Skip to comments.
BOMB WIDOW FURY
New York Post ^
| October 24, 2003
| ALY SUJO
Posted on 10/24/2003 8:14:41 AM PDT by HarleyD
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:17:11 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
The Air Force widow of an American killed last week by a terror bomb in Israel said the military dumped her after she got bone cancer, then refused to pay for any more medical treatments. But after a torrent of complaints from outraged family and friends, the Air Force said it was reviewing the case of Airman Courtney Linde, 21.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: johnlind; usmonitors
"The secretary of the Air Force is aware of the case and is personally taking an interest," said Air Force spokesman Maj. John Thomas. "He is looking at options that he may exercise within the law to give her the best solution possible."
What is to review? This seems like an open and shut case. Give her the benefits.
1
posted on
10/24/2003 8:14:41 AM PDT
by
HarleyD
To: HarleyD
The usual procedure in cases like this is to medically RETIRE the member; providing them full medical care for their condition.
To: CWOJackson
One would think, why the heck wouldn't they take care of it that way?
To: HarleyD
"The Air Force covered the cost of her surgery, but told her she was being discharged because of her illness, which they claimed was a pre-existing condition not covered by the government." The military will not cover any illnesses a person may have prior to entering the service. It sounds as if she might have had cancer prior to entering the Air Force but didn't know she had it and it was never detected in her physical. I say too bad if the Air Force didn't catch. Give her the benefits.
4
posted on
10/24/2003 8:24:04 AM PDT
by
HarleyD
To: CWOJackson
You're right. When a pre-induction physical is taken it is for this situation exactly. The AF failed to detect the problem (assuming there was one) and now they want to say it was pre-existing? Not a chance. Medical retirement is the way to go.
5
posted on
10/24/2003 8:25:59 AM PDT
by
Adrastus
To: Adrastus
Actually, by law they may not be required to cover her medical problems. For example, by law, if you get drunk one night, slam your car into a tree, linger in the hospital for a week then die, since your injuries WERE NOT in the line of duty, the government is not responsibile for your medical expenses. They could legally be passed on to your family.
To my knowledge, this has yet to happen; the service picks up the tab. In my little over 30 years I've never seen them NOT pick up the tab, even for a pre-existing condition.
To: CWOJackson
Certainly that's true, but on the other hand, getting drunk is rather different from developing cancer without knowing it. She didn't go out a purposely contract cancer.
7
posted on
10/24/2003 8:35:02 AM PDT
by
Adrastus
To: CWOJackson
I think the normal procedure for this is medical separation (not retirement) with a lump-sum payment and continued medical treatment, unless it was determined to be a pre-existing condition. (prior to entering the service.) That is what happened to the girl in this case - they must have found the cancer in a somewhat advanced state, determined it must have been there before she entered the service, and called it a pre-existing condition/not our responsibility.
About 5 years ago I had melanoma and had to go through the medical board process. They told me that I was in the area where they normally would retire me if they found I was unable to return to duty (as an E-6 w/13 years in). But they told me it was possible the board could decide on medical separation, not medical retirement. (They got the melanoma early, everything is fine and I'm still in.)
8
posted on
10/24/2003 8:53:10 AM PDT
by
Gil4
To: Gil4
Since symptoms apparently showed up while she was still in bootcamp, claiming that it was preexisting doesn't seem too far fetched.
I think it is the AF's responability to filter out those with preexisting conditions, though, so they are on the hook.
To: Britton J Wingfield
I would think so too, but I don't know what the law says. I could see refusing to cover someone with a condition that they knew about but didn't disclose (to discourage people from joining to get the medical coverage), but something innocent should be treated.
Another thought - I'm not sure of the time line here, but if she was married first and then enlisted, she may have been in the military health system already. Then her preexisting condition should be covered by her preexisting coverage (the military).
10
posted on
10/24/2003 3:08:25 PM PDT
by
Gil4
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson