Va Petite
🔞 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Va Petite
Возможно, сайт временно недоступен или перегружен запросами. Подождите некоторое время и попробуйте снова.
Если вы не можете загрузить ни одну страницу – проверьте настройки соединения с Интернетом.
Если ваш компьютер или сеть защищены межсетевым экраном или прокси-сервером – убедитесь, что Firefox разрешён выход в Интернет.
Firefox не может установить соединение с сервером www.lapetite.com.
Отправка сообщений о подобных ошибках поможет Mozilla обнаружить и заблокировать вредоносные сайты
Сообщить
Попробовать снова
Отправка сообщения
Сообщение отправлено
использует защитную технологию, которая является устаревшей и уязвимой для атаки. Злоумышленник может легко выявить информацию, которая, как вы думали, находится в безопасности.
Matching any words
Matching all words
found this...3 min video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtxMVRXrtOM
Nothing yet others info for this?
Is there anybody who can tell, how I can get this Film?
This looks like a film that has slipped between the cracks...
I've been checking on it every few months, and have yet to come up with anything other than trailers or clips..
Here's maybe the best bit of info for any members that might be from France, it's the webpage from the main production co.:
http://www.agorafilms.com/fr/va_petite_
If I lived in France I would call the phone numbers that are available and ask if there is any way to obtain/purchase a DVD of this film...
Another site that might provide some help [as well as a few pix]:
http://en.unifrance.org/movie/23098/va-petite
...And the search continues....
kev.
I once tried to get in contact with the film editor company, but it does not exist anymore. I couldn't get any piece of information about who got the rights to edit the movie on DVD. My thoughts are that the company stopped existing between the time the movie got in theaters and the moment it should have been edited on DVD... My only hope to get to see it is that a channel might show it one day... Hope my recorder won't fail at that moment LOL
Sent another mail today, to Agora Films company. If I can get some interesting piece of information, I'll let you know.
Reasta
Want some good news ? I sent a mail to Agora Films, they answered back today... just telling me in a quick message that they are sending me a copy of the movie via classic mail. Apparently, it won't cost me any cent :p
Of course I'll make a release ASAP !!!
Display: All posts 1 day 7 days 2 weeks 1 month 3 months 6 months 1 year
Sort by: Author Post time Subject
Direction: Ascending Descending
Post
by ghost » Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:57 pm
0 likes
0 likes
( unlike )
Post
by worf12 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:17 pm
0 likes
0 likes
( unlike )
Post
by starfish21 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:20 pm
56 likes
56 likes
( unlike )
Post
by ARTHORIUS » Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:00 am
0 likes
0 likes
( unlike )
Post
by ARTHORIUS » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:58 pm
0 likes
0 likes
( unlike )
Post
by joeybluelion » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:52 am
0 likes
0 likes
( unlike )
Post
by kev » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:00 pm
0 likes
0 likes
( unlike )
Post
by reastavachi » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:20 am
0 likes
0 likes
( unlike )
Post
by reastavachi » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:04 pm
0 likes
0 likes
( unlike )
Post
by reastavachi » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:17 pm
1 likes
1 likes
( unlike )
Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
Style by Arty - phpBB 3.3 by MrGaby
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 19-5815 FLORENCE PETITE, APPELLANT, V. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Argued October 1, 2021 Decided December 16, 2021) Kenneth M. Carpenter, of Topeka, Kansas, for the appellant. James R. Drysdale, with whom Richard A. Sauber, General Counsel; Mary Ann Flynn, Chief Counsel; and Anna Whited, Deputy Chief Counsel, were on the brief, all of Washington, D.C., for the appellee. Before BARTLEY, Chief Judge, and PIETSCH and ALLEN, Judges.
