VA Doctors On Hook For Not Reporting Medical Violations

VA Doctors

Benjamin KrauseAn insurance administrator recently published a brief reminder for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctors that they can lose their license for failing to report medical malpractice.

This news may come as a surprise to many VA doctors working at the agency who long believed they were covered for most all problems arising from medical malpractice within the walls of VA. While their liability may be covered, their professional or medical malpractice may result in losing their license to practice their trade. Further, failure to report malpractice committed by other VA doctors may also result in the doctor being admonished.


Generally, a government doctor can evade personal liability through medical malpractice insurance, self-insurance, or government representation and indemnification during a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA – 28 USC § 1346(b)) lawsuit. Still, VA doctors could still lose their license from state oversight committees responsible for keeping the public safe from malpractice.

Each state has a licensure board commonly referred to as a Healing Arts Board. For example, in Minnesota, it is called the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice for doctors. Or, for psychologists on the hook for professional malpractice, the responsible agency is called the Minnesota Board of Psychology. You can find the correct board in your state by typing in the state you are searching for (“Minnesota” or “Montana” or “California” or “Florida”), the word “license” and the medical profession (like “doctor”, “nurse”, “dentist”, “rehabilitation counselor”, etc). For a California doctor, you would search “California license doctor” to find The Medical Board of California.

In most instances, VA requires that VA doctors be licensed in one state prior to agency employment. Federal employment does not require the person to be licensed in the state where they currently practice health care because federal employees move around a lot. Requiring them to be licensed in each state would be quite burdensome and restrict access to health care for some.

Nonetheless, regardless of where the health care professional is practicing medicine, that person may still be subject to their home state licensing board should they deviate from common standards of practice. Doctors can violate standard ethics rules as well as deviate from community standards and causing harm to a patient, which is what is commonly referred to as medical malpractice. When this occurs, other doctors with knowledge of the incident can be liable to the relevant licensing board for not reporting the incident.


Medical Malpractice has five elements under the tort of negligence claims. This generally refers to doctors or those qualified to provide medical services, and the below five elements may vary depending on each specific state law:

  1. A duty was owed: a legal duty exists whenever a hospital or health care provider undertakes care or treatment of a patient.
  2. A duty was breached: the provider failed to conform to the relevant standard care.
  3. The breach caused an injury: The breach of duty was a direct cause and the proximate cause of the injury.
  4. Deviation from the accepted standard: It must be shown that the practitioner was acting in a manner which was contrary to the generally accepted standard in his/her profession.
  5. Damage: Without damage (losses which may be pecuniary or emotional), there is no basis for a claim, regardless of whether the medical provider was negligent. Likewise, damage can occur without negligence, for example, when someone dies from a fatal disease.

Psychologists who are negligent may incur liability for professional malpractice under negligence theories depending on the state where the incident occurred or where the person is licensed. Even if they evade liability, the psychologist may still be accountable for ethics violations in the state where they are licensed.


Here is a simple example. Doctor A and Doctor B work at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. Doctor A witnesses Doctor B commit medical malpractice wherein he causes a wrongful death. Doctor A may be required to report Doctor B where both doctors are licensed by Minnesota to practice medicine. The situation is a bit murkier if both doctors are licensed in different states regarding who needs to file a complaint where.

Regardless, even if the VA doctor does not file a complaint in Doctor B’s situation, the family members of the veteran killed by the VA doctor should file a complaint to the appropriate licensing agency.

If you are aware of harm caused by a health care professional, you should report that person if you have a duty to do so. Veterans or family members who believe they or a loved one were harmed by VA care should consult an attorney right away.


As a general rule of thumb, those harmed by health care professionals employed by the federal government must alert the agency to the harm within 2 years from the date of the incident by filing an Standard Form-95 claim with the respective VA regional office where the incident occurred. There are certain exceptions to the 2-year rule, but I always advise people to play it safe rather than wait to the deadline to avoid errors in filing.

[Contact a veterans law attorney immediately to protect your rights.]

The insurance administrator responsible for highlighting the issue is called ICC. It is a third party administrator for malpractice insurance educates doctors and hospitals on how to prevent and avoid medical malpractice and ethical violations. The published a recent reminder to VA doctors in light of the scandal to remind them that they can lose their license even if they are insulated from legal liability.

