result of the veterans comment in his complaint that he had no means of transportation, although when he was contacted by the VAVS chairman to discuss why he wasn’t being transported he was driving his vehicle. The meeting resulted in agreements that the veteran would not be transported to a non-VA facility.
Response to the Staff: “We have always had difficulties with getting veterans to and from their VA contracted Doctors, especially at off-site facilities. It used to be when we had plenty of volunteer drivers, we could well afford to transport our veterans to facilities other than VA facilities. That said, since we have our new Primary Care and speciality clinics at the new Hospital we have been very busy transporting to the VA facilities.
Because our drivers are drivers, and not EMT personnel we do not transport surgical patients, even to VA facilities, meaning if they are going in for day surgery or after having had surgery they would expect to have transportation it is not provided by the DAV, This has been a standing rule between the VA and DAV for as long as I have been the DAV VAVS
We are the first to step up and take care of our veterans transportation needs. All too often we have veterans who are of the mind-set that the DAV transportation is there for them as an entitlement, it isn't at all, however there are those who demand it.
We are currently very short on volunteer drivers, and customarily are during the hot months of the year here in Las Vegas due to some of our volunteer drivers being Snowbirds.
I truly sympathize with Mr Ronald Archers situation, however due to our agreements and limited recourses at this time we cannot accommodate him. I know I will have to respond to DAV National next week, though I'm sure they too get many of these complaints, and of course when they do, I get the call if it’s in our area. I also know Jose was not rude as the complaint states, rather he provided the veteran with an explanation of the policy, and the veteran didn't want to hear it. I have a witness who was present during the phone call.
We provide all the transportation services we can, in this case and any other off site cases we can't, if it was somehow done in the past it wasn't suppose be”.
For the critic’s we do investigate these incidents before we act.
2. The first week of September we had a veteran while being transported without due regard for anyone pulled out his “Willie” and proceeded to relieve himself into a container he brought on board, his excuse was, he had a condition and when he had to go he had to go! Well don’t us all. He too no longer rides! The VA Directors Staff was informed on this incident as well and they agreed the individual need to make other arrangements for transportation until he sees a physician for his condition. He called back last week and was refused, he’ll contact his congressional people and they’ll contact me, and that’s when they too will agree to the action.
3. On September 14, 2013 the Dispatch off at Laughlin, NV was broken into. The office is in the American Legion Hall which is currently the only place they can operate out of in their community. Papers were strung about and a VA Cell phone was taken. A report was made to the local police and because the phone was a government phone, the VA police were brought into investigate as well. The whole incident is under investigation at this time.
VA Volunteer Service National Advieory Committee Meeting
This year’s meeting again takes place in Cary, North Carolina. This meeting provides essential information to our departments VAVS Chairman, Representatives and Deputies. Last year we sent Deputy Robert Coutchie. As we have done in the past two years, we have had a representative attend and we budgeted in the training for this. Request this year we send the VAVS Chairman as we have a number of new programs being introduced into the system.
“Volunteers are not paid, not because they’re worthless, but because they’re priceless” Marlene Wilson.
Legislative Information
· VA Hires Over 1,600 Mental Health Professionals to Meet Goal, Expands Access to Care and Outreach Efforts. VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System Hires 22 New Mental Health Professionals.
· Assembly Bill AB111 Special license plate for Disabled Veterans was passed and signed by the Governor, our thanks goes out to our own Caleb Harris for his support on the committee in sponsoring this bill.
· Senate Bill SB230 Provides for the design, construction or installation and maintenance of a memorial dedicated to Nevada’s Fallen Soldiers. Next week I will be appointing a committee to proceed on this project.
