Subject: Ex-Flats workers with cancer hit brick wall in seeking aid.
RE: The "defendant caretkakers" redundant and defiant, abusive,
discriminatory, and illegal acts
================
Hi!
FYI -- Again, more findings of fact have emerged that provides evidence
that the EEOICP process is failed and is discriminatory, and abusive.
The attached media report discloses more of the same defiant and
abusive "defendant caretakers" harm done. See Item 1 of 2. The US Congress'
department delegates refuse to adhere to strict compliance with the
Rule of Law. The delegates violate their own "interim regulations."
These conflicting marauders are not qualified adjudicators. They are
assigned government personnel who have been oriented to believe they are
authorized practicioners. Actually, the department personnel are not
licensed and/or qualified to practice law or medical evaluations that
involves diagnosis or prognosis. The 109th USHouse Judiciary subcommittee is
investigating and holding EEOICPA hearings since about February 2006.
The sworn witness testimony that were aired during the November 15,
2006, hearing (Part IV) does offer much incite regarding why/how the
scandalous EEOICP affair evolved for the past six years and actually for
decades. Observation and tracking of the agents' performance affirms their
abuse of discretion acts, poor judgement, poor reasoning, poor
principles and poor practices.
For comparison value, I offer a very brief overview of the status of my
EEOICP claims that I have once again discovered. Apparently, the
"defendant caretakers" have not saw fit to have any contact with me for
several years. Suddenly the USDOL Ombudsperson's representatives, a
Seattle District Office representative, and the newly assigned case examiner,
Tom Melancon, contacted me Thursday and Friday. Hummm! It seems that
the well-documented fraud activity continues to adversely affect the
active status of my Subtitle B claim. Of course, I am challenged to
clarify this mess. I am instructed by the unaware USDOL representatives to
contact newly identified case examiner Melancon at my expense and
effort for the purpose of "explaining and proving" whatever the agents claim
to expect. I have not received any valid documentation that dismisses
my Subtitle B or E claims. There have been formal threats issued by
the "defendant caretakers." The claimants establish that WE are weary of
stressful routines imposed by the "defendant caretakers." I was made
aware that my records have been "locked up" in the agents' "dead file"
since 2003 (witnessed and documented). A USDOL Seattle District Office
supervisor, Christi Long, chose to document her fraud regarding the
status of "my RECA" claim--yes, I said "RECA" claim. My claims have been
filed since the first week of August 2001. Long distributed two
official letters to my Congressional representatives that reflects her
official signature. The representatives were conducting an investigation of
my case. When I confronted Long during a 2005 hearing held in
Richland, her excuse was that her clerk had written the letters. Long admitted
she errored when she "blind-signed" the letters. Long said, "That you
are clearly an EEOICP claimant and not a RECA claimant, and I will take
care of it." Long definitely seemed to believe she had exhonerated
herself from any responsibility and assumed she was forgiven. More time
elapsed; and I was not informed of any corrective action. So, I
confronted Long again during another EEOICP status hearing held in Pasco, WA.
Long had not notified the Congressional representatives of her abuse of
discretion behavior. Senator Cantwell's, Senator Murray's, and House
Represenative Hasting's aides attended the hearing and were informed of
the problem. Christi Long's letters state that I was not eligible to
receive compensation because I did not qualify as a "RECA claimant."
Consequently, it appears that for many years the USDOL employees thought
my Subtitle B claim had been "administratively dismissed." Case
examiner Melancon left a message on my answering machine that indicates "that
you believe you claim was closed inappropriately." Wrong! Christi
Long inappropriately dismissed what she thought was a RECA claim. I was
instructed to return Melancon's call. On many occasions, I have
notified the respondents of my declared pro se status. In accordance with the
expected protocol, complainant and respondent should communicate in a
more formal manner and in writing. Observance of my due process rights
and the Rule of Law by the "defendant caretakers" is mandated. Long
distance verbal communication is simply not acceptable at this point in
time. You would think that by now a USDOL and USHHS solicitor would have
oriented the agency employees regarding the legal definition of
"default," "fraud," and the many other legal definitions that
apply--especially since the members of Congress have formally and officially oriented
the US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales regarding their legal
interpretations and ramifications.