Read More:


Similar Posts


  1. 38 USC 511. Here is what VA docs fail to report. When they want to take custody of a vet to involuntarily commit one they do not tell the State court it is completely, federally preempted by 511 from reviewing a VA doc’s allegation of veteran status, percentage of service connection and the mental illness for which a VA doc wants to commit a Vet. 511 bars any court except CAVC, Federal Circuit and Supreme Court from reviewing any question of law and fact necessary to a VA decision for provision of a benefit to VA treatment. The instant a VA doc files a petition for a custody order for involuntary commitment in a State court, it submits itself, by its VA doc, to the jurisdiction of “any court,” 511, by “mandamus or otherwise,” 511, including petition for involuntary commitment, that is completely, federally preempted by 511. See id. When you sue the VA in State court it is removed to federal district court to defend the VA doc. If you sue for medical malpractice in federal district court under the FTCA (28 USC 1346(b)(1)), or prosecute a case removed by the US Attorney, they will most likely respond that 38 USC 511 bars subject matter jurisdiction for suit in district court because the district court will be asked, like the State court, to review questions of law and fact involved in a VA decision for provision of VA benefits. But if you have never filed a tort claim for negligence with the VA under 38 USC 1151, there will be no question of negligence involved in a VA decision that the district court would be asked to review in a medical malpractice claim to challenge a State custody order for involuntary commitment. You should be good to go with your claim. But the fact that the VA took the position that it can go to a State court for review of its allegations of veteran status, etc., for involuntary commitment of a Vet shows that the VA has waived its right to exclusively decide veteran status, rating of service connection and whether the Vet has the malady it wants to treat by a custody order for involuntary commitment, under 511. Its misconduct inviting the State to break the law (511) may now be estopped under an old Supreme Court case called De Lima (1901) now that it is treated more like a commoner than the Crown. See United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, Slip Op. at 16 (2015)(citing Irwin v. Dept. of Vet. Affairs (waiver, equitable tolling and estoppel are now available against the VA). If you’re a veteran and a victim of selective enforcement of 511, I suggest you show this to anyone who will listen so that you can stop the VA from terrorizing you with threats of involuntary commitment if you don’t stop complaining about bad treatment from the VA. It’s a crime: false imprisonment 1) unlawful, restraint, against your will; felonious restraint 2) false imprisonment with a ride by police to the hospital that is unauthorized; 3) kidnapping when felonious restraint is done to terrorize a vet, in other words, if the vet doesn’t stop complaining about the way he is being treated in writing by Secure Messaging, which constitutes a record of his complaints, he’s going to suffer it over and over until he is abused enough to know he has to shut his mouth or the VA is going to shut him or her up. Physical abuse should not be standard treatment. If you’re suffering abusive medical malpractice in violation of 511 by the VA and State courts who have no authority to involuntarily commit you, tell your lawyer about it and show him or her this message. Call me and leave a message (302) 229-8888. I’ll explain it to you so you can help yourself. Mistreatment will service connect a NSC medical condition. Once you’ve suffered mistreatment of a NSC condition, the VA by law under 38 USC 1151 must pay you for it if the condition is measurably worsened beyond its normal baseline. Don’t wait. Don’t let them torture you into submission and silence you. It’s illegal. If you don’t stop it the VA will do it to you forever with no remorse because you just don’t know any better than to let it happen. Don’t be a victim of medical malpractice. Assert your right to be free of undue governmental influence that keeps you a prisoner because you don’t know how to help yourself to the benefits you’re entitled to. Get out there and tell your friends. Don’t be a pity party. Man up! Get some real help for yourself and your family, You love them don’t you? Then let them help you. Don’t take this kind of abuse anymore, and if they try to keep inflicting it on you, tell them you know better. I love you man, I would die for you, brother. Just like old times. Do it. Do it now! Don’t wait until its too late to help yourself. Please. Do it for God’s sake. He loves you and wants you to love him and your neighbor just like you love yourself. Get it on brother, get It on NOW! Love, peace, out! Email me: [email protected], I’ll send you some love and information about how to help yourself.

  2. There is a map of Vietnam which shows the area’s Agent Orange was used which I know you know about Curtis. There probably is no document (unless you were one who handled it directly to use on the land) other than orders for that particular day which again, probably don’t exist. If in Vietnam you were on land just think about it, your drank the water and walked in area’s if you were at a base camp that had no weed’s. If you were in the bush then it is a reasonable possibility that you were exposed. Those Vietnamese children of today with various disabilities suffer those horrible consequence’s. Some of our children suffer as well from us being exposed. The Veterans Administration is a fail and too absorbed with fraudulent lame doctor’s and administrators that have caused much hardship for the United States Veteran. I am sorry that those few that say the VA is great, are those that want more compensation or a NSO or VSO. We all know the VA Medical is substandard. Veterans do deserve the best of the best and not the regulation quoting administrator or the bigot, bully we have in the medical system at the VA. I might do what they suggest (not what they say) “IF” it would be a positive out come! It won’t be in 80% of the claims. I was wounded in Vietnam and suffered a penetrating head wound which entailed a two square inch hole in my skull and shrapnel in my brain. The VA denied that I had a TBI all because TBI was never quoted ever in my medical records. How in the hell does someone, anyone get that kind of injury without having a concussion from the explosion of grenade’s or the impact flying metal has on the brain? The VA is so wrong and stupid in their assessment of the harm an injury has caused veterans or the psychological harm to a Veteran that has PTSD has been raped or beaten or bullied by the bigot racist that hands out compensation to those that have under Title 38 have “earned” it because of what happened while in service of these United States! If there was a vote on the worse VA Health Care System’s I would have to say the Martinez, California and the entire Northern California VA Health Care System is a sham! People on this sight that bully by words do not realize the harm they display and it is suspect that you belong behind a desk at a VA facility or maybe you have a Stethoscope around your neck and want to do more harm which seems to be a constant within the VA Medical in these United States! FTVA!

    1. Bend D Over, I feel for you. Sounds like you have a scar that’s worth at least 10%. Sounds like you also have a lot of post traumatic stress to deal with constantly. Why the VFW or VSO doesn’t file a complaint for you, I don’t know. I would. But then, I can’t seem to even help myself, but I wouldn’t sweat “word-bullying.” All it is probably is that you’re just not familiar enough with the Statutes and Regulations to get a firm grip. When you take a minute and read, read some more, and try to read it again, lay it down, then read it over a million times more, you’ll find out – and we all hope – all of a sudden it’ll dawn on you. All you need is love. Best of luck, Burl D. Over LolLolLolLolLol

      1. If your taking a uneducated shot at me Burl and you think that you know me your so wrong. If your a VA employee get the fuck off my post and go fuck yourself we VETERAN’S do not need your all assuming crap! Bitch!

      2. Mike’s got definite delusional ideas about Burl being a VA employee, I know him. He’s not an employee of anyone or any entity. He’s totally and permanently disabled Vietnam Vet. But I know how it must feel to be paranoid, some is okay, but too much is a definite drawback, it leads to avoidance of everything and everybody, unnecessarily. I get that. I understand. Just can’t get over being bent out of shape for no good reason by comments that are too easily made from afar but never addressed to the man, personally. The “F” word is often used when the bitch is in heat, and otherwise, is offensive. If people don’t know any other way to describe the pain I feel about VA treatment, that’s probably medical malpractice, then take it court with Krause, LOL.

