I thank the Chairman, Mr. Stump and the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Evans for their hard work in bringing the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, H.R. 4864 as amended, before us today. Following the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision in Morton v. West thousands of veterans throughout this country received letters from VA telling them that their claims for disability benefits were ``not well-grounded.'' In many cases, the notices were incomprehensible to veterans. Veterans were told that they had to submit evidence of a ``nexus'' between their military service and current disability before VA would provide them any help at all. Claims of combat injured veterans were denied before records of military service were obtained. In our subcommittee hearing on Mr. Evan's bill we heard eloquent testimony about the seriousness of the problem. Veterans with claims for service-connected disabilities which were noted in their service medical records had those claims rejected as ``not well-grounded.'' Veterans being treated by VA physicians were denied VA medical opinions concerning the relationship between their disability and their military service and were thus unable to provide ``nexus'' statements VA required without purchasing medical opinions at their own expense. Vietnam veterans with conditions presumed under law to be service-connected as a result of Agent Orange exposure had claims rejected as not well-grounded.
Bob Filner: “I thank the Chairman, Mr. Stump and the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Evans for their hard work in bringing…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 and issues faced by veterans regarding disability claims.
Share
More from Bob Filner
I certainly thank the members of the committee and Mr. Bilirakis for working in such a bipartisan manner to protect servicemembers and protect veterans. I think Mr. Bilirakis gave a very comprehensive overview of the bill. Let me just make…
On rollcall 588, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' personal explanation
On rollcall 604, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
On rollcall 602, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:





