Thursday, June 2, 2011

El Centro Family Health, New Mexico Veterans Medical Records Illegally Destroyed

Full article at: Veterans' Records Illegally Destroyed

By Andrew Kasper
SUN Staff Writer

Thursday, June 2, 2011 10:07 AM MDT
"The health records of hundreds of Northern New Mexico veterans were mishandled and illegally destroyed three years ago, and the federal Veteran’s Affairs Department failed to notify the veterans or their families until this year.

Denise Burd, a former records custodian for El Centro Family Health working under contract, said she disposed of 455 veterans’ health records at her ChimayĆ³ home when she believed they were due for destruction.

By state law, most health records become inactive after a patient is not seen by a doctor for three years and can be destroyed 10 years after that. However, under federal law, veterans’ health records must be stored for 75 years before being destroyed. There were also certain procedures explicit in the contract between El Centro and the Department for how and where the records must be stored, which were violated by when the records were stored at Burd’s home."

New VA Malpractice Award Data Base

Full article at: Syracuse VA Medical Center's malpractice claims total $2 million over 19 years

Published: Thursday, June 02, 2011, 5:44 AM
The Post-Standard By James T. Mulder

A recently released federal database shows, that in eight cases the Syracuse VA paid out more than $2 million in claims.

"The new database provides a glimpse at 12,000 claims, many of them medical malpractice complaints, filed against VA medical centers nationwide between 1989 and 2008. The information was recently released by The Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit government watchdog group that obtained the database from the Department of Veterans Affairs through a Freedom of Information Act request.

A spreadsheet, available online (http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/va-medmal-database.xls), gives a breakdown of claims information for each of the VA’s 153 medical centers."

Veteran Court Panel Reconsideration Motion, Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.

Excerpt from decision below:
"... it is the decision of the panel that the appellant fails to demonstrate that 1) the single-judge memorandum decision overlooked or misunderstood a fact or point of law, 2) there is any conflict with precedential decisions of the Court, or 3) that the appeal otherwise raises an issue warranting a precedential decision. U.S. VET. APP. R. 35(e); see also Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990)."

----------------------------------------------------


Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
NO. 09-0622
ROBERT L. BELCHER,
V.
APPELLANT,
ERIC K. SHINSEKI,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
APPELLEE.

Before KASOLD, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and GREENE, Judges.

ORDER
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.

In a memorandum decision dated December 21, 2010, the Court affirmed the underlying December 20, 2007, Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied entitlement to service
connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. On January 7, 2011, the appellant filed a timely motion for reconsideration and, alternatively, for a panel decision. Reconsideration will be denied by the single judge, and the motion for decision by a panel will be granted.
Based on review of the pleadings and the record on appeal, it is the decision of the panel that the appellant fails to demonstrate that 1) the single-judge memorandum decision overlooked or misunderstood a fact or point of law, 2) there is any conflict with precedential decisions of the Court, or 3) that the appeal otherwise raises an issue warranting a precedential decision. U.S. VET. APP. R. 35(e); see also Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990).
Absent further motion by the parties or order by the Court, judgment will enter on the underlying single-judge decision in accordance with Rules 35 and 36 of the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED, by the single judge, that the motion for reconsideration is denied. It is further
ORDERED, by the panel, that the motion for panel decision is granted. It is further
ORDERED, by the panel, that the single-judge memorandum decision remains the decision of the Court.
DATED: May 20, 2011
Copies to:
Robert V. Chisholm, Esq.
VA General Counsel (027)
PER CURIAM.
2