  3. Treatise/opinion in Edwards v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 690 F. 2d 595 (6th Cir. 1982), is attached in support of request for summary judgment by applying judicial estoppel as opposed to any other alternative form of estoppel. Unlike Edwards herein below, who made no earlier, successful and unequivocal assertion for purposes of applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel, the Veterans Affairs (VA) medical provider here employed to provide treatment by VA for the Veteran on Nov. 1, 2012, “made an unequivocal assertion that,” Edwards, at ¶ 3, the Veteran here is a “Veteran 100% SC (“service-connected (SC),” M21-1MR, Part IV, Section G. Benefits Under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, at 2-G-3) for paranoid schizophrenia and presented to GCBOC in hypomanic state.” See, C-File, Form No. DMH 5-72-01 (attached in support of Findings and Custody Order Involuntary Commitment). Ordinarily, an unequivocal assertion of a percentage of service connection to a VA adjudicator, even by a VA physician, is non-binding opinion evidence pursuant to the Guidelines of VA Directive 2000-29, § 4, §§ (a)(1). Unless the percentage of service connection has already been adjudicated at the time it is asserted for purposes of requesting such treatment, it normally has no estoppel value for rendering the VA financially responsible and duty bound to accept veterans for inpatient care and treatment by involuntary commitment to one of their own facilities. See, e.g., Citation 0101842, Decision Date: 01-24-2001, Archive Date 01-31-2001 (Appeal to BVA from RO, Seattle, WA). However, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, where a VA treating physician of the Under Secretary of Veterans Health Administration is impliedly delegated, re-delegated or sub-delegated authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 501(a), 503 or 512(a), and thus becomes one of its “officers and employees,” id., a state court order founded upon such assertion for treatment of a veteran to involuntary commitment for further provision of care or treatment, especially if the assertion is untrue at that time, can bind the VA to such assertion as its own finding incorporated as its official position in support of a state court decision relying for its validity in ordering custody upon the same for said purpose essentially thereby determining for VA pursuant to law a “veteran,” 38 U.S.C. § 101(2); Camerena v. Brown, 60 F.3d 843 (Fed. Cir. 1995), “rated for service-connected disabilities at 50 percent or greater will receive VA care provided in the ‘medical benefits package’ set forth in § 17.38.” See 38 C.F.R. 17.37(a); see also, 38 U.S.C. § 1710(a)(1)(b); Citation 0101842. Id. That the position taken was the only basis for ordering custody to a VA facility is undebatable because there were no other facts pled that would invoke the regulation cited for compelling VA to be financially responsible and duty bound to accept custody of such veteran. See, Petition for Involuntary Commitment, in C-File. Without judicial estoppel VA physicians, like Dr. Hay, for example, may make false assertions in petitions where intent to do so may be presumed from taking federal custody of a North Carolina resident by involuntary commitment to his pain and injury with impunity based on information she knew or should have known according to VA records was untrue at the time. If the VA thereafter takes a position in adjudicating VA benefits contrary to its original position on percentage of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia, inconsistency of taking such a position with a state court is shown, and pain or injury flowing as a natural consequence from involuntary commitment may be presumed to have been intended by proffer of evidence to state court that was untrue, to show that one “knowingly causes pain or injury.” NCGS § 122C-66(a). “Unlike equitable estoppel, judicial estoppel may be applied even if detrimental reliance or privity does not exist. See Konstantinidis v. Chen, 200 D.C.App. 69, 626 F.2d 933, 937 (1980). This distinction reflects the difference in the policies served by the two rules. Equitable estoppel protects litigants from less than scrupulous opponents. Judicial estoppel, however, is intended to protect the integrity of the judicial process. Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166 (4th Cir. 1982); Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d at 937; Scarano v. Central R. Co., 203 F.2d 510, 512-13 (3rd Cir. 1953) (“such use of inconsistent positions would most flagrantly exemplify that playing ‘fast and loose with the courts’ which has been emphasized as an evil the court should not tolerate.”). The essential function of judicial estoppel is to prevent intentional inconsistency; the object of the rule is to protect the judiciary, as an institution, from the perversion of judicial machinery. See Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667 F.2d at 1167; Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d at 939. Collateral estoppel is essentially a finality rule, which serves to conserve judicial resources by precluding the litigation of issues previously decided. Judicial estoppel addresses the incongruity of allowing a party to assert a position in one tribunal and the opposite in another tribunal. If the second tribunal adopted the party’s inconsistent position, then at least one court has probably been misled. See Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d at 938. [¶] 13[.] In light of the policies underpinning judicial estoppel, the rule cannot [sic] be applied in a subsequent proceeding unless a party has successfully asserted an inconsistent position in a prior proceeding. City of Kingsport v. Steel & Roof Structures, Inc., 500 F.2d at 620 (judicial estoppel applied only “where the party was successful in its initial reliance and tried to change positions in subsequent litigation”); Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d at 939. See also, Wright, Miller & Cooper, 18 Fed. Practice and Proc. [emphasis added], Sec. 4477, p. 779. If the initial proceeding results in settlement, the position cannot be viewed as having been successfully asserted. City of Kingsport, 500 F.2d at 620; Konstantinidis, 626 F.2d at 939 (“a settlement neither requires nor implies any judicial endorsement of either parties claims or theories, and thus, a settlement does not provide the prior success necessary for judicial estoppel”). The requirement that the position be successfully asserted means that the party must have been successful in getting the first court to accept the position.5 Absent judicial acceptance of the inconsistent position, application of the rule is unwarranted because no risk of inconsistent results exists. Thus, the integrity of the judicial process is unaffected; the perception that either the first or the second court was misled is not present. Kingsport, 500 F.2d at 620; Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d at 939. [¶] 14[.] [Judges Edwards, Kennedy and Celebrezze of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals] believe[d] that Edwards did not successfully assert an inconsistent position in the previous proceeding before the Veterans’ Administration. Aetna assert[ed] that Edwards’ application amounted to an assertion that his disability was service connected and, thus, that he should be barred from asserting the contrary in this litigation. Although the proceeding before the Veterans’ Administration was an adversary proceeding and Edwards did obtain the relief he sought from that agency, we believe that the relief was the result of the settlement of a contested claim.” See, Edwards, at ¶¶ 12-14. In concluding here, however, Dr. Hay, as an official or employee of the VA by and through delegation of authorities aforesaid herein above, did “successfully assert an inconsistent position in the previous proceeding,” Edwards, id., at ¶ 14, and originally successful “application amounted to an assertion that his disability was service connected and, thus, that [VA] should be barred from asserting the contrary in this litigation.” Id. Dr. Hay’s originally successful assertion of inconsistent position in the previous proceeding with respect to Alice A. Howell’s relationship as “wife,” Petition, in C-File, in an official “application amounted to an assertion that [the same was true] and, thus, that [VA] should be barred from asserting the contrary in this litigation.” Edwards, id., at ¶ 14. It should also bar VA from asserting the contrary in litigation of aid or attendance for mentally ill or dangerous veterans so “significantly disabled as to need or require the regular aid and attendance of another person.” 38 U.S.C. § 1502(b)(2). I certify the information I gave herein is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    1. To the Son of Andrew and Burl A Howell, You both can fuck yourselves! You both smell of the lowly VA Medical System and probably have your heads buried in each others ass…