Respectfully submitted by
William Baumann
DAV Department of Nevada
VAVS Chairman
|
| |||
All,Hopefully this email will answer many of your questions and alleviate any concerns you may have regarding this lawsuit.The law firm representing the legal action is Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP ("WilmerHale") through its Washington, DC office. Parties to this legal action include the National Veterans Legal Services Program, The American Legion, AMVETS, The Military Order of the Purple Heart, and Vietnam Veterans of America. WilmerHale is representing this matter on a pro bono basis.The proposed challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is to two aspects of the rules promulgated by the Office of Veterans Affairs ("VA") on September 24, 2014, which became effective on March 24, 2015: (a) the elimination of the VA's existing "informal claim" process; and (b) the elimination of the VA's duty to infer benefit claims for disabilities when entitlement to service connection for the disabilities is reasonably raised by the evidence of record even though these disabilities are not "related" to the expressly claimed disabilities.WilmerHale's brief statement of the case is as follows:"Background: On September 25, 2014, the VA published final rules that amend Parts 3, 19, and 20 of 38 C.F.R. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57660-57698. These final rules on what VA calls "Standard Claims and Appeals Forms" will become effective on March 24, 2015. Congress has provided that a lawsuit challenging a VA rule may be filed directly in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. NVLSP and several other veterans service organizations (VSOs) wish to challenge certain parts of these rules (hereinafter the "new rules")."Challenge #1: For decades prior to these new rules, a veteran could begin a claim for benefits in one of two ways: by filing with the VA (a) a written document (like a letter sent by USPS) expressing an intent to file a claim for benefits (called an informal claim) or (b) the application form that VA has for the particular benefit sought (called a formal claim). The VA would typically send a formal claim form to the veteran who filed an informal claim and give the veteran a year within which to file the formal claim form. If the claim initially initiated by an informal claim was ultimately granted, the effective date for the award of benefits would usually be the date VA received the informal claim, not the later date of receipt of the formal claim form.The new rules eliminate the informal claim. Under the new rules, an award of benefits can be no earlier than the date the VA receives (a) an electronically submitted formal claim form; (b) a paper formal claim form; (c) a new form called a form indicating an intent to file a claim for benefits; or (d) an oral statement of intent to file a claim, but only if (i) the oral communication is "directed to a VA employee designated to receive such a communication" and (ii) the VA employee documents the date the employee received the oral communication. This means that if VA receives from a veteran a letter expressing a desire for a particular benefit, receipt of that letter can no longer serve to establish the earliest effective date if the VA ultimately awards the benefit. The VA will send a formal claim form to a veteran who submits a letter requesting benefits, but the earliest possible effective date will be the date the formal claim form is received by VA.The new rules eliminating the informal claim harms low-income and disabled veterans who (a) do not have access to and know how to use a computer (b) are not located near a VA facility that has copies of VA claims forms, and (c) do not have access to a telephone. For example, a homeless, impoverished, disabled veteran who lives in a rural area is at a significant disadvantage compared to those who can navigate the internet, own a telephone, or live near a VA facility that has VA claims forms. If that vet sends the VA a letter asking for a particular type of benefit, VA receipt of that letter will have no impact on the effective date. Even if the homeless vet provides an address of a friend to which the VA could send a claims form, it may take months for the VA to respond by sending a claims form and for the homeless vet to file the form that will serve to establish the earliest possible effective date.NVLSP and the other VSOs wish to challenge the elimination of an informal claim that serves to set the earliest effective date as inconsistent with VA's statutory authority and a violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection."Challenge #2: Congress, the courts, and the VA have all long agreed that the VA claims adjudication process is intended to be non-adversarial and pro-claimant and that the VA has a duty to assist a veteran-claimant obtain the evidence necessary to substantiate the claim. The VA has long taken the position when it considers a veteran's claim for a particular service connected disability (disability X), and the record reveals that the veteran is entitled to service-connected disability benefits for a different disability (disability Y), the VA has a duty to adjudicate the veteran's entitlement to service connection for disability Y, even though the veteran never requested benefits for disability Y. Thus, if a Vietnam veteran files a claim for service connection for PTSD and the record reveals that the veteran suffers from type 2 diabetes, the VA would have an obligation when adjudicating the PTSD claim to also adjudicate entitlement to service connection for type 2 diabetes since VA regulations provide that a Vietnam veterans who manifests type 2 diabetes is entitled to service connected disability benefits for type 2 diabetes.In VA's commentary to the final rules, VA stated regarding the scope of a claim filed pursuant to the new rules that VA will continue to "infer or identify and award certain benefits that a claimant has not expressly requested but that are related to a claimed condition and there is evidence of record indicating entitlement." 79 Fed. Reg. 57692. However, VA stated that "entirely separate conditions never identified on a standard claim form generally will not be the subject of claims that are reasonable raised by the evidence of record." Id. Thus, VA in effect takes the position that in the above example, it is not obligated to adjudicate whether the veteran is entitled to service connected disability benefits for type 2 diabetes because the veteran never filed a claim for benefit for type 2 diabetes and type 2 diabetes is unrelated to PTSD.NVLSP and the other VSOs wish to challenge VA's elimination in the new rules of VA's duty to infer benefit claims for disabilities when entitlement to service connection for the disabilities is reasonably raised by the evidence of record even though these disabilities are not "related" to the expressly claimed disabilities."This action in no way affects the VA's Fully Developed Claim (FDC) process - "Quick Claim Procedure". The FDC is separate and distinct. MOPH is NOT advocating modification/elimination of the FDC process. MOPH is, in fact, a strong advocate of the FDC process.If there are further questions/comments, please contact me.Yours in Patriotism,FRANK VAN HOYNational Service DirectorMilitary Order of the Purple Heart5413-B Backlick Road, Springfield, VA 22151O: 703.642.5360