BARTLEY, Chief Judge: Florence Petite appeals through counsel an August 15, 2019, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision denying entitlement to continued benefits under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA).1 Record (R.) at 3-6.2 This appeal, over which the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a), was referred to a panel of the Court, with oral argument,3 to address who qualifies as a “child” for CHAMPVA purposes. Although the parties’ briefing and argument 1 CHAMPVA is a federal health insurance program for spouses, surviving spouses, children, and certain caregivers of qualifying veterans. Under the program, VA pays a share of the cost (usually 25% after reaching a deductible) of covered medical services and supplies. CHAMPVA does not have a network of medical providers; instead, beneficiaries can seek care at private or government medical facilities, including VA medical centers and clinics, that accept assignment of CHAMPVA benefits. See U.S. DEP’T VETERANS AFF., CHAMPVA GUIDE (2021), available at https://www.va.gov/COMMUNITYCARE/docs/pubfiles/programguides/champva_guide.pdf , see also Braan v. McDonald, 28 Vet.App. 232, 235 (2016). 2 Ms. Petite was originally self-represented. However, after the appeal was submitted for panel consideration, her current counsel entered an appearance, the parties filed substitute briefs, and the Secretary filed an amended record of proceedings. All citations to the record are to the amended record of proceedings. 3 Oral argument was held at the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates (NOVA) Fall 2021 Conference in Washington, D.C. See Petite v. McDonough, No. 19-5815, Oral Argument [hereinafter “Oral Argument”], available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TprIbn1Ijsw . We would like to thank NOVA for inviting the Court to hold oral argument at the Conference. 2 covered a wide range of topics, including whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) mandate that certain health insurers who provide dependent care coverage must make that coverage available to adult children up to age 26 4 and whether corresponding changes to the Department of Defense’s Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services 5 (CHAMPUS or TRICARE) apply to CHAMPVA, the issue we decide today is considerably narrower. Specifically, we hold that, to qualify as a “child” eligible to receive CHAMPVA benefits between ages 18 and 23, the course of instruction that an individual is pursuing at a VA-approved educational institution need not be full-time . Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, the Court will reverse the Board’s finding that Ms. Petite was ineligible to continue to receive CHAMPVA benefits because she was not pursuing a full-time course of instruction, set aside the remainder of the Board decision, and remand the matter for further development, if necessary, and readjudication consistent with this decision. I. FACTS The appellant’s father, veteran Darren J. Petite, served on active duty in the U.S. Army from October 1993 to October 1999. R. at 1334. Ms. Petite was born on August 2, 1999. R. at 1335. In May 2008, VA determined that the veteran was permanently and totally disabled due to service-connected disabilities. R. at 97-104, 108-10. Ms. Petite applied for CHAMPVA benefits later that month, R. at 1731, which were granted in July 2008, R. at 1713. She was 8 years old at the time. Nine years later, in May 2017, VA informed Ms. Petite that, to remain eligible for CHAMPVA benefits after she turned 18 in August 2017, she needed to submit evidence that she was pursuing a full-time course of instruction at a VA-approved educational institution. R. at 1710-12. VA sent another letter to that effect in June 2017. R. at 1707-09. Ms. Petite did not respond to those letters so, on August 3, 2017, the day after her 18th birthday, VA notified her that she was no longer eligible to receive CHAMPVA benefits. R. at 1700-06. 4 Pub. L. No. 111-148, § 2714, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-14). 5 Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act of FY2011, Pub. L. No. 111-383 § 702, 124 Stat. 4137 (2011) (amending 10 U.S.C. § 1110b(b)). 3 Ms. Petite filed a Notice of Disagreement later that month, arguing that it was unfair that she was “‘kicked off’ the CHAMPVA health plan at age 18, when other insurance carriers allow dependents to remain covered on their parents’ plans until age 26.” R. at 1699. In response, the VA Office of Community Care (OCC), the agency of original jurisdiction for CHAMPVA claims, issued a decision in December 2017 finding that she did not qualify for CHAMPVA benefits. R. at 1766-69. Ms. Petite promptly disagreed with that decision, R. at 1765, and the OCC issued a Statement of the Case in June 2018 continuing to deny CHAMPVA eligibility, R. at 1665-83. Ms. Petite perfected an appeal to the Board in September 2018, R. at 1636, and submitted a statement in June 2019 asserting that she was a part-time student, R. at 11. In August 2019, the Board issued the decision currently on appeal. R. at 1 -6. Citing “controlling regulations,” the Board found that Ms. Petite was not eligible for continued CHAMPVA benefits because she was over age 18 and had not demonstrated that she was permanently incapable of self -support or was pursuing a full-time course of instruction at a VAapproved educational institution. R. at 6; see R. at 3. This appeal followed. II. THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS & RELEVANT STATUTES The central issue in this case is whether the Board correctly interpreted controlling statutes when determining that Ms. Petite’s CHAMPVA eligibility ended when she turned 18. 