Defendant Uses Disabled Veteran's Disabilities Against the Veteran

[Gulskjegg]

My question involves medical malpractice in the state of: Virginia

I have initiated a medical malpractice claim against the Department of Veterans Affairs, or "VA". To be as brief as possible, the Defendant (in this instance it is the Department of Justice that is defending the VA) has asserted that the reason the VA is not obliged to give me proper medical care is because I behave in a way that is "wilfully sedentary".

However, the reason I am sedentary is because I am a severely disabled veteran with stage 2 degenerative disk disease, among other disabilities. I served in heavy armored infantry units for my entire 14 year military career, including a combat tour in Iraq. From my perspective, the fact that the VA pays me Compensation & Pension every month is a de facto admission that VA is responsible for my disabilities.

I am looking into Res Judicata, or perhaps Arbitration and Award or maybe Failure of Consideration as a means to shut down the Defendant's assertions. If anyone knows of any means to establish with finality the burden back onto the VA, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance!

[Dogmatique]

Given your post history and your post above, it's very clear that you're in over your head.

You need an attorney. Not a message board.

[Gulskjegg]

A simple "I have no idea!" would suffice.

[jk]

given the posters conversations in other threads, I am surprised to find him here at all.

besides not ever giving any real information, he likes to argue and even issue veiled threats to other posters.

[Dogmatique]

given the posters conversations in other threads, I am surprised to find him here at all.

besides not ever giving any real information, he likes to argue and even issue veiled threats to other posters.

Yeap. I noticed

The fun thing about med-mal suits is that if there is genuinely a case worth litigating, an attorney - some attorney, somewhere - WILL take the case, and on a contingency basis. Yes, even against the VA.

OP might also want to check the meaning of res judicata. That's his free hint of the day.

[Gulskjegg]

Pot, kettle, black.

What ever you do, don't reply with "collateral estoppel".

[Conrad Hunter]

Res judicata is a defense for a defendant as is collateral estoppel for the most part. Maybe he has an argument on equitable estoppel if he had any clue.

[Gulskjegg]

Res judicata is a defense for a defendant as is collateral estoppel for the most part. Maybe he has an argument on equitable estoppel if he had any clue.

Oh, getting warmer!

By the way, have any of you in the peanut gallery engaged in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit?

No?

Imagine my shock.

[Dogmatique]

Res judicata is a defense for a defendant as is collateral estoppel for the most part. Maybe he has an argument on equitable estoppel if he had any clue.

This is admittedly one of the more amusing threads I've read in awhile.

It almost reminds me of another poster who did everything pro se - and screwed things up so badly that I doubt even the best attorney could dig him out of the wreckage now.

(Some of you might know to whom I'm referring).

I'm truly interested as to why no attorney seems to have taken the OP's case. You know how it is with med-mal.

[Gulskjegg]

This is admittedly one of the more amusing threads I've read in awhile.

It almost reminds me of another poster who did everything pro se - and screwed things up so badly that I doubt even the best attorney could dig him out of the wreckage now.

(Some of you might know to whom I'm referring).

I'm truly interested as to why no attorney seems to have taken the OP's case. You know how it is with med-mal.

BZZT!

And the correct answer is; Judicial Estoppel

All I need now is for one of you dust-bunnies to proclaim everything Hitler did was legal, and our little experiment will be complete. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.