  4. I have, in theory only, PTSD that has been designated as compensable under Sec. 1151, Title 38 U.S.C., because a VA doctor raped and stalked me, and exploited me during treatment. The VA is lying about the effective date, so I have not collected one penny of back benefits YET. I have a CUE fight going on, to back date to 1987. The VA will not pay for me to have trauma therapy outside their own healthcare system, and until April of this year, they wouldn’t even let me have treatment benefits, period, because they said I am not MST, I was not still in uniform when I was assaulted. At least I won that very tiny technicality, but it is not enough. The VA system is conducting GASLIGHTING operations against me, I think that they think the character assassinations have been funny.

    1. Only one question…do you have a good lawyer? Time to sue the pants off them in civil court and if you are truly willing to lay it on the line, to go public on national TV.

      1. I dearly want to end up very far forward in the media, but no one will touch it. Way too late for tort action in the court, just fighting their bullshit “effective date” of my 1151 claim. They chose 1/27/14, which is the date that I wrote the White House and copied in Shinseki and Hickey. (again, they think it’s funny, all of the retaliatory actions I’ve endured for 28 years). True effective date, very easy to prove with their own documents that I’ve put back into their hands AGAIN is 1987, that is a CUE on my claim, and they owe me back benefits. Just like my colleague Ruth Moore, a Navy MST attack was given wrong effective date. This June, she got $405,000 and an APOLOGY.

      2. As you know by now CUE is a joke. I filed a CUE on my initial Form 9, the BVA omitted evidence (IMO) on the Form 9, although the IMO was considered in the initial award and DRO. They didn’t even acknowledge it with a reply. It is time to lower the boom in any and all manners possible.

    2. Julia, I agree with you completely on the comments by most medical people and I really see that in my own records from “1987” where the VA at the Martinez, California VA Medical Clinic a doctor by the name of Brian Richardson aided my work in getting me let go of a job I had for 13 year’s. They are nothing more than last in their medical class and are just making extra der diem to put gas in that Porsha or to pay for that sex change so many doctors male and female seem to want! If it came down to you owing them money from 1987 they would take it from you quicker than the IRS. The VSO’s and NSO’s I have had are non effective and one VSO even destroyed record’s which only got him promoted. I always wondered what that case of KY Gel was doing in his office…FTVA! The VA seems to be bullet proof and hypocritical in everyway, we paid in advance and from the simplest to the most complex issue’s the United States Veteran should be well taken care of. Not fed pill after pill or the denial of treatment because it is too costly when you see the waste and fraud in the VA everyday…so far in the last few month’s and watching those Senate Hearing on CSPAN (on the internet for all to see – just type CSPAN Senate Hearing on VA).

    3. Try filing a belated sf95 claiming equitable estoppel for delay caused by VA doctor or a caseworker who tried to delay it so it would be out of time. New law, effective April 2015, allows you to try to bring it in first as a SF95 tort claim to the Regional Office of your area, then after exhaustion, to the federal district court of your area. Try, before you lose your right to respond under new law, within 3 years from April 2015. Best of luck. I believe you. Don’t be a pity party. Soldier up!

  5. No matter what a veteran files the v.a. will turn down any and all claims against the v.a., stating they need more information or some other reason in hopes the veteran complaint will just go away and most veterans have no idea where to find more information. Flat out the v.a. is not going to assist any veteran unless they have a lawyer and finding a lawyer seems to be non existant when it come to fighting the v.a., seems attornies only want to fight for the veteran when benefits are sought and only because they will get 25 to 30% of the veterans monies received and the attorney and the v.a. will only offer monies to when the attorney filed the claim. I really do not think that there are any lawyers that will fight legal right issues dealing with the v.a.

    1. I called the Pension Mgt. In St Paul. (I`m in Tx. They are my district)
      I did`nt get the Benefit of a Denial Letter, I assumed I had been Denied Because on Ebenefits, In the Status it said “Complete” “Appeal is Possible”
      I simply ask for a letter of denial that they say they “Sent”.
      I was told, “You have to request a copy “In Writing” I asked, Can`t you just send me the Letter? She Said” I TOLD YOU YOU HAVE TO REQUEST A COPY IN WRITING” She was Pissed off, I could hear it in her voice. She then said, “Is there anything ELSE I can do for you today?…. I bit my lip, and did`nt mention that she could Kiss my entire ass, But, I “Did” say, Please, Grant a Claim this week, Not mine,Maybe, But ONE would do someone some good.
      What a Bi$#H. I could only Dream of Choking her out. The “Dream” did give me a brief moment of satisfaction, if only a dream.

      1. Curtis, my, my! After 34 years of working in government, I have met my share of incompetence, laziness, etc. But the lady was trying to help. I have 360% in disabilities, paid at 100% since 2006. How? By doing exactly what they ask for. So she can do whatever, but you can bet your life that you will not get what you seek, which I assume is an award of your claim.

      2. one thing never never let it lapse your claim that is, keep fileing no matter if they keep turning you down, go ahead and write and request any and all of your records they have and if its for p.t.s.d. call carpenter charter out of topeka ks, one of the best, make sure you keep the paperwork flowing to the v.a. and make sure any contact with the v.a. get the names of the employees you contact when where and how.

      3. Kurt Priessman, This is twice you have taken a “Swipe” at me. You did`nt hear what she said and she was`nt very helpful. She was sarcastic like she did`nt want to be at work.
        On AO I was commenting and that was all. I have no interest in ADDing anything to your stack of documents. You seem to (Know it all) anyway. Why don`t you set up a site for yourself, If you want to take up for the Govt Employees. They need all the help they can get.

      4. Curtis, it is telling that you take the comment personally, especially when the idea is that a carrot may be better than a stick. Secondly, unless you have documented proof that you were exposed to agent orange, then you really aren’t sure what you were exposed to, and the term herbicides is what is used in the law, not agent orange. If you say agent orange, the VA will hold you to that specific chemical agent and deny your claim outright. So if you are so perturbed that someone may be trying to help you, I will stop. Have a nice, uncompensated life!

  6. Having worked in DHHS for 16 years, and being a 100% disabled vet and USAF retiree, I have a serious question. While tort may apply, I foresee the following scenario: a. the VHA does not necessarily comply with JCAHO or other accrediting organization, b. hires physicians or other health workers who are not licensed or hide their violations through a hospital’s procedures for privileging (a purely political process), then c. the VA claims the physician is an employee not subject to tort personally. While eventually a Chapter 51 claim may prevail, significant harm and malpractice will have been done, and/or may continue unabated. What say you?

Comments are closed.