In 2002 and 2003, USHHS-OCAS director Larry Elliott, censored my
"Special Exposure Cohort" petition that I structured and distributed to the
appropriate agents in good faith. The petitions respresent about 7,600
petitioners. Elliot's conflicts of interests was one of the topics for
discussion by the witnesses during the USHouse Judiciary subcommittee
hearing November 15, 2006. Elliott's conflicts of interest was the
reason why he was removed from his executive secretary position on the
current US President's Advisory Board on Radiation and Workers Health. I
must assume that the "SEC" petition is hidden away in Elliott's "dead"
and/or "secret" files. Did Elliott destroy the petition? I plan to
reintroduce the petition. Many are aware that the President's Advisory
Board members agree to destroy public record accountability which the
agents' documented and then attempted to censor. But, I haven't quite
decided what I will do about this current boondogal that has come to my
attention. By Friday, the USDOL employees were trying to provoke me into
"explaining" my claim issues over the telephone. The agents definitely
affirmed that they are wholly unaware. So, back to the old
documentation routines that are necessary during any legal process. Records,
records, records and more records compile. I am very interested in filing
a litigation claim, soon. But, I will likely remain in the EEOICP
process for awhile longer. I have also attached the communication that was
sent to me by an acting Ombudsperson Eileen McCarthy. See Item 2 of 2.
McCarthy's and a clerk's novice ideals are expected and routine by now.
The claimants should consider writing to your members of Congress for
the purpose of witnessing and objecting to the "defendant caretakers"
routines that have trended to cause the denial of tens of thousands of
meritorious claims/cases. The claimants don't have to be invited to the
elected Officials' investigative hearings to be able to testify. The
elected Officials work for their constituents which was clearly
re-inforced after the November 7, 2006, election outcome. As WE all know, the
EEOICP process was originally intended to assist the sick nuclear
workers and their families. It is alarming when the Officials still believe
the USHHS-NIOSH and cohorts are capable of reconstructing dose. This
claim is ludicrous. The outspoken USHHS health physicists seem to
believe they are brilliant and expert. When in fact, they document
incredible errors. Consequently, tens of thousands of meritorious claims/cases
are denied. During the past 21 years, I have never observed any health
physicists that were subpoenaed to appear as an "expert witness" during
any legitimate court hearing.
The government Officials are aware of the fact that atomic weapons'
plant workers range in age is about 75 to 95. The Officials are aware that
since 1986, the sick and dying second and third generation of "nuclear
waste cleanup workers" range in age is about 18 to 75. And, what about
the effects of the migrating toxic exposures to our families which is
disclosed and affirmed by the USHHS-CDC-NIOSH.
Gai Oglesbee, Independent National Advocate
EEOICP Claimant | Downwinder
National Nuclear Victims for Justice
www.nnvj-goglesbee-eeoicp-abuse.com
------------
ITEM 1 OF 2:
Rocky Mountain News: Ex-Flats workers with cancer hit brick wall in
seeking aid
By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
November 16, 2006
Former Rocky Flats workers with cancer are being stymied in their
attempt to win compensation because a federal official is
blocking an inquiry into whether their radiation records are
missing or falsified, Congress was told Wednesday.
Contract auditor SC&A said it could not finish its work because
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is
limiting its access to workers' claims.
A NIOSH official responded that he restricted the auditor's
access to enforce the Privacy Act.
But a watchdog group says it's an attempt to limit compensation
to the sick workers for budget reasons.
Since 2000, officials have rejected 70 percent of the claims for
aid filed by tens of thousands of sick nuclear weapons workers,
said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. Workers must prove their
cancer and other illnesses were caused by radiation and toxic
chemical exposure on the job to collect $150,000 in compensation
plus medical care.
Former workers at the Rocky Flats atom bomb plant outside Denver
say they can't prove their cases because radiation records are
missing or wrong. On these grounds, they've petitioned for all
former Rocky Flats workers with cancer to be grandfathered into
the aid program.
Their petition has been in front of a federal advisory board all
year, while more workers die without help.
The board, which is to rule on the petition, asked its
contractor, SC&A, to figure out if the workers are correct about
the missing and incorrect records.
SC&A pulled about a dozen random workers' claim records for
Rocky Flats, and "they found enormous gaps in data," some years
long, said Richard Miller of the Government Accountability
Project in an interview.
Miller said NIOSH, which is doing radiation dose calculations
for the workers' claims, then yanked SC&A's access to the
records.
In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security and Claims on Wednesday, SC&A's John Mauro said
he could no longer do his job investigating the Rocky Flats
claims of "significant gaps, falsifications and deliberate
destruction of records" if he didn't have access to the records.
Larry Elliott, head of that section of NIOSH, said in an
interview that he is merely following the Privacy Act, ensuring
that SC&A sees only specified claims.
"They can't just look at any claim they want while they are
there," he said.
Elliott denied allegations made in the hearing that his
department is setting up the Rocky Flats petition for denial as
a cost-saving measure.
Jackson Lee called the Rocky Flats allegation "one of the
harshest" she heard in a variety of complaints about the aid
program Wednesday. "A fact-finder can't be a fact-finder without
access to documents," she said.
The Privacy Act specifically allows for government contractors
like SC&A to be treated as government employees with authority
to review private records as part of their work.
Miller said SC&A staff members have signed Privacy Act
agreements not to reveal patient-specific information to the
public.
Miller suggested to the committee that Congress order full
access to the records.
He said this could be done in a rider to an appropriations bill
before January.
| | 2006 ? The E.W. Scripps Co.
==================
ITEM 2 OF 2:
From "McCarthy, Eileen - SOL" <Mccarthy.Eileen@dol.gov>
Date 2006/11/17 Fri PM 04:33:56 CST
To goglesbee@verizon.net
Subject RE: DaytonDaily News Media coverage re. EEOICP sick worker
issues
Dear Ms. Oglesbee,
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Ombudsman for Part E of the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA). As
you may know, the Ombudsman's role is to provide information to
claimants, potential claimants, and other interested parties about EEOICPA Part
E benefits and how to obtain those benefits; in addition, the Ombudsman
issues a report to Congress concerning complaints, grievances and
requests for assistance received during the year. Our most recent report is
on our website, at
www.dol.gov/eeombd/2005a...rt/index.htm, and our next
report will be filed in February 2007 (covering calendar year 2006).
As you may have heard from other claimants, Don Shalhoub has resigned
as Ombudsman to become a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. This is a great loss to us, but
obviously a great gain for OSHA. We are expecting the appointment of a new
Ombudsman very soon.
In the meantime, I and the other staff of the Ombudsman's office are
available to assist you and other claimants with your claims. As I
indicated initially, the Office of the Ombudsman is assigned certain
responsibilities under Part E of EEOICPA. Do you have a claim pending
with DOL? If you could give me a little more background about your
case, that would be helpful.
Eileen McCarthy
Office of the Ombudsman for Part E of EEOICPA
RE: The "defendant caretkakers" redundant and defiant, abusive,
discriminatory, and illegal acts
================
Hi!
FYI -- Again, more findings of fact have emerged that provides evidence
that the EEOICP process is failed and is discriminatory, and abusive.
The attached media report discloses more of the same defiant and
abusive "defendant caretakers" harm done. See Item 1 of 2. The US Congress'
department delegates refuse to adhere to strict compliance with the
Rule of Law. The delegates violate their own "interim regulations."
These conflicting marauders are not qualified adjudicators. They are
assigned government personnel who have been oriented to believe they are
authorized practicioners. Actually, the department personnel are not
licensed and/or qualified to practice law or medical evaluations that
involves diagnosis or prognosis. The 109th USHouse Judiciary subcommittee is
investigating and holding EEOICPA hearings since about February 2006.
The sworn witness testimony that were aired during the November 15,
2006, hearing (Part IV) does offer much incite regarding why/how the
scandalous EEOICP affair evolved for the past six years and actually for
decades. Observation and tracking of the agents' performance affirms their
abuse of discretion acts, poor judgement, poor reasoning, poor
principles and poor practices.
For comparison value, I offer a very brief overview of the status of my
EEOICP claims that I have once again discovered. Apparently, the
"defendant caretakers" have not saw fit to have any contact with me for
several years. Suddenly the USDOL Ombudsperson's representatives, a
Seattle District Office representative, and the newly assigned case examiner,
Tom Melancon, contacted me Thursday and Friday. Hummm! It seems that
the well-documented fraud activity continues to adversely affect the
active status of my Subtitle B claim. Of course, I am challenged to
clarify this mess. I am instructed by the unaware USDOL representatives to
contact newly identified case examiner Melancon at my expense and
effort for the purpose of "explaining and proving" whatever the agents claim
to expect. I have not received any valid documentation that dismisses
my Subtitle B or E claims. There have been formal threats issued by
the "defendant caretakers." The claimants establish that WE are weary of
stressful routines imposed by the "defendant caretakers." I was made
aware that my records have been "locked up" in the agents' "dead file"
since 2003 (witnessed and documented). A USDOL Seattle District Office
supervisor, Christi Long, chose to document her fraud regarding the
status of "my RECA" claim--yes, I said "RECA" claim. My claims have been
filed since the first week of August 2001. Long distributed two
official letters to my Congressional representatives that reflects her
official signature. The representatives were conducting an investigation of
my case. When I confronted Long during a 2005 hearing held in
Richland, her excuse was that her clerk had written the letters. Long admitted
she errored when she "blind-signed" the letters. Long said, "That you
are clearly an EEOICP claimant and not a RECA claimant, and I will take
care of it." Long definitely seemed to believe she had exhonerated
herself from any responsibility and assumed she was forgiven. More time
elapsed; and I was not informed of any corrective action. So, I
confronted Long again during another EEOICP status hearing held in Pasco, WA.
Long had not notified the Congressional representatives of her abuse of
discretion behavior. Senator Cantwell's, Senator Murray's, and House
Represenative Hasting's aides attended the hearing and were informed of
the problem. Christi Long's letters state that I was not eligible to
receive compensation because I did not qualify as a "RECA claimant."
Consequently, it appears that for many years the USDOL employees thought
my Subtitle B claim had been "administratively dismissed." Case
examiner Melancon left a message on my answering machine that indicates "that
you believe you claim was closed inappropriately." Wrong! Christi
Long inappropriately dismissed what she thought was a RECA claim. I was
instructed to return Melancon's call. On many occasions, I have
notified the respondents of my declared pro se status. In accordance with the
expected protocol, complainant and respondent should communicate in a
more formal manner and in writing. Observance of my due process rights
and the Rule of Law by the "defendant caretakers" is mandated. Long
distance verbal communication is simply not acceptable at this point in
time. You would think that by now a USDOL and USHHS solicitor would have
oriented the agency employees regarding the legal definition of
"default," "fraud," and the many other legal definitions that
apply--especially since the members of Congress have formally and officially oriented
the US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales regarding their legal
interpretations and ramifications.
In 2002 and 2003, USHHS-OCAS director Larry Elliott, censored my
"Special Exposure Cohort" petition that I structured and distributed to the
appropriate agents in good faith. The petitions respresent about 7,600
petitioners. Elliot's conflicts of interests was one of the topics for
discussion by the witnesses during the USHouse Judiciary subcommittee
hearing November 15, 2006. Elliott's conflicts of interest was the
reason why he was removed from his executive secretary position on the
current US President's Advisory Board on Radiation and Workers Health. I
must assume that the "SEC" petition is hidden away in Elliott's "dead"
and/or "secret" files. Did Elliott destroy the petition? I plan to
reintroduce the petition. Many are aware that the President's Advisory
Board members agree to destroy public record accountability which the
agents' documented and then attempted to censor. But, I haven't quite
decided what I will do about this current boondogal that has come to my
attention. By Friday, the USDOL employees were trying to provoke me into
"explaining" my claim issues over the telephone. The agents definitely
affirmed that they are wholly unaware. So, back to the old
documentation routines that are necessary during any legal process. Records,
records, records and more records compile. I am very interested in filing
a litigation claim, soon. But, I will likely remain in the EEOICP
process for awhile longer. I have also attached the communication that was
sent to me by an acting Ombudsperson Eileen McCarthy. See Item 2 of 2.
McCarthy's and a clerk's novice ideals are expected and routine by now.
The claimants should consider writing to your members of Congress for
the purpose of witnessing and objecting to the "defendant caretakers"
routines that have trended to cause the denial of tens of thousands of
meritorious claims/cases. The claimants don't have to be invited to the
elected Officials' investigative hearings to be able to testify. The
elected Officials work for their constituents which was clearly
re-inforced after the November 7, 2006, election outcome. As WE all know, the
EEOICP process was originally intended to assist the sick nuclear
workers and their families. It is alarming when the Officials still believe
the USHHS-NIOSH and cohorts are capable of reconstructing dose. This
claim is ludicrous. The outspoken USHHS health physicists seem to
believe they are brilliant and expert. When in fact, they document
incredible errors. Consequently, tens of thousands of meritorious claims/cases
are denied. During the past 21 years, I have never observed any health
physicists that were subpoenaed to appear as an "expert witness" during
any legitimate court hearing.
The government Officials are aware of the fact that atomic weapons'
plant workers range in age is about 75 to 95. The Officials are aware that
since 1986, the sick and dying second and third generation of "nuclear
waste cleanup workers" range in age is about 18 to 75. And, what about
the effects of the migrating toxic exposures to our families which is
disclosed and affirmed by the USHHS-CDC-NIOSH.
Gai Oglesbee, Independent National Advocate
EEOICP Claimant | Downwinder
National Nuclear Victims for Justice
www.nnvj-goglesbee-eeoicp-abuse.com
------------
ITEM 1 OF 2:
Rocky Mountain News: Ex-Flats workers with cancer hit brick wall in
seeking aid
By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
November 16, 2006
Former Rocky Flats workers with cancer are being stymied in their
attempt to win compensation because a federal official is
blocking an inquiry into whether their radiation records are
missing or falsified, Congress was told Wednesday.
Contract auditor SC&A said it could not finish its work because
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is
limiting its access to workers' claims.
A NIOSH official responded that he restricted the auditor's
access to enforce the Privacy Act.
But a watchdog group says it's an attempt to limit compensation
to the sick workers for budget reasons.
Since 2000, officials have rejected 70 percent of the claims for
aid filed by tens of thousands of sick nuclear weapons workers,
said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. Workers must prove their
cancer and other illnesses were caused by radiation and toxic
chemical exposure on the job to collect $150,000 in compensation
plus medical care.
Former workers at the Rocky Flats atom bomb plant outside Denver
say they can't prove their cases because radiation records are
missing or wrong. On these grounds, they've petitioned for all
former Rocky Flats workers with cancer to be grandfathered into
the aid program.
Their petition has been in front of a federal advisory board all
year, while more workers die without help.
The board, which is to rule on the petition, asked its
contractor, SC&A, to figure out if the workers are correct about
the missing and incorrect records.
SC&A pulled about a dozen random workers' claim records for
Rocky Flats, and "they found enormous gaps in data," some years
long, said Richard Miller of the Government Accountability
Project in an interview.
Miller said NIOSH, which is doing radiation dose calculations
for the workers' claims, then yanked SC&A's access to the
records.
In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security and Claims on Wednesday, SC&A's John Mauro said
he could no longer do his job investigating the Rocky Flats
claims of "significant gaps, falsifications and deliberate
destruction of records" if he didn't have access to the records.
Larry Elliott, head of that section of NIOSH, said in an
interview that he is merely following the Privacy Act, ensuring
that SC&A sees only specified claims.
"They can't just look at any claim they want while they are
there," he said.
Elliott denied allegations made in the hearing that his
department is setting up the Rocky Flats petition for denial as
a cost-saving measure.
Jackson Lee called the Rocky Flats allegation "one of the
harshest" she heard in a variety of complaints about the aid
program Wednesday. "A fact-finder can't be a fact-finder without
access to documents," she said.
The Privacy Act specifically allows for government contractors
like SC&A to be treated as government employees with authority
to review private records as part of their work.
Miller said SC&A staff members have signed Privacy Act
agreements not to reveal patient-specific information to the
public.
Miller suggested to the committee that Congress order full
access to the records.
He said this could be done in a rider to an appropriations bill
before January.
| | 2006 ? The E.W. Scripps Co.
==================
ITEM 2 OF 2:
From "McCarthy, Eileen - SOL" <Mccarthy.Eileen@dol.gov>
Date 2006/11/17 Fri PM 04:33:56 CST
To goglesbee@verizon.net
Subject RE: DaytonDaily News Media coverage re. EEOICP sick worker
issues
Dear Ms. Oglesbee,
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Ombudsman for Part E of the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA). As
you may know, the Ombudsman's role is to provide information to
claimants, potential claimants, and other interested parties about EEOICPA Part
E benefits and how to obtain those benefits; in addition, the Ombudsman
issues a report to Congress concerning complaints, grievances and
requests for assistance received during the year. Our most recent report is
on our website, at
www.dol.gov/eeombd/2005a...rt/index.htm, and our next
report will be filed in February 2007 (covering calendar year 2006).
As you may have heard from other claimants, Don Shalhoub has resigned
as Ombudsman to become a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. This is a great loss to us, but
obviously a great gain for OSHA. We are expecting the appointment of a new
Ombudsman very soon.
In the meantime, I and the other staff of the Ombudsman's office are
available to assist you and other claimants with your claims. As I
indicated initially, the Office of the Ombudsman is assigned certain
responsibilities under Part E of EEOICPA. Do you have a claim pending
with DOL? If you could give me a little more background about your
case, that would be helpful.
Eileen McCarthy
Office of the Ombudsman for Part E of EEOICPA
posted by:
|
