Attig Law Firm P.L.L.C

We came across another article highlighting some of the mental health issues facing veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The study on which the article is based evaluated only those who visited a a VA Medical Center within a specific time period and may not correlate to all soldiers who served or are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan

However, the study is consistent with an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in March 2006.

One thing that appears to be unarguable - the VA is probably not equipped to handle the volume of claims that is likely to result over the next 20-25 years for mental health illnesses that were caused by a soldier’s service in Iraq or Afghanistan. PTSD and other mental health issues do not often surface for years, sometimes decades. When they do, they are just as debilitating as any other long-term injury a soldier or service-member suffers.

Soldiers and service-members (from all periods and eras) who have service connected mental health issues often find it harder to get the benefits they deserve. Some of this is due to the social stigma associated with mental health illnesses, and some of it is because you can’t always “see” the visible signs of a mental health impairment.

If you are a US Veteran, and are having difficulty securing disability benefits for your service-connected mental health disability, it is advisable to contact a Veterans’ Service Organization or a VA Benefits Attorney for assistance.  You can also read this Series in our Veterans’ Benefits Blog: “How to Prove your Claim for Veterans’ Disability due to Service-Connected PTSD”.

Chris Attig, attorney with the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, will provide a free consultation to veterans who may need legal assistance for the VA disability benefits. Contact the Attig Law Firm, today.

A client of the Attig Law Firm appears to have prevailed in her appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board today. We received a preliminary ruling yesterday indicating that an Administrative Judge intends to rule in our Client’s favor on the question of whether or not our client was entitled to a particular benefit of federal employment. The actual ruling will likely be issued sometime in early 2008, after a hearing on the discrimination portion of our client’s claims.

Our client is the wife of Donney (last name omitted), who is now deceased. Donney served our country in Vietnam, where he received the Purple Heart with Oak Leaf Cluster, and was exposed to the Agent Orange that ultimately led to his untimely death. After leaving the armed services, Donney continued to serve his country for 30 years as a civilian employee of a Federal Executive Agency (we will not disclose the Agency due to the pending litigation).

In early 2006, Donney entered the hospital in what turned out to be his final illness. Days prior to his death, his wife, acting under a Durable Power of Attorney, retired her husband from civilian service and elected an Alternative Funded Annuity (AFA) pursuant to his direction years earlier. The AFA is a benefit available to retiring federal employees, with less than 12 months to live, that allows the retiring employee to take 50% of their annuity in a lump sum, and the other 50% paid out in monthly installments.

The Office of Personnel Management rejected the retirement application and refused to pay the lump sum benefit - a substantial sum of money. OPM’s rationale for rejecting the retirement and AFA election was that OPM claimed that Congress did not permit them to recognize the Durable Power of Attorney created under color of State law. OPM tried to argue that they had a long history of requiring the employee alone to request retirement and elect an AFA. Interestingly, OPM could not identify a single other case where it denied a benefit applied for through a Durable Power of Attorney.

After a hearing in October before the Merit Systems Protection Board, an Administrative Judge disagreed with OPM and issued a preliminary ruling finding that our client was entitled to be retired under a Durable Power of Attorney and was entitled to have received the AFA.

In addition to the impact of this ruling on our client, this issue has implications for every Federal government employee – if you are among the tens of thousands of Federal employees who has created a Durable Power of Attorney as part of your estate planning, OPM should not be able to ignore your Durable Power of Attorney’s right to act in your stead in the event you become medically or mentally incapacitated.

The case is not over yet. In January 2008, the MSPB is holding a hearing on the claim that OPM’s decision to deny benefits in this case was a violation of the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (guaranteeing that public-service employment benefits shall be administered in a non-discriminatory manner), and/or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

We’ll keep you posted on any developments. If OPM has rejected your application for a retirement benefit, or any other public service benefit, because it was made while acting under a Durable Power of Attorney, please contact an MSPB attorney, such as the Attig Law Firm, today.

After significant consideration and evaluation, the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, will begin representing US Veterans in their disability benefits claims before the VA and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

After researching the ins and outs of the VA disability benefits systems, it became clear that a represented Veteran can have an entirely different experience before the VA and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims than a non-represented Veteran typically has.

Given the high volume of disabled veterans returning from the current war, and the high volume of veterans from prior wars who are neglected or ignored or simply lost in the VA’s system, the need for legal representation of Veterans is greater than ever. There are some limitations on when an attorney can represent a Veteran in claims such as this, but in June 2007, the rules were relaxed slightly to enable more Veterans more access to legal counsel. (As an aside - can you believe this - the Veterans who put their life on the line for their country are not allowed to hire attorneys for a portion of the claim process? It’s a ridiculous rule, isn’t it?)

The Firm will charge no consultation fee to review a Veterans’ claim for benefits. If we offer to represent a Veteran, we will work entirely on a contingency basis in the Veterans’ case.

Over the coming weeks and months, the Firm’s website will be redesigned to incorporate the addition of the new practice area. In the meantime, if you are a veteran in need of assistance with your disability benefits claim, please contact an attorney with the Attig Law Firm, today.

Another client of our Firm received a favorable outcome before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

This individual was a 3-decade veteran of the United States Armed Forces and a Federal Agency that we will not disclose due to the nature of the case. Earlier this year, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reduced our client’s retirement annuity when he reached the age of 62. When he separated from civil service, he did not pay a deposit for his post-1956 military service; as such when he reached age 62, OPM reduced his retirement annuity. Federal employees with prior military service are (or should be) acutely familiar with this event, and know it as the “Catch-62” provision.

Typically, the MSPB has found that so long as an employee is informed of the right to make the deposit and the consequences of not making the deposit, then there is no remedy when the Catch 62 provisions are triggered. In certain cases, however, the Board may direct OPM to waive the time limitations and allow the employee to make the deposit and receive the benefit. Those cases are reserved for situations where it is clear that the employee was never advised of the right to make the deposit or is affirmatively misled by his employing Agency or OPM about the consequences of not making the deposit.

In this case, both scenarios occurred. Our client was not only retired in a very bizarre way - the standard retirement application was not provided to him, and a personnel officer in his Agency advised him that he wouldn’t be entitled to the increased annuity anyway.

The Firm’s aggressive use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other pre-discovery tools were instrumental in producing enough documentation to prove these facts at a hearing. Shortly after the Pre-Hearing Conference in the case, OPM agreed to rescind its decision reducing the annuity and has allowed our client to make his military deposit. As such, the MSPB dismissed the case in favor of our client.

The favorable outcome will increase our client’s retirement annuity at least $10,000 per year for the rest of his life. Read more about Catch-62 here.

If OPM reduces your annuity at age 62 under the Catch 62 provisions, do not hesitate to contact an MSPB attorney as soon as you receive word from OPM. Despite the standardized retirement forms used since the early 1990’s, there are still too many Federal employees who are misled or misinformed about their right to this benefit of federal employment.

Another client of our Firm received a favorable outcome before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

This individual was a veteran of the United States Armed Forces and a Federal Agency that we will not disclose due to the nature of the case. Earlier this year, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reduced our client’s retirement annuity when he reached the age of 62. When he separated from civil service, he did not pay a deposit for his post-1956 military service; as such when he reached age 62, OPM reduced his retirement annuity. Federal employees with prior military service are (or should be) acutely familiar with this event, and know it as the “Catch-62” provision.

Typically, the MSPB has found that so long as an employee is informed of the right to make the deposit and the consequences of not making the deposit, then there is no remedy when the Catch 62 provisions are triggered. In certain cases, however, the Board may direct OPM to waive the time limitations and allow the employee to make the deposit and receive the benefit. Those cases are reserved for situations where it is clear that the employee was never advised of the right to make the deposit or is affirmatively misled by his employing Agency or OPM about the consequences of not making the deposit.

In this case, our client told us that, when he retired, he was told by his retirement benefits counselor that the Catch 62 provisions were not applicable to him. He also contended that he was never counseled about the Catch 62 provisions. In discovery, we were able to prove these facts: his employing Agency had checked “Not Applicable” in the portions of the retirement counseling pertaining to Catch-62. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Client was ever informed how much to pay and when. Finally, there was evidence that our Client was affirmatively misled that these provisions would not apply to them because he “was not eligible for social security anyway”.

Shortly before the Pre-Hearing Conference in this case, OPM agreed to rescind its decision reducing the annuity and has allowed our client to make his military deposit. As such, the MSPB dismissed the case in favor of our client.

The favorable outcome will increase our client’s retirement annuity approximately $5,000 per year for the rest of his life. Read more about Catch-62 here.

If OPM reduces your annuity at age 62 under the Catch 62 provisions, do not hesitate to contact an MSPB attorney as soon as you receive word from OPM. Despite the standardized retirement forms used since the early 1990’s, there are still too many Federal employees who are misled or misinformed about their right to this benefit of federal employment.

The provisions are confusing, and benefits counselors often give poor and misleading information to retirees. If you would like to discuss how Catch-62 affects your retirement annuity, contact the Attig Law Firm today.