GAO REPORT FINDS U.S. UNABLE TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF TOXIC EXPOSURES TO CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES: OF KNOWN CLAIMS; ALL DENIED

Previously (below posting) I brought you news of our success with the first known claim in which the US admitted liability for the death of an American, non-military, civilian employee due to toxic Agent Orange exposures while in Viet Nam.

This claim was extremely difficult as you may recall, as the current United States Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao (The US Department of Labor) has argued on record on behalf of this Administration that there was no Agent Orange spraying by the US Army in Viet Nam and any claims of exposures to Agent Orange were an "exaggeration".

During the course of research and investigation of this claim, we have now come across a report published in April 2005 by the US Government Accountability Office; GAO-05-371. The exact purpose of this internal report was to determine what is known about the number of civilians who were possibly exposed to Agent Orange in Viet Nam, what is known about the number of toxic exposure claims form these civilians and what are the options available to Congress in the face of possible costs for these claims.

The content of the GAO report is staggering.

Essentially the report finds that there well may have been upwards of 170,000 or more civilians employed in country by the US in Viet Nam. (In comparison, the US military considers any military person who served in country in Viet Nam to have been exposed to Agent Orange and other toxins sprayed by the US military forces). The GAO report however finds that the current Administration's ability to determine the exact number of these civilians, their names and present locations is essentially not known.
The report acknowledged that of the federal agencies contacted who had civilians employees in Viet Nam, those federal agencies were unable to provide any records or numbers of how many of their own federal employees were employed in Viet Nam during the war.
The report finds that the government can currently locate only 32 actual Agent Orange exposure claims. Of those claims, the report acknowledges that the government admittedly assigns no identification number to these claims, making tracking and processing all but impossible. Of the actual handful of civilian Agent Orange claims found, the report found that the government had denied all of the claims filed (save for our claim as previously described). The government agency that denied the majority of these claims was; the US Department of Labor. Under current federal law, those same civilians denied their claims for toxic exposures, have no right to have their claims heard or reviewed by any Court of Law in the United States.

Astonishingly, the GAO report also found that the Department of Labor's ability to track any of these claims was limited to the "personal recollection" of Department claims examiners memories.

A review of 12 claims that were found showed that the Department had classified the injury cause as "code 99"; a catch-all phrase used by the Department of Labor when the cause of injury is not known. An Agent Orange claim for breast cancer was actually coded by the Department of Labor as "sprain/strain of ligament, muscle, tendon, not back". The report found that the Department of Labor has no procedures for checking data entry errors and that claims examiners admitted they had "little incentive" to correct these errors.

The GAO report determined that if the government should now include and process these American civilian claims of death and disease due to their toxic exposures while being employed by the government in wartime situations, that could have direct "policy implications" (i.e., it could cost the government millions of dollars to compensate those dead and diseased civilian workers) in light of the current Administration's increasing use of non-military civilian employees in recent and ongoing wars.

The GAO report was then submitted to the US Secretary of Labor; the same office which in turn has since claimed there was no Agent Orange sprayed by the US Army in Vietnam and reports of toxic exposures are mere "exaggerations".

67 YEAR OLD DISABLED MAN'S SSA BENEFITS MAY BE WITHHELD BY GOVERNMENT TO REPAY STUDENT LOAN FROM DECADES AGO

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday over whether the federal government can deduct money from Social Security disability checks to cover long-overdue student-loan debts. The plaintiff in the case -- James Lockhart, a 67-year-old disabled man with significant medical expenses -- argues that the government is causing him major financial hardship by docking his Social Security checks. Consumer advocates say the government's vigilance is hurting many poor people who don't have the money to pay back their loans. Advocates are particularly worried about older and disabled people whose Social Security benefits are being reduced to repay student loans taken out decades ago.
In 2001, the federal government began deducting money from Social Security payments to collect on overdue student-loan debts, regardless of their age. Among those affected was Mr. Lockhart, who owed more than $85,000 in student-loans from the mid- to late-1980s. He was surviving on a monthly income of $874 in Social Security disability benefits, along with $10 in food stamps. During the presentations on Wednesday, several of the justices appeared to be extremely skeptical of Mr. Lockhart's case.

In hearing the case, Justice Antonin Scalia led off the questioning by saying that Congress had made its "intent clear" when it drafted the 1991 law. Agreeing, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that Congress had clearly stated that "no statute of limitations applies" to the collection of student loans. The court is expected to rule on the case by July.

FEDERAL COURTS CONTINUE TO OVERTURN SSA JUDGES’ DENIALS OF DISABILITY BENEFITS

I am pleased to announce receiving three more Federal Court rulings in the claimant’s favor and overturning SSA judges’ denials of their disability claims.

SSA Denial of LUPUS Claim Was Wrong:

In the most recent case, the claimant was a young woman who had suffered from Lupus since 1988. Her Lupus had progressed such that she was severely limited in her ability to sit, stand or walk for any length of time. She applied for SSA disability benefits four years ago. The SSA judge denied her claim. We appealed this denial to the federal court arguing that the SSA judge was wrong to deny this claimant her benefits as she was clearly disabled by Lupus. The Federal Court agreed with our arguments. The Federal Court found that the SSA Judge failed to properly discuss and consider the claimant's impairments and failed to properly explain why the claimant’s Lupus did not meet the obvious requirements for disability. The Federal Court recommended that the SSA judge’s decision be thrown out and the case be sent back to the SSA for another hearing to fully consider the claimant medical evidence.

SSA Claim of Medical Improvement Was Wrong:

Immediately prior to that case, in another SSA disability claim, the claimant was also a young woman who filed for benefits in 2001. This woman had undergone multiple back surgeries as well as heart surgeries that rendered her unable to work. The SSA judge agreed that she was disabled, but only from 2001 through 2002. The SSA judge ruled that the claimant had medically improved after 2002 and was no longer disabled. The SSA judge provided no reasoning for his ruling. We appealed this claim to the Federal Court. We argued that the SSA judge was wrong to find that the claimant’s medical condition suddenly and miraculously improved without notice in 2002. We argued that the claimant’s condition had stayed the same and actually worsened since 2002. The Federal Court agreed with our arguments. The Federal Court found that the SSA Judge’s decision denying benefits after 2002 failed to provide any reason or discussion or how he had arrived at that conclusion. There was nothing to support the SSA Judge’s decision and the Federal Court recommended that this SSA Judge’s decision also be thrown out and the case sent back to the SSA for a determination of benefits payable to this woman.

SSA Wrong in Failing to Recognize Chronic Pain Complaints:

And yet in another SSA disability claim involving another young woman, we again claim success before the Federal Courts. Here the young woman also suffered severe back injuries with multiple back surgeries that required hardware implants to hold her spine in place. The woman remained under constant medical treatment and required multiple medications to control her chronic pain. She was also under medical treatment for severe depression resulting from her pain and loss of ability to work. Despite literally hundreds of pages of medical history, the SSA Judge ruled that this young woman’s complaints of pain were not credible and denied benefits to her. We appealed to the Federal Court. We argued that the SSA Judge was wrong to deny benefits. The Federal Court found that SSA Judge entirely failed to provide any link to any medical records supporting his claim that this woman’s complaints of pain were not credible. In fact, the Federal Court found that the medical evidence entirely supported the complaints of chronic and severe pain. The Federal Court recommended that this SSA Judge’s decision denying benefits also be thrown out and the case sent back to the SSA for another hearing.