V’ERPA REJECTS HR 6093 AS SAID BILL IS UNFAIR TO ALL FERES DOCTRINE VICTIMS INTRODUCTION With all due respect to SSGT Rodriguez and family, we cannot in good faith endorse and reject HR 6093. We initially believed, prior to reviewing the below Bill, that it was a wonderful development in the Feres doctrine reform movement. Sadly, from our review of the Bill and expertise in understanding the totality of the reforms necessary to make a Feres-Bill equitable for all, both military and individuals-we affirmatively assert this Bill is UNSATISFACTORY! For instance, we found three (3) conflicts with this Bill’s intent and other provisions of Title 28, Chapter 171 et seq. , or the “Federal Tort Claims Act” or “FTCA.”	1989 - Awarding of Joint Service Commendation Meda "For Military Merit" A Message From V’ERPA’s Founder & The Original-V’ERPA RE:  Opposition To H.R. 1478 & Its Partial Remedy Of The Chilling Effects Of The Feres Doctrine In The United States Armed Forces© 2000   The “Original-V’ERPA” as the leaders in Feres doctrine reform since in or about December 1993, in works ups to our formation in November 1999, we strongly oppose and object to H.R. 1478.  As victims of the doctrine—we see this bill as sadly enough, “politically motivated” and is not going anywhere in Congress.  Thus, we reaffirm and assert our strong opposition to H.R. 1478 as we did its predecessor H.R. 6093 as introduced in the 110th Congress as set forth below in our previous arguments to oppose and reject this bill.   In short, the Hinchey-Bill falls way too short for substantial justice to be afforded ALL U.S. Military personnel and or the loved ones of deceased servicemembers who fell victim to the “chilling effects” of the doctrine or those who lost careers due to malpractice and professional misconduct within the command, legal and medical systems of the U.S. Armed Forces.   In sum, H.R. 1478 is not equitable if the “doctrine” is to remain the law of the land and more importantly, to “touch” the “doctrine” in any way will call for substantial reforms of laws, regulations, rules, etc., in the U.S. Armed Forces and this bill simply doesn’t cut it in our expert opinions.   THE V’ERPA-TEAM May 3, 2009 July 22, 2008 V‘ERPA * Congressman Hinchey HR 6093 Discussions Back in May 2008, V’ERPA provided an response to the CBS Evening News broadcast that cited Congressman Hinchey (D-NY) was introducing legislation to address the Feres doctrine’s judicial bar on “medical malpractice.” On Thursday, July 17, 2008, I received a call from the Congressman’s military/legislative aide and responded yesterday. Today, here is the official V’ERPA LLC response to that telephone conversation:  “Veterans’ Equal Rights Protection Advocacy, LLC ~V’ERPA~ P.O. Box 733 * Perry, GA 31069 RE: Feres Doctrine/HR 6093 V’ERPA Telephone Discussion Of July 21, 2008 Dear Military/Legislative Liaison Fitzsimmons: On behalf of our members and supporters from across the country, we wish to thank you for taking the time to discuss HR 6093 with me in the wake of our V’ERPA inquiry of May 2008. I can appreciate the specific intent and purpose of HR 6093 to address “military medical malpractice” and do believe as you pointed out; it is a start to address the inequities of the Feres doctrine in our military, in general. I also agree with you that it will be a “slow-Bill” to gain passage as the issues are many and “complex” as you stated when it comes to any type of movement on the Feres subject matter. Obviously, with only 5-cosponsors since the Bill was introduced in May 2008; this is a crystal clear indicator that the Feres doctrine subject matter is “hands-off” for a majority of Members in our Congress. As a matter of fact, I feel it is worth reemphasizing to you that our V’ERPA efforts to reform the Feres doctrine to prevent systemic abuses within the U.S. Armed Forces’ command, legal and medical systems date back as far as January 1994, in support of my claim that we are subject matter experts when it comes to the inequities of the doctrine and how to reform it, “without disrupting good order and discipline” in our military. As a matter of fact, not long after I authored “Beyond the Scope of Justice” in CY-2000, I personally appeared before the “Cox Commission” and its hearings on the 50th Anniversary review of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in 2000. As I informed you, the “Cox Commission Report” was forwarded to all Members of the United States Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD) and although the Feres doctrine subject matter was not an "agenda item" when the Commission formed, upon my testimony and release of the “Report” the Commission stated the following about the “doctrine” as far back as eight (8) years, before the introduction of HR 6093: "c. Feres doctrine. The Commission was not chartered with the idea that our study would include matters such as the Feres doctrine. However, given that it was articulated the same year as that the UCMJ was adopted, and that many former servicemembers have been frustrated by its constraints on their ability to pursue apparently legitimate claims against the armed forces, many of which bear little if any relation to the performance of military duties or obedience to orders on their merits, the Commission believes that a study of this doctrine is warranted. An examination of the claims that have been barred by the doctrine, and a comparison of servicemembers' rights to those of other citizens, could reform military legal doctrine in light of the present day realities and modern tort practice. Revisiting the Feres doctrine would also signal to servicemembers that the United States government is committed to promoting fairness and justice in resolving military personnel matters." In addition to the above legal position of the Commission; as I mentioned to you, I also made a good faith attempt to testify before the Senate Judiciary’s October 8, 2002, Committee hearings on the Feres doctrine, but was not afforded the opportunity to share the V’ERPA-NGO mission and efforts to reform the “doctrine” without once again, “disrupting good order and discipline” in our military to prevent unnecessary personal injuries and deaths of Americans and legally inducted persons in the military, such as SSGT Rodriguez for which triggered introduction of HR 6093. In all, if we can be of any assistance in bringing bona fide arguments or testimony before the Congress vis-à-vis our V’ERPA case studies that advance the Cox Commission’s recommendations and also present “medical malpractice” concerns, that may be beneficial in advancing Congressman Hinchey‘s Bill, please let us know. [For the record, please note that V’ERPA LLC and our case studies are not in anyway connected to those of VERPA Inc for which we affirmatively assert is a defunct off-spring of V’ERPA and should be given no legal credence vis-a‘vis the “V‘ERPA“ name]. Also, thank you for the HR 6093 “call-sheet” and as it proclaims “[i]t is imperative that the United States Congress put our military personnel on equal footing with all Americans” when it comes to federal government employee gross negligence and constitutional due process and equal protection under the First Amendment and Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946, so to speak, as we fully agree. In sum, I will converse with V’ERPA members and supporters in conjunction with your request for us to provide a letter of support of HR 6093. Best wishes, /s/ Jeffrey A. Trueman cc: All V’ERPA LLC Supporters & Members” /end/
Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2008 (Introduced in House) 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 6093 To amend chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, to allow members of the Armed Forces to sue the United States for damages for certain injuries caused by improper medical care and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 20, 2008   Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Mr. FILNER, and Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL   To amend chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, to allow members of the Armed Forces to sue the United States for damages for certain injuries caused by improper medical care and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, This Act may be cited as the `Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2008 '. (a) In General- Chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: `(a) Claims may be brought under this chapter for damages against the United States for the personal injury or death of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States arising out of a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of medical , dental, or related health care functions (including clinical studies and investigations) that takes place other than in the context of combat and is provided by persons acting within the scope of their office or employment by or at the direction of the Armed Forces of the United States, whether inside or outside the United States. `(b) The payment of any claim of a member of the Armed Forces under this section shall be reduced by the present value of other benefits received by the member and the member's estate, survivors, and beneficiaries, under title 10, title 37, or title 38, United States Code, that are attributable to the physical injury or death from which the claim arose. `(c) For purposes of claims brought under this section-- `(1) section 2680(k) does not apply; and `(2) in the case of an act or omission occurring outside the United States, the `law of the place where the act or omission occurred' shall be deemed to be the law of the place of domicile of the plaintiff. `(d) As used in this section, the term `a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of medical , dental, or related health care functions (including clinical studies and investigations)' has the same meaning given that term for the purposes of section 1089(e) of title 10.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item: `2681. Certain claims by members of the Armed Forces of the United States.'. (c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply only with respect to claims arising on or after January 1, 1997 and any period of limitation that applies to such a claim arising before the date of enactment of this Act shall begin to run on the date of that enactment.
V’ERPA’s REJECTION STATEMENT OF HR 6093 OVERVIEW The primary reason for rejection of HR 6093 is that its effective date of January 1, 1997, is a gross injustice to ALL Feres victims from December 4, 1950 to December 31, 1996. Most assuredly-the loved ones of deceased servicemembers who are completely forgotten in this Bill.  THIS BILL IS AMBIGUOUS AND FAILS TO INVOKE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S “READY REMEDY” DIRECTIVE TO THE U.S. CONGRESS First, the Bill’s term “certain injuries” gives rise to our grave concerns, that the Bill; is simply political in nature and not intended to “prevent” continued Feres abuses such as are cited on our “V’ERPA Act of 2008 Renewed National Petition.”  Second, the Bill is clearly a political move and not intended to remedy the injustices of the Feres doctrine for the simple fact that, SSGT Rodriquez’s cancer has been reported to have occurred or was found, in “Iraq” and a “combat zone” during a time of “war.” This fact bars any redress to begin with in our opinion. Third, this Bill’s “whether inside or outside” stipulation wipes out completely; a major “exemption” of the law and for this reason alone, it will not survive congressional scrutiny. Simply stated, its widespread implications under the “negligence” theory of the Bill will cost the American People countless amounts of money in redressing wrongful acts or omissions vis a vis the “adversarial system” of justice-when better “common sense” redress and relief could be incorporated under the (alleged) non-adversarial system of Title 38, and the laws governing the Veteran Administration. Clearly, the Bill asserts any financial damage relief will be “reduced” by any VA payment or other compensation legislation. Fourth, under Title 28, Chapter 171 § 2680. “Exceptions” in brining a “FTCA” and precisely subsection “(k)” that states: “Any claim arising in a foreign country” even if amended, to restore the First Amendment’s right to petition the government for redress of grievance is restored in part by the “foreign country” right of action in this Bill-if applying the “reasonable person theory” as applied by federal courts, the Department of Justice (DOJ) will invoke under the “Exceptions” section of the FTCA other affirmative defenses such as: “(a) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” Clearly, the above “exception” in this Bill “does not apply” and for this reason-we believe it is political in nature and has no substantive value to pass into law. Sadly enough, exemption “(j”) to the FTCA will most probably be invoked in this case by the DOJ as the misdiagnoses has been admitted to have occurred in a “combat zone” which states: “ (j) Any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war.” Again, with no end to ever winning a “war on terror” the sad reality of the above-cited exemption will be advanced by the DOJ in all lawsuits under this Bill. For this reason alone-we reject it and will reserve comment for our testimony before Congress. Fifth, this Bill is unconstitutional as it does not include ALL Feres doctrine victims since its inception on December 4, 1950. Therefore, we believe its “ex post facto” nature kills the Bill from the onset. Sixth, going back to the DOJ‘s role in all this-and mandate to defend cases under this Bill, it will clearly invoke under the “Exceptions” and subpart “(a)” what is called a “Westfall Certification” wherein the tortfeasor(s) are substituted as defendants by naming the “United States” or the “We the People” as defendants. In all, this means that those who injured or killed our family or friends simply move on with their careers while the taxpayers flip the high costs of litigation on their behalf. However, we see the “chilling effect” of this Bill will potentially result in the “Attorney General” refusing to “certify” FTCA defendants and the result will be that victims of federal employee “wrongful acts or omissions” will be left out in the cold so to speak.  Thus, the reality would be that tortfeasors will either be underinsured (civilians) and or declare bankruptcy and any judgment after YEARS of fighting for redress will be the final insult to injury under this Bill. We are of the opinion that if this Bill passes, the DOJ will not certify legitimate cases wherein “good faith” efforts in carrying out public duties and the system will grind to a halt. Finally, as we stated, the “DOJ” will defend with taxpayers’ money all lawsuits under this Bill and the lawyers will assuredly make a good living in the process. To the contrary, rather than the DOJ “defending” crystal clear injustices under the Feres exemption to the FTCA--ALL Feres related injustices for the past 58-years and 5-five months as of the introduction of this Bill cannot be remedied by money alone-but, simple “acknowledgement” to the survivors of deceased service members is what we know to be the “relief” as the Atomic Veterans and the first victims of the “doctrine” have informed “V’ERPA” is all they seek; as with many other V’ERPA members and supporters only seek via holding federal employees accountable for their gross/criminal acts or omissions that result in personal injury or death of Americans serving the Country. Again, as the V’ERPA Act advances-lawsuits would not be necessary if the “UCMJ” is properly invoked in cases of “gross/criminal” acts or omissions for uniformed tortfeasors and dismissal for civilians under contract with the U.S. Government for example. CONCLUSION  In sum, if this Bill proceeds to hearings-V’ERPA will support the U.S. Military, Executive Branch and “DOJ” in fighting to oppose this Bill; as it is clearly a political “hogwash“ and does not even come close to the U.S. Supreme Court‘s “ready remedy“ congressional provision under its Feres decision.   Hinchey-Feres Bill Hearings / Gen. Altenburg (Ret.) Statement for the Record. In short, we agree with the General's position in this matter and it only reaffirms our position that the Hinchey-Bill is "politically motivated" and injurious to the military in its present form.