Wednesday, July 25, 2007

BLUE WATER AO


Vets win Agent Orange benefitsSAN FRANCISCO, July 20 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco has upheld a lower court ruling backing Vietnam veterans who got cancer from exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange. In the latest case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for continuing to resist paying benefits to some 31,000 veterans who contracted leukemia as a result of serving in Vietnam, The Los Angeles Times reported Friday. "Those young Americans who risked their lives in their country's service and are even today suffering greatly as a result are deserving of better treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs than they are currently receiving," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the opinion. What is difficult to understand, he said, is why the department continues to resist implementing a settlement agreed to 16 years ago. The attorney for the plaintiffs, Barton Stichman, predicts Thursday's appellate court ruling will lead to millions in benefits for disabled veterans I copied this to ha ha we win by David Rosenburg__._,_.___
I don’t hate you sinner I just hate your sins
I posted only the posted News of the reasons I believe is why we are having a stay in the “Blue Water AO” decision at this point in time and I to am unhappy and tired of the wait. If the news is wrong and you don’t want the reason for congress were it all starts which it is the beginning to the end of are federal regulation
Under title38 and the law of the land then how can you understand why we wait so long. The change with Nicholson leaving will cause a stay until after he is replaced on oct.1,2007. Until then I don’t expect to see much in that stay being lifted. Lets see if I’m wrong before you get mad at me because I am in the same boat you are as I to live in pain from agent orange. Vietnam vet retired David Rosenburg PS were is the 7/20/2007 federal court decision? We will see it happen after Nicholson is relieved of duty
By David Rosenburg who was very wrong

No comments: