Injured Iraq war vets sue VA chief

[The Straight Story]

Injured Iraq war vets sue VA chief
By Hope Yen, Associated Press July 23, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Frustrated by delays in health care, a coalition of injured Iraq war veterans is accusing VA Secretary Jim Nicholson of breaking the law by denying them disability pay and mental health treatment.

The class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, set to be filed Monday in federal court in San Francisco, seeks broad change in the agency as it struggles to meet growing demands from veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Suing on behalf of hundreds of thousands of veterans, it charges that the VA has failed warriors on several fronts -- from providing prompt disability benefits, to adding staff to reduce wait times for medical care to boosting services for post-traumatic stress disorder.

The lawsuit also accuses the VA of deliberately cheating some veterans by allegedly working with the Pentagon to misclassify PTSD claims as pre-existing personality disorders to avoid paying out benefits. The VA and Pentagon have generally denied such charges.

http://www.governmentexecutive.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37546&dcn=todaysnews

[Kagemusha]

1. Question: Isn't this flat out guaranteed to fail?

I mean, these failures are in the course of the VA chief's official duties and therefore you'd think that the VA chief is personally immune, even if the performance is substandard.

[jaxx]

2. I'm sure there will be an executive order any minute now

saying nobody can dare sue the VA chief.

It seems to me that people back off bringing suit, or impeachment, or censure because it might fail. Let it, if it has to, but don't quit before you know the answer. That's how the bushies have railroaded most of their bs all along. It might not work. Well, so what.

[Kagemusha]

4. Um, no, it is not, "it might not work". It is guaranteed to fail.

Did you read about the dismissal of the Plame suit against Cheney recently? That had the truly galling argument that outing Plame was part of the normal official duties of the vice-president and associated executive branch people. This was accompanied by a far better supported assertion that there is immunity for official acts done in accordance with the normal rigors of government policy. The government in and of itself may well be liable for a specific wrong but, individual department chiefs are not held personally liable for systemic faults that they have failed to remedy rather than consciously cause.

Impeachment is a completely different thing because it is a political and constitutional process; it is not part of the justice system whatsoever.

Having said that, my point is, this isn't a "might" thing, it's a "there's mountains of precedent that it is 100% certain to fail" thing.

[jaxx]

5. Precedents can be broken.

[Kagemusha]

6. You say that like it's a good thing.

You do realize that Republicans wouldn't be the only people to get sued if that got allowed, right?...

Whatever. This argument is not going to impress any self-respecting judge in the entire country. I strongly support individual accountability for people who commit illegal acts beyond the legal scope of their jobs. I don't see how the law, tradition or justice support making government service in and of itself an invitation to personal lawsuits. That really is criminalizing politics.

[SpiralHawk]

3. republicon chickenhawks treat our soldiers and veterans like dirt

The republicons wave their flags around, but avoid serving America. Then they stiff or shortchange our soldiers and veterans so they -- republicon cronies -- can reap fat cat chickenhawk war profits. A pox on their perverted, diaper-soiled republicon chickenhawk cabal (aka party).