Monday, February 6, 2012
Thursday, December 22, 2011
C C KOS: I Hope Santa Brought B.A.C.A.L.A a Big Brown Bag Of Asbestos For Christmas!
C C KOS: I Hope Santa Brought B.A.C.A.L.A a Big Brown Bag Of Asbestos For Christmas!
Citation Nr: 0802538
Decision Date: 01/23/08 Archive Date: 01/30/08
DOCKET NO. 02-13 877 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a pulmonary disorder,
to include as due to asbestos exposure.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
N. Kroes, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from June 1974 to May 1978.
This case initially came before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) on appeal from the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
In October 2002, the Board remanded the claim for a
videoconference hearing, but the veteran withdrew his request
for a hearing in April 2005 correspondence. The Board again
remanded the claim for additional development in May 2005 and
August 2006. Substantial compliance having been completed
the case has been returned to the Board. Since the last
supplemental statement of the case, the veteran has submitted
additional evidence. In a December 2007 informal hearing
presentation, the veteran's representative waived the RO's
consideration of this new evidence. See 38 C.F.R.
§ 20.1304(c) (2007).
In July 2006, the Board granted the veteran's motion to
advance his case on the Board's docket. See 38 U.S.C.A. §
7107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2007).
FINDING OF FACT
Competent medical evidence of record supports a finding that
a pulmonary disorder is more likely than not the result of
asbestos exposure during the veteran's active military
service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
With resolution of reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor,
an asbestos-related pulmonary disorder was incurred during
active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107
(West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2007).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
I. Duty to Notify and Assist
As provided for by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000
(VCAA), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a
claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103,
5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R.
§§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2007). In this case,
the Board is granting in full the benefit sought on appeal.
Accordingly, assuming, without deciding, that any error was
committed with respect to either the duty to notify or the
duty to assist, such error was harmless and will not be
further discussed.
II. Service Connection
The veteran asserts that he has an asbestos-related pulmonary
disorder caused by exposure to asbestos exposure while
serving as a machinist's mate aboard ship while on active
duty in the United States Navy.
Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service
connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed
after discharge when all of the evidence establishes that the
disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).
To prevail on the issue of service connection, there must be
medical evidence of a current disability; medical evidence,
or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service
occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and medical
evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease
and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet.
App. 247, 253 (1999).
The chronicity provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) is
applicable where the evidence, regardless of its date, shows
that the veteran had a chronic condition in service or during
an applicable presumption period and still has such
condition. Such evidence must be medical unless it relates
to a condition as to which, under the Court's case law, lay
observation is competent. Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488,
498 (1997). In addition, if a condition noted during service
is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of
continuity of symptomatology after service is required for
service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).
There is no specific statutory or regulatory guidance with
regard to claims for service connection for asbestosis or
other asbestos-related diseases. However, in 1988, VA issued
a circular on asbestos-related diseases that provided
guidelines for considering asbestos compensation claims. See
Department of Veterans Benefits, Veterans' Administration,
DVB Circular 21-88-8, Asbestos-Related Diseases (May 11,
1988). The information and instructions contained in the DVB
Circular have since been included in VA Adjudication
Procedure Manual, M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2,
Section C (hereinafter "M21-1MR"). Also, an opinion by
VA's Office of General Counsel discusses the development of
asbestos claims. See VAOPGCPREC 4- 2000 (April 13, 2000),
published at 65 Fed. Reg. 33422 (2000).
VA must analyze the veteran's claim of entitlement to service
connection for an asbestos-related pulmonary disorder under
these administrative protocols using the following criteria.
Ennis v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 523, 527 (1993); McGinty v.
Brown, 4 Vet. App. 428, 432 (1993). The M21-1MR contains
guidelines for the development of asbestos exposure cases.
Paragraph (a) lists common materials that may contain
asbestos including steam pipes for heating units and boilers,
ceiling tiles, roofing shingles, wallboard, fire-proofing
materials, and thermal insulation.
Paragraph (b) in essence acknowledges that inhalation of
asbestos fibers can result in fibrosis, the most commonly
occurring of which is interstitial pulmonary fibrosis or
asbestosis. Inhaling asbestos fibers can also lead to
pleural effusions and fibrosis, pleural plaques,
mesotheliomas of the pleura and peritoneum, and cancer of the
lung, bronchus, gastrointestinal tract, larynx, pharynx, and
urogenital system (except the prostate).
Paragraph (d) notes that the latency period for development
of disease due to exposure to asbestos ranges from 10 to 45
or more years between the first exposure and the development
of the disease.
Paragraph (e) provides that a clinical diagnosis of
asbestosis requires a history of exposure and radiographic
evidence of parenchymal lung disease. Symptoms and signs
include dyspnea on exertion, end-respiratory rales over the
lower lobes, compensatory emphysema, clubbing of the fingers
at late stages, and pulmonary function impairment and cor
pulmonale that can be demonstrated by instrumental methods.
Paragraph (h) provides that VA must determine whether service
records demonstrate evidence of asbestos exposure during
service; whether there is pre-service and/or post-service
evidence of occupational or other asbestos exposure; and then
make a determination as to the relationship between asbestos
exposure and the claimed disease, keeping in mind the latency
and exposure information pertinent to the veteran.
When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for
determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in
relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either
event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against
a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. Gilbert v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).
The veteran has submitted a great deal of evidence to support
his contention that he was exposed to asbestos while serving
in the Navy, including on line research, articles, training
manual excerpts, and "buddy" statements. The veteran's
service personnel records show that he was a machinist's mate
who was assigned to the engine room of the U.S.S. Neosho
during his service. Multiple letters written by fellow
sailors detail asbestos exposure by the veteran, and an
August 2005 letter from the contractor assigned with
dismantling the ship the veteran served aboard reported that
after the ship was 50 percent dismantled asbestos disposal
logs showed that 186.35 tons of asbestos had been removed.
This letter also notes that the ship had significant levels
of asbestos in certain areas, including the engine room. The
evidence of record shows that the veteran was exposed to a
significant amount of asbestos while in service.
A December 1999 CT (computed tomography) scan report prepared
by Dr. "G.S." of the Dubois Regional Medical Center was
interpreted to show the veteran with interstitial fibrotic
changes. A private physician, Dr. "A.I.," diagnosed the
veteran with mild restrictive lung disease (January 2000),
mild interstitial pulmonary fibrosis (August 2000), and
asbestosis (January 2001) based on this CT scan and pulmonary
function tests. Doctor "A.I." also indicated in his August
2000 letter that it was likely that the veteran developed
mild interstitial pulmonary fibrosis during service, possibly
related to asbestos exposure at that time. A VA examiner in
October 2000 diagnosed the veteran with mild interstitial
pulmonary fibrosis but could not state with certainty whether
the veteran had asbestos related disease. The VA examiner
and Dr. "A.I." both indicated that manifestations such as
pleural plaques would strengthen an association between
interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and exposure to asbestos, and
that a lung biopsy would provide the most definitive
diagnosis.
Further examination was requested to clarify the matter, and
in March 2006 a VA examiner concluded that the veteran had no
restrictive lung disease based on contemporaneous chest x-
rays and pulmonary function tests. The Board then remanded
the claim for another VA examiner to review the evidence and
identify the precise nature and etiology of any lung disorder
in light of all of the medical evidence, portions of which
were conflicting.
The veteran was afforded this VA examination in May 2007. A
pulmonary function test that day was reported as normal. In
explaining some of the conflicting evidence, the examiner
stated that a CT scan was more extensive than a chest x-ray
and that where there may not be any changes noted on a chest
x-ray they may still be evident on a CT scan. She also noted
that the most recent CT scan, from 2003, was negative. Given
that pulmonary function testing was normal dating back to
2003 and a CT scan dated from 2003 was reported as normal,
the examiner stated that she could not find any objective
evidence of any defined pulmonary disorder. She recommended
another CT scan.
After the examiner obtained a June 2007 CT scan and results
she added an addendum to the examination report which stated
that after review of the actual film with another physician,
she felt the veteran had very mild interstitial fibrosis in
both lungs. She noted that there was no evidence of pleural
plaques that would associate this fibrosis with the veteran's
asbestos exposure. Given that pulmonary function tests were
normal, she still felt it was more likely than not that the
veteran's current complaints were not related to interstitial
fibrosis or asbestos exposure incurred while in the military.
She stated that she could not totally rule out that
interstitial fibrosis may be associated with asbestos
exposure, and explained that she would suspect that if this
were the case there would be evidence of progression
reflected in decline of pulmonary function tests. Therefore,
it was her opinion that it is more likely than not that the
mild interstitial fibrosis is not related to asbestos
exposure incurred in the military.
Earlier in her report, the examiner explained that pleural
plaques help differentiate asbestos-induced parenchymal
disease from other interstitial lung disease. Pulmonary
fibrosis with an associated pleural plaque is more likely to
support asbestosis-related fibrotic disease from other
interstitial lung disease. She also relayed that an open
lung biopsy would be the most definitive diagnosis. As noted
above, the October 2000 VA examiner and Dr. "A.I." also
both indicated that pleural plaques would strengthen an
association between interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and
exposure to asbestos, and that a lung biopsy would provide
the most definitive diagnosis.
An open lung biopsy was performed by a private physician in
October 2007. According to the report associated with this
procedure, two pleural plaques were found.
The current competent medical evidence shows interstitial
pulmonary fibrosis confirmed by a June 2007 CT scan.
Different medical professionals have on multiple occasions
stated that the presence of pleural plaques would help
differentiate asbestos-induced parenchymal disease from other
interstitial lung disease. Pleural plaques were found during
an October 2007 lung biopsy, the procedure that multiple
physicians have stated would provide the most definitive
diagnosis. Considering the above, the Board is of the
opinion that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to
whether or not the veteran's interstitial pulmonary fibrosis
is related to his in-service asbestos exposure. Therefore,
resolving reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor, service
connection for an asbestos-related pulmonary disorder is
warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102;
Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49.
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for an asbestos-related
pulmonary disorder is granted.
____________________________________________
MICHAEL D. LYON
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Department of Veterans Affairs
Citation Nr: 0802538
Decision Date: 01/23/08 Archive Date: 01/30/08
DOCKET NO. 02-13 877 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a pulmonary disorder,
to include as due to asbestos exposure.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
N. Kroes, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from June 1974 to May 1978.
This case initially came before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) on appeal from the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
In October 2002, the Board remanded the claim for a
videoconference hearing, but the veteran withdrew his request
for a hearing in April 2005 correspondence. The Board again
remanded the claim for additional development in May 2005 and
August 2006. Substantial compliance having been completed
the case has been returned to the Board. Since the last
supplemental statement of the case, the veteran has submitted
additional evidence. In a December 2007 informal hearing
presentation, the veteran's representative waived the RO's
consideration of this new evidence. See 38 C.F.R.
§ 20.1304(c) (2007).
In July 2006, the Board granted the veteran's motion to
advance his case on the Board's docket. See 38 U.S.C.A. §
7107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2007).
FINDING OF FACT
Competent medical evidence of record supports a finding that
a pulmonary disorder is more likely than not the result of
asbestos exposure during the veteran's active military
service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
With resolution of reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor,
an asbestos-related pulmonary disorder was incurred during
active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107
(West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2007).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
I. Duty to Notify and Assist
As provided for by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000
(VCAA), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a
claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103,
5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R.
§§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2007). In this case,
the Board is granting in full the benefit sought on appeal.
Accordingly, assuming, without deciding, that any error was
committed with respect to either the duty to notify or the
duty to assist, such error was harmless and will not be
further discussed.
II. Service Connection
The veteran asserts that he has an asbestos-related pulmonary
disorder caused by exposure to asbestos exposure while
serving as a machinist's mate aboard ship while on active
duty in the United States Navy.
Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service
connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed
after discharge when all of the evidence establishes that the
disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).
To prevail on the issue of service connection, there must be
medical evidence of a current disability; medical evidence,
or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service
occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and medical
evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease
and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet.
App. 247, 253 (1999).
The chronicity provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) is
applicable where the evidence, regardless of its date, shows
that the veteran had a chronic condition in service or during
an applicable presumption period and still has such
condition. Such evidence must be medical unless it relates
to a condition as to which, under the Court's case law, lay
observation is competent. Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488,
498 (1997). In addition, if a condition noted during service
is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of
continuity of symptomatology after service is required for
service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).
There is no specific statutory or regulatory guidance with
regard to claims for service connection for asbestosis or
other asbestos-related diseases. However, in 1988, VA issued
a circular on asbestos-related diseases that provided
guidelines for considering asbestos compensation claims. See
Department of Veterans Benefits, Veterans' Administration,
DVB Circular 21-88-8, Asbestos-Related Diseases (May 11,
1988). The information and instructions contained in the DVB
Circular have since been included in VA Adjudication
Procedure Manual, M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2,
Section C (hereinafter "M21-1MR"). Also, an opinion by
VA's Office of General Counsel discusses the development of
asbestos claims. See VAOPGCPREC 4- 2000 (April 13, 2000),
published at 65 Fed. Reg. 33422 (2000).
VA must analyze the veteran's claim of entitlement to service
connection for an asbestos-related pulmonary disorder under
these administrative protocols using the following criteria.
Ennis v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 523, 527 (1993); McGinty v.
Brown, 4 Vet. App. 428, 432 (1993). The M21-1MR contains
guidelines for the development of asbestos exposure cases.
Paragraph (a) lists common materials that may contain
asbestos including steam pipes for heating units and boilers,
ceiling tiles, roofing shingles, wallboard, fire-proofing
materials, and thermal insulation.
Paragraph (b) in essence acknowledges that inhalation of
asbestos fibers can result in fibrosis, the most commonly
occurring of which is interstitial pulmonary fibrosis or
asbestosis. Inhaling asbestos fibers can also lead to
pleural effusions and fibrosis, pleural plaques,
mesotheliomas of the pleura and peritoneum, and cancer of the
lung, bronchus, gastrointestinal tract, larynx, pharynx, and
urogenital system (except the prostate).
Paragraph (d) notes that the latency period for development
of disease due to exposure to asbestos ranges from 10 to 45
or more years between the first exposure and the development
of the disease.
Paragraph (e) provides that a clinical diagnosis of
asbestosis requires a history of exposure and radiographic
evidence of parenchymal lung disease. Symptoms and signs
include dyspnea on exertion, end-respiratory rales over the
lower lobes, compensatory emphysema, clubbing of the fingers
at late stages, and pulmonary function impairment and cor
pulmonale that can be demonstrated by instrumental methods.
Paragraph (h) provides that VA must determine whether service
records demonstrate evidence of asbestos exposure during
service; whether there is pre-service and/or post-service
evidence of occupational or other asbestos exposure; and then
make a determination as to the relationship between asbestos
exposure and the claimed disease, keeping in mind the latency
and exposure information pertinent to the veteran.
When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for
determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in
relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either
event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against
a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. Gilbert v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).
The veteran has submitted a great deal of evidence to support
his contention that he was exposed to asbestos while serving
in the Navy, including on line research, articles, training
manual excerpts, and "buddy" statements. The veteran's
service personnel records show that he was a machinist's mate
who was assigned to the engine room of the U.S.S. Neosho
during his service. Multiple letters written by fellow
sailors detail asbestos exposure by the veteran, and an
August 2005 letter from the contractor assigned with
dismantling the ship the veteran served aboard reported that
after the ship was 50 percent dismantled asbestos disposal
logs showed that 186.35 tons of asbestos had been removed.
This letter also notes that the ship had significant levels
of asbestos in certain areas, including the engine room. The
evidence of record shows that the veteran was exposed to a
significant amount of asbestos while in service.
A December 1999 CT (computed tomography) scan report prepared
by Dr. "G.S." of the Dubois Regional Medical Center was
interpreted to show the veteran with interstitial fibrotic
changes. A private physician, Dr. "A.I.," diagnosed the
veteran with mild restrictive lung disease (January 2000),
mild interstitial pulmonary fibrosis (August 2000), and
asbestosis (January 2001) based on this CT scan and pulmonary
function tests. Doctor "A.I." also indicated in his August
2000 letter that it was likely that the veteran developed
mild interstitial pulmonary fibrosis during service, possibly
related to asbestos exposure at that time. A VA examiner in
October 2000 diagnosed the veteran with mild interstitial
pulmonary fibrosis but could not state with certainty whether
the veteran had asbestos related disease. The VA examiner
and Dr. "A.I." both indicated that manifestations such as
pleural plaques would strengthen an association between
interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and exposure to asbestos, and
that a lung biopsy would provide the most definitive
diagnosis.
Further examination was requested to clarify the matter, and
in March 2006 a VA examiner concluded that the veteran had no
restrictive lung disease based on contemporaneous chest x-
rays and pulmonary function tests. The Board then remanded
the claim for another VA examiner to review the evidence and
identify the precise nature and etiology of any lung disorder
in light of all of the medical evidence, portions of which
were conflicting.
The veteran was afforded this VA examination in May 2007. A
pulmonary function test that day was reported as normal. In
explaining some of the conflicting evidence, the examiner
stated that a CT scan was more extensive than a chest x-ray
and that where there may not be any changes noted on a chest
x-ray they may still be evident on a CT scan. She also noted
that the most recent CT scan, from 2003, was negative. Given
that pulmonary function testing was normal dating back to
2003 and a CT scan dated from 2003 was reported as normal,
the examiner stated that she could not find any objective
evidence of any defined pulmonary disorder. She recommended
another CT scan.
After the examiner obtained a June 2007 CT scan and results
she added an addendum to the examination report which stated
that after review of the actual film with another physician,
she felt the veteran had very mild interstitial fibrosis in
both lungs. She noted that there was no evidence of pleural
plaques that would associate this fibrosis with the veteran's
asbestos exposure. Given that pulmonary function tests were
normal, she still felt it was more likely than not that the
veteran's current complaints were not related to interstitial
fibrosis or asbestos exposure incurred while in the military.
She stated that she could not totally rule out that
interstitial fibrosis may be associated with asbestos
exposure, and explained that she would suspect that if this
were the case there would be evidence of progression
reflected in decline of pulmonary function tests. Therefore,
it was her opinion that it is more likely than not that the
mild interstitial fibrosis is not related to asbestos
exposure incurred in the military.
Earlier in her report, the examiner explained that pleural
plaques help differentiate asbestos-induced parenchymal
disease from other interstitial lung disease. Pulmonary
fibrosis with an associated pleural plaque is more likely to
support asbestosis-related fibrotic disease from other
interstitial lung disease. She also relayed that an open
lung biopsy would be the most definitive diagnosis. As noted
above, the October 2000 VA examiner and Dr. "A.I." also
both indicated that pleural plaques would strengthen an
association between interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and
exposure to asbestos, and that a lung biopsy would provide
the most definitive diagnosis.
An open lung biopsy was performed by a private physician in
October 2007. According to the report associated with this
procedure, two pleural plaques were found.
The current competent medical evidence shows interstitial
pulmonary fibrosis confirmed by a June 2007 CT scan.
Different medical professionals have on multiple occasions
stated that the presence of pleural plaques would help
differentiate asbestos-induced parenchymal disease from other
interstitial lung disease. Pleural plaques were found during
an October 2007 lung biopsy, the procedure that multiple
physicians have stated would provide the most definitive
diagnosis. Considering the above, the Board is of the
opinion that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to
whether or not the veteran's interstitial pulmonary fibrosis
is related to his in-service asbestos exposure. Therefore,
resolving reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor, service
connection for an asbestos-related pulmonary disorder is
warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102;
Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49.
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for an asbestos-related
pulmonary disorder is granted.
____________________________________________
MICHAEL D. LYON
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Department of Veterans Affairs
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Meritorious case or Not: Who will continue the abusive, political, and malicious style of Justus?
Race: District Attorney
Posted October 9, 2010 at 4:33 p.m., updated October 9, 2010 at 4:48 p.m.
Jimenez
Skurka
CORPUS CHRISTI — The district attorney leads an office of more than 60, including about 40 prosecutors and 20 support staff members. The office handles the prosecution of misdemeanor and felony cases in Nueces County.
Republican candidate Anna Jimenez was appointed to the top spot in March by Gov. Rick Perry after the departure of longtime District Attorney Carlos Valdez.
Jimenez is running against Mark Skurka, a Democrat and former longtime prosecutor, to fill the final two years of the unexpired term.
The position pays about $125,00 a year with a $12,000 county supplement.
Anna Jimenez
Age: 41
Occupation: District attorney
Experience: Jimenez, a former English teacher, spent about six years in private practice focusing on criminal defense, juvenile law, family law and probate. In 2006, she joined the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office as a special prosecutor in the child victims’ unit.
While in that unit, she helped secure more than 50 convictions with prison time for child molesters and also tried various other felony cases, including capital murder along with family violence, drug, theft and gang cases.
Gov. Rick Perry appointed Jimenez to lead the office in March.
What makes you the best person for this office?
I am the best person for this office because I have the experience, organization, leadership skills and work ethic necessary to run the office. I have made positive changes to improve production at the district attorney’s office for the benefit and safety of this community in a very short period of time. I am not afraid to be on the front line in the courtroom or in the community doing whatever is necessary to protect our citizens.
Given the budget constraints of the county, what other avenues would you use to increase the starting pay for prosecutors and help with retention?
In order to increase the pay for prosecutors I will use the drug forfeiture fund, the pretrial diversion fund and the income from hot check division. I am also applying for several grants that will bring more funding into the office. With fiscal responsibility it is my hope that we can shift money from areas within our current budget i.e. going paperless has saved hundreds of dollars a month that may be used for the benefit of prosecutors.
What have you done to improve the district attorney’s office and what ideas do you have for the future?
Since my appointment the office has reduced a backlog of 850 cases, opened hot check division, reduced the redundant paperwork in the processing of indictments, brought organization to the drug forfeiture division, introduced a training program for prosecutors, created a domestic violence unit, gone paperless, established criteria for veterans’ court, created a stronger relationship with law enforcement, and sought justice for crime victims.
In the future, I will work to strengthen the team to give victims the expert legal representation they deserve.
Mark Skurka
Age: 51
Occupation: Attorney
Experience: Skurka began working at the district attorney’s office in 1986 while waiting for his bar results. He wrote about 26 appellate briefs until his results came in showing he passed the bar on the first try. He was a trial supervisor in 1990 to 2000 and then became first assistant district attorney. He has tried about 100 jury trials including nine capital murder trials which resulted in the death penalty. He has trained prosecutors, law enforcement and crime scene technicians in all areas of criminal law. As first assistant, he was the chief administrator for 40 attorneys and 25 support staff.
What makes you the best person for this office?
I have the experience, dedication and qualifications for this office. I have the integrity and honesty needed. Citizens deserve a district attorney who they can trust to make the right decisions in difficult cases. I am board certified in criminal law, have over 23 years experience in prosecution, and have dedicated my entire legal career to the protection of our community. A district attorney must be an administrator, a trial attorney and an expert in criminal law.
Given the budget constraints of the county, what other avenues would you use to increase the starting pay for prosecutors and help with retention?
Throughout my time with the office, I have sought ways to improve salaries and help retain attorneys. I have obtained grants to fund a gang prosecutor, a drug prosecutor and a child abuse prosecutor. I did a salary survey of like sized prosecutors’ offices and adjacent counties for the Commissioners Court two years ago. It showed the office is understaffed and underfunded. I worked with some judges to use pretrial diversion funds to hire two prosecutors this year.
What have you done to improve the district attorney’s office and what ideas do you have for the future?
I instituted monthly legal education sessions for the prosecutors; purchased audio visual equipment for prosecutors to use in court; assisted in setting up procedures between the office and law enforcement with checklists, electronic communication, and search warrants for blood in DWI cases. I plan to update the office computers, incorporate better technology and streamline the process for criminal cases. Most of all, I plan to bring integrity, good judgment and decisions based on the law and evidence back to the office.
© 2010 Corpus Christi Caller Times. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Email
Discuss
Share »
Digg
Facebook
LinkedIn
Tweet this
Print
Buzz up!
Also in Local News
More
A bayfront opportunity?
Controversial formula popular
Couples hope wedding will be a perfect 10
Comments » 17
Hide
October 9, 2010
5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
Riptide writes:
I'm a republican and will vote republican except for Anna Jimenez. This woman is power hungry. She want's everyone to know that she is the BOSS ! ! She came on just to strong.
October 9, 2010
6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
50rider writes:
Anna has got my vote! She has shown she is not afraid to step on toes and get things done. I heard nothing but good things from her subordinates and that's what I would want in voting for a leader. Skurka has had plenty of time to step up to the plate but, has never done it! Time for change in Nueces county!
October 9, 2010
6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
wflemley writes:
in response to Riptide:
I'm a republican and will vote republican except for Anna Jimenez. This woman is power hungry. She want's everyone to know that she is the BOSS ! ! She came on just to strong.