6 The problem is that the parties disagree as to which statutes actually control. There are three statutes at issue here. The first is the CHAMPVA statute, 38 U.S.C. § 1781, which authorizes the Secretary to “provide medical care, in accordance with provisions of subsection (b) of this section,” to certain individuals “who are not otherwise eligible for medical care under [TRICARE].” 38 U.S.C. § 1781(a). As relevant here, those individuals include “the spouse or child of a veteran who has a total disability, permanent in nature, resulting from a service-connected disability.” 38 U.S.C. § 1781(a)(1); see Holle v. McDonald, 28 Vet.App. 112, 116 (2016). Section 1781 does not expressly define “child” for CHAMPVA purposes. That’s where the other statutes potentially come into play. According to Ms. Petite, section 1781’s lack of a specific definition of “child” for CHAMPVA purposes means that Congress intended VA to use the general 6 Because Ms. Petite is currently 22, we begin our analysis by focusing on the parties’ arguments that pertain to her eligibility between ages 18 and 23, rather than their broader arguments as to her eligibility up to age 26. 4 definition of “child” for title 38 purposes set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A). Appellant’s Substitute Brief (Sub. Br.) at 12-15. Aside from two exceptions not relevant here, that section defines a “child,” for the purposes of title 38, as an unmarried person who has a specified qualifying parentchild relationship with the veteran and: (i) who is under the age of eighteen years; (ii) who, before attaining the age of eighteen years, became permanently incapable of self-support; or (iii) who, after attaining the age of eighteen years and until completion of education or training (but not after attaining the age of twenty-three years), is pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational institution. 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A). Ms. Petite argues that, contrary to the Board’s finding, she meets the definition of “child” set forth in section 101(4)(A)(iii) because she is 22 years old, she is currently enrolled as a part-time student, and section 101(4)(A)(iii) does not require that an individual be pursuing a full-time course of education or training to qualify as a child for VA benefits purposes. Appellant’s Sub. Br. at 12-15. The Secretary points to 10 U.S.C. § 1072, a statute that relates to the Armed Forces, for his definition of “child.” That statute contains definitions of terms for TRICARE, a Department of Defense healthcare program, which the Secretary argues have been incorporated by reference into CHAMPVA via 38 U.S.C. § 1781(b). Section 1072(2)(D)(ii) of title 10 defines a “dependent” for TRICARE purposes as including, among other things, a child who “has not attained the age of 23, is enrolled in a full-time course of study at an institution of higher learning approved by the administering Secretary and is, or was at the time of the member’s or former member’s death, in fact dependent on the member or former member for over one-half of the child’s support.” 10 U.S.C. § 1072(2)(D)(ii) (emphasis added). The Secretary contends that the full-time student requirement set forth in this Armed Forces statute controls, and that the Board correctly determined that Ms. Petite was not eligible to continue receiving CHAMPVA benefits because she was over age 18 and had not provided proof that she was pursuing a full-time course of study at an approved educational institution. Secretary’s Sub. Br. at 16-19. As support for this position, the Secretary asserts that Congress expressly imported TRICARE’s definition of “child” into CHAMPVA through section 1781(b), which provides, in full: In order to accomplish the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary shall provide for medical care in the same or similar manner and subject to the same 5 or similar limitations as medical care is furnished to certain dependents and survivors of active duty and retired members of the Armed Forces under [TRICARE], by– (1) entering into an agreement with the Secretary of Defense under which that Secretary shall include coverage for such medical care under the contract, or contracts, that Secretary enters into to carry out such chapter 55, and under which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall fully reimburse the Secretary of Defense for all costs and expenditures made for the purposes of affording the medical care authorized pursuant to this section; or (2) contracting in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe for such insurance, medical service, or health plans as the Secretary deems appropriate. In cases in which Department medical facilities are equipped to provide the care and treatment, the Secretary is also authorized to carry out such purposes through the use of such facilities not being utilized for the care of eligible veterans. A dependent or survivor receiving care under the preceding sentence shall be eligible for the same medical services as a veteran, including services under sections 1782 and 1783 of this title. 38 U.S.C. § 1781(b); see Secretary’s Sub. Br. at 16-17. Ms. Petite disputes this interpretation, arguing that section 1781(b) is limited to the provision of medical care, not to benefits eligibility. Sub. Reply Br. at 8-9. The Secretary also argues that section 1781(c) confirms his interpretation because it expressly mentions a full-time student requirement for CHAMPVA. Secretary’s Sub. Br. at 16-
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .
Title
Actor
Scenes Description
All
Advanced Search »
Julie Julien (12) seen topless on the lake.
Information taken from web sites: IMDb Wikipedia Children in cinema Youth in cinema Children in media We also thank all users who send us contributions!
Mistress Flower
Sex Milf 365
Petites Culottes