Wife and I are new to CC. We trust your judgment on this. Be sure to bring a tea bag to the voting location.
October 9, 2010
7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
wflemley writes:
Does the C-T publish the ballot in time for early voting?
October 9, 2010
7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
boardwalk writes:
The right choice is Mark Skurka!
October 9, 2010
7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
FunSucker writes:
in response to 50rider:
Anna has got my vote! She has shown she is not afraid to step on toes and get things done. I heard nothing but good things from her subordinates and that's what I would want in voting for a leader. Skurka has had plenty of time to step up to the plate but, has never done it! Time for change in Nueces county!
I agree.
Everyone complains about the good ole boy system here in Corpus, well, now is your chance to get rid of one of them once and for all.
Jimenez may have come on strong and probably should have gone about some of the changes she made in a different way, but at least she has the guts to make those changes and is not afraid of rocking the boat.
Jimenez has my vote.
October 9, 2010
8:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
secedetexas writes:
in response to FunSucker:
I agree.
Everyone complains about the good ole boy system here in Corpus, well, now is your chance to get rid of one of them once and for all.
Jimenez may have come on strong and probably should have gone about some of the changes she made in a different way, but at least she has the guts to make those changes and is not afraid of rocking the boat.
Jimenez has my vote.
me three. I don't claim she is perfect, she is still a lawyer after all, but definitely a step in the right direction. I love to see all the strong women stepping up to leadership positions.
October 9, 2010
8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
kiki2010 writes:
in response to wflemley:
Wife and I are new to CC. We trust your judgment on this. Be sure to bring a tea bag to the voting location.
"Power hungry"..no..I had the privilege of watching her in action back in July. Not only did she have me at the edge of my seat, she had me in tears. She is a great attorney and stands for what she believes, and that makes her a POWERFUL WOMAN! She has my vote 100%!
October 9, 2010
9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
erreyes writes:
in response to 50rider:
Anna has got my vote! She has shown she is not afraid to step on toes and get things done. I heard nothing but good things from her subordinates and that's what I would want in voting for a leader. Skurka has had plenty of time to step up to the plate but, has never done it! Time for change in Nueces county!
I agree with you! A vote for Mark will not bring change to the DA's office. Anna has done a great job of cleaning house.
October 9, 2010
9:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
ridley writes:
I think the woman who cleared up the backlog for her resigned because Jimenez had totally politicized the office.
October 9, 2010
9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
erreyes writes:
in response to Riptide:
I'm a republican and will vote republican except for Anna Jimenez. This woman is power hungry. She want's everyone to know that she is the BOSS ! ! She came on just to strong.
Sounds like you have a problem with women in a leadership position. I want a District Attorney that acts like a boss and is in charge!
October 9, 2010
9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
Gatekeeper writes:
May the Best person Win...
October 9, 2010
10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
DrJackShepherd writes:
With all of the corruption in Corpus Christi politics, it is refreshing to see someone who is willing to go against the flow and hold politicians and city workers accountable to Texas law.
Jimenez has my vote.
October 9, 2010
10:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
southtexas1 writes:
Go Anna Go!
October 9, 2010
10:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
PlanoDealer writes:
I know three attorneys who have either been let go or resigned from the DA office and two others still on staff there. Jimenez is a freakin' nightmare. She got rid of those who might rival her politically (take the job she did not win) and threw mud trying to discredit them. These attorneys are fine prosecutors and had GREAT track records in the courts.
Jimenez is one GOP candidate who does not get my vote...and I vote vastly republican. I recognize political maneuvers when I see them...and she's been pulling them since Perry appointed her.
October 9, 2010
11:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
punk_rawk_grrl writes:
in response to erreyes:
Sounds like you have a problem with women in a leadership position. I want a District Attorney that acts like a boss and is in charge!
Sounds like you're making assumptions about Riptide's valid opinion. This is not an issue of feminism, it is an issue of who is the best candidate for district attorney. As a woman, I am all about QUALIFIED, COMPETENT women being in leadership positions, not power hungry nut jobs like Anna Jimenez. I want a DA who leads by earning the respect of his or her team, not someone who "acts like a boss", ie, bossy. Bossiness does not equal leadership
October 10, 2010
12:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
wowitsme writes:
in response to punk_rawk_grrl:
Sounds like you're making assumptions about Riptide's valid opinion. This is not an issue of feminism, it is an issue of who is the best candidate for district attorney. As a woman, I am all about QUALIFIED, COMPETENT women being in leadership positions, not power hungry nut jobs like Anna Jimenez. I want a DA who leads by earning the respect of his or her team, not someone who "acts like a boss", ie, bossy. Bossiness does not equal leadership
And here I am again. Agreeing with you. No way will she get my vote, I have watched her single handed tear the DAs office apart. I have also watched Mark Skurka in action over the years and have seen what he can do. I will take him anyday over her. Come to think of it...I would take anyone over her.
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
2010 The E.W. Scripps Co.
More news from our local partners » Privacy Policy | User Agreement | About Our Ads
Friday, June 26, 2009
How Much To Buy This Mexican Tony? Think They Are Close Personal Friends? No, I Mean Close Personal Friends! I'm Sure Celis Couldn't Attend,... It Was
Definitely Past His Curfew? The Judge appears to be caught in the headlights?
CORPUS CHRISTI - District Attorney Carlos Valdez has filed a motion asking that Judge Manuel Banales be removed from the Mauricio Celis case.
Mauricio Celis was convicted in February 14 counts of falsely claiming to be a lawyer.
The judge in that case, Mark Luitjen, decided on a one-year jail sentence and a $1.35 million fine.
However, Judge Luitjen was removed from the case before the sentence became official. The judge was removed on a defense motion.
Judge Banales took over the case and sentenced Celis to 10 years probation with no jail time. Banales also assigned Judge Richard Terrell out of Alice to handle the cases still pending against Celis. Banales left himself as the judge of record in the first Celis case.
A total of five judges have now handled the Celis case.
The motion filed by the District Attorney raises concerns over what Valdez said are conflicts of interest between Celis and Judge Banales.
In a picture on from the Caller Times, standing side-by-side are Judge Banales, his wife Peggy, Tony Canales and his wife Yolanda at a reception.
Canales represented Celis in his first trial.
According to court documents filed by Carlos Valdez, Judge Banales has had long-standing financial and other relationships, not only with Celis' trial counsel, but also various lawyers and law firms whose conduct is directly at issue in the criminal cases.
According to court documents signed by Valdez, the attorneys and law firms would benefit if Judge Banales were to consider granting new trials in cases in which Celis has been convicted.
In May, Judge Banales granted a request from Celis to remove Judge Luitjen from his first trial, and bring himself to the trial.
According to court documents, Judge Banales stated, I will assign myself the case for "the purpose of the rendition of judgement." Whether I continue after that, "I will determine later on."
According to court documents, in 1993, Judge Banales unsuccessfully sought the appointment to a federal district judge position in Corpus Christi.
Recommendations for appointments are made through a judicial selection committee and Celis' Attorney Tony Canales has been appointed to the committee.
The documents state that a federal judge vacancy will occur in the Corpus Christi Division in the near future.
Judge Banales has two options: to recuse himself from participating in the disputed cases or to refer the District Attorney's complaint to the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court to make a decision.
Court staff said Judge Banales hasn't had a chance to read the motion to recuse himself from the Celis case.
You can read Carlos Valdez's motion to recuse Judge Banales here (Adobe Acrobat .pdf format, 7MB).
Online Reporter: Thomas Piland
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Mistake Occurred When Celis' Name Replaced Lawyer Raul Tapia
Monday, December 31, 2007
I Hope Santa Brought B.A.C.A.L.A a Big Brown Bag Of Asbestos For Christmas!
The Exact Science of Junk Science: Brown Bags, Asbestos, Silicosis
On 10/29/07, J Kenedeno <kenedeno@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------Jack BLACK or is it Black Jack......
It is Judge Jack
And Lungs Black
in twenty or thirty
it will be hard to breathe
and a constant hack hack hack
and that junk science is just a bunch of smack
and for any who claim no harm is done
for you guys by all means let us help to a sack
Silica or Asbestos take one and past the rest to the back
inhale and enjoy
today is today and you are only an employ
Now as the years go by the Golden Years are full of joy
Pleural Thickening, Mesothelioma, Silicosis OH BOY!
If you worked around with the shit flying round in the air
It dont take a rocket scientist to figure it out
U R Screwed because no matter how hard you breathe, you cant get no frickin air.
Pay the damn bill!
WATT is your Corruptor of Choice?
From the menu above, I will take a full order of the Brown Bag Wake Up Services. As far as the asbestos I am protected. I religiously wear the respirator made by Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company.
We wont know until 30 or 40 years later those mask were nothing but JUNK SCIENCE.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ping Lee <CPing.211@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2007 3:03 AM
Subject: Immigration / Amnesty : Is Raul Tapia in Cahoots with Thomas J Henry
To: kenedeno@gmail.com
Ping Lee has sent you a link to a blog:
Blog: Immigration / Amnesty
Post: Is Raul Tapia in Cahoots with Thomas J Henry
Link: http://immigration-ping.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-raul-tapia-in-cahoots-with-thomas-j.htmlWednesday, October 24, 2007
Is Raul Tapia in Cahoots with Thomas J Henry
Gloria Murat; Nando Gómez; Lencho Rendón, de LR Global; el embajador mexicano Arturo Sarukhan y Raúl Tapia, de C2 Group y anfitrión de la recepción. Con ellos a la derecha, Solomón Ortíz , congresista de Texas.
1
Cause Number: 0762218000-1
Case Status: Pending
Cause of Action: ACCOUNTS, CONTRACTS, NOTESDate Filed: 10/08/2007
Date Disposed: //0STEELE, PALOMA
vs. CGT LAW GROUP INTERNATIONAL, L.L.P., ET AL
Num. Litigant Def/Pln Lit. Seq. # | 1 PALOMA
STEELEPlaintiff 0001 2 RAUL
TAPIADefendant 5002 3 MAURICIO R.
CELISDefendant 5003 4 T. CHRISTOPHER
PINEDODefendant 5004 5 D.R.
GWYTHER, JR.Defendant 5005 6
CGT LAW GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLPDefendant 5006
--
From: P Cohen < cping.211@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 4, 2007 3:00 AM
Subject: Fwd: [The Right Hand of Solomon] Solomon Ortiz is operating with increasing bravad...
To: lencho@lrglobal.net , rick@ricknoriega.com , greg.abbott@oag.state.tx.us, mindy.cohen@oag.state.tx.us
Cc: arleen.navarro@oag.state.tx.us , elizabeth.jones@oag.state.tx.us, paula.harris@oag.state.tx.us
GOD knew that Lencho Rendon would be reaching into everyone's pockets, so he punished him with the birth defect of shorter arms.
Ernesto Gomez, the man who would be queen, and Ricardo Longoria, the man who is a pawn, consummated their dirty act by replacing Cris Valadez with Manny Vasquez on the PUB board. The Treacherous Trio of Bill Hudson, Renato Cardenas and Neil Simmons applauded the action as they don't want their impact fees raised from $300 to $3,000, the developers enamored with the sweetheart deal that has provided them with $40 million in profits at the expense of the utility company's ratepayers. Vasquez recently resigned in disgrace from the Brownsville Housing Authority when his suspicious activities compromised the entity's reputation, his underhanded antics, nevertheless, catching the attention of the insiders who need Ernie Hernandez clones to facilitate the shady transactions that enrich the few and cost the many. "This is a sad day for the common man," said Father Jesus P. Cadissimo. "Our council has sinned against the community again. Vasquez is a willing tool content in his role of playing the fool." Vasquez is part of Congressman Solomon Ortiz's machine.
Repudiated by the Corpus Christi Caller on numerous occasions for his unethical conduct, Ortiz is operating with increasing bravado in Cameron County since The Brownsville Herald chooses to ignore his antics. "How much did he pocket on the $21 million heist at the port?" asked Cadissimo. "He is convinced that we're nothing but pendejos and he is going to plunder us." Lencho Rendon, Ortiz's former aide and longtime henchman who resigned from the congressman's office when his dealings were attracting excessive scrutiny, has descended upon Brownsville like a vulture who has spotted fresh carrion. "God works in mysterious ways," continued Cadissimo. "He knew that Rendon would be reaching into everyone's pockets, so he punished him with the birth defect of shorter arms. His life has been a living purgatory because he can't masturbate, but that hasn't stopped him from screwing the border's denizens. Like other felons, he has returned to the scene of the crime. He figures that he can match his take on the $21 million port sting by monopolizing the lobbying contracts of the public entities. Why have we let this fox back into the chicken coop? Our politicians must rest easily at night knowing that we're a stupid people." B.A.C.A.L.A.: Abel Herrero has proven himself and his record is there for all to see; he is a fine representative
Abel Herrero has proven himself and his record is there for all to see. I am proud of Abel, he is a fine representative.
There is a natural law I always like to follow, "If it isnt broke , then it don't need fixin".
On the other hand,
Velacrat is making friends with the Federal Entrapment gang and sycophants up to the ones he believes will elevate his Rose to a Federal Judicial Bench.
Is Fil Vela going into the fraud abuse prosecution racket & the manufacturing of fraud abuse prosecutions?
Inroads (for GOP) into South Texas?
Hurt? Injured? Need a Lawyer? Too Bad!
TLR?? ..................................three little bitty letters;
nah, I wouldnt worry bout em.
0 comments:
Links to this post
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Solomon P. Ortiz: 71, will chair the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee
U.S. Rep. Ortiz remains head of military subcommittee
Local leaders say his position important for area military bases
By Jaime Powell (Contact)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
p-9legislature0110ty ñ Caller-Times Photo by Todd Yates ñ State Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz Jr.(center) shows his father, U.S. Rep. Solomon P.Ortiz, and mother, Irme Roldan, to their seats next to his on the house floor Tuesday January 09, 2007 before his swearing in to the 80th Texas legislative session in Austin.
During his 14th term, U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Robstown, will continue to lead a military subcommittee that local leaders say is beneficial to area military bases.
Ortiz, 71, will chair the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, a position he has held for two years. The subcommittee authorizes a $160 billion budget and has oversight over military training, logistics, industrial operations, environmental policy, depot policy, military construction and base realignment and closure.
"He is chairman of the lead authorization committee for military construction, and it also gives him the added stroke in appropriations," said Dick Messbarger, executive director of the Greater Kingsville Economic Development Council. "It's good for the whole area down here. He has been in that position for years, and his influence and stature just keeps increasing in D.C."
In addition, Ortiz will serve on the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, which has oversight on Navy research and procurement programs.
As a first-term member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Ortiz will sit on both the Highways and Transit and the Water Resources and Environment subcommittees, which as a combination oversee federal surface transportation projects, Army Corps of Engineers' projects, the Water Resources Development Act and many infrastructure improvement bills.
"South Texas continues to grow, and these new assignments will allow me to stress our need for better roads, ports, waterways and infrastructure projects," Ortiz said in a statement. "During these times of economic struggle, we can emphasize how these projects will create good paying jobs in the region."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)