This eBook will teach you how to get C-Files (paper and electronic) from the VA Regional Office.
How to Get your VA C-File


  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      60,348
    • Total Posts
      389,826
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Fully Developed Cue
      Winning the effective date is often the most difficult and most legal and biggest legal challenge of all.  The general rule on effective dates is that that its the later of the "facts found" or the date you applied.  But there are many important exceptions to the general rule.   Many of those exceptions are covered here: http://www.purpleheart.org/ServiceProgram/Training2011/W-2 Common VA Effective Date ErrorsL.pdf If you are a Nehmer Vet, then there are anothe set of exceptions: http://www.purpleheart.org/ServiceProgram/Training2013/15-M-Nehmer Phase II - March 2013.pdf My VBM, which is at least a year old, has more than 40 pages on Effective dates, with references to thousands of pages of case law.   I recommend you take everything to a NOVA lawyer, and ask him/her if he can get you an EED and on what bases.   If he says "yes", then you can decide if you want to do it yourself or hire him or others.  
    • Fully Developed Cue
      Yeah.... and then they awarded for PTSD with bipolar....not bi polar with PTSD....PTSD is the primary condition "GAFs between 20-40, with 7 inpatient 5150s."   But they treated you for bi polar and not PTSD.....? Yet you sure didn't get PTSD at some C & P exam..... I think the date your entitlement arose was long ago , when they started to misdiagnose you....shades of 1151.... (that might be one more avenue of approach here) But best to wait for whatever the SOC says......
    • How does one continue ?
      I do understand for Vietnam Veterans their files are older and may take some time converting them to the new digital format and  copy to CD. but once they get the request  they should start the process.
    • How does one continue ?
      How does one continue to file claim without C-File? (Requested twice) not a word from VA INT is ruining out and his C-file has been order over a year now So how would a veteran submit evidence while waiting on the C-file? just send in what he has? but a certain record he needs  that is crucial  in his C-FILE that would put a whole new look on his claim s supporting evidence. Should he file the claim and wait for a denial and be ready to NOD? I'ts not the Veterans fault the VA Won't send his C-File to prepare for his claim.
    • HadIt.com T-Shirts Get Yours Now
      HadIt.com T-Shirts Get Yours Now
    • Fully Developed Cue
      Berta- I just read this reply, I know it's been a while since you wrote it, sorry. VA awarded 70% NSC rating back in 2004 for bipolar.  I was simultaneously awarded SSDI.  That base is covered.  For now winning the EED is the focus, from there, continuity is a cinch..   
    • BVA Appeal from DRO
      "Question?:  Do I give up...and, say the VA has won? "  Not if your evidence meets the 1151 criteria. "Is this what the VA wants me to do?"  Maybe. VA hates 1151s. Do you have a strong IMO?IME that follows the IMO criteria here at hadit? If not, do you have documented evidence that satisfies the 2 key issues of 1151 claims? If so, you still will need...in most cases...a very strong IMO. "  Also, what's the difference between "1151"and filing a complaint with the OIG?  FYI, currently residing outside of the country, permanently" The OIG does not get into claims issues.They would respond to a serious Patient Safety issue. There is a wealth of info here on 1151 claims in our FTCA and Section 1151 forums.. The two key issues for 1151s are: Documented medical evidence of VA negligence/malpractice ( as found in your VA medical records)and Documented medical evidence that their negligence/malpractice caused you to have a documented additional disability ratable at least at 10%. (also as found in your VA medical records, often listed as NSC on rating sheets) The additional disability must have no other etiology but for the proven malpractice (except in a few cases it can have additional etiology such as some of my 1151 claims did but I know of no other cases like that)    
    • Guidance request on C&P exam - PTSD, hearing loss, and tinnitus
      I list the following resources on my website (PTSDexams.com). The first two links are articles (posts) I wrote, published on my site: Advice for Veterans – VA PTSD Compensation and Pension Exam – Advice for veterans who have filed a VA disability benefits claim for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and have been scheduled for a Compensation and Pension examination (C&P exam). Advice for Veterans – PTSD Military Sexual Trauma (MST) C&P Exams – Suggestions for MST survivors to file a successful claim for VA disability compensation benefits, although much of the information applies to veterans disability benefits claims in general. What to Expect at Your C&P Exam – Well-written article for veterans that explains what you can expect at your C&P exam and how to prepare.  What to Expect at Your C&P Exam (Video) – A 5-minute video produced by the Department of Veterans Affairs that describes what veterans can expect at their C&P exam. Exam Tips from a Veterans Law Attorney – Check out lawyer Chris Attig’s 10 Tips to Help You Keep the C&P Exam in Perspective. He offers excellent advice from a legal perspective, which is entirely consistent with the suggestions I provide from a psychologist’s perspective.
    • Fully Developed Cue
      "Constructive Possession" is in Bell vs Derwinski.  I like to call it "Constructive Receipt".  I learned this term back in the 1980's.   Its an IRS term.  Example: YOu earn 35,000 in wages in 2014.  Your boss sends you a bonus check for 100,000 on Dec. 25, 2014, but you do not cash the check until Jan. 4, 2015.  How much did you earn in 2014?  You earned $135,000 because you "constructively received" the $100,000 bonus.  It matters not that you did not cash in until 2015, because you had that check in your hand.  You COULD have cashed it earlier, in theory, even if you got it after all banks were closed.   Besides, you got the money...that it was not in cash, but was in a check is irrelevant according to IRS.  You see, you accept your bosses paychecks "as if " they are cash, each week, because you are assuming his checks to be good.  So, you accepted the 100k bonus and it was constructively recieved.  This helps me understand Bell.   Bell says that VA has "constructive receipt" of those records, even if they were found years later to be sitting in a basement being gnawed on by rats and showed evidence of a flood damage in 1984.    Its not the Vets responsibility to say, "Gee, VA, you really had my records.  Some clerk erroneously archived them and moved them to a basement in 1983 where they were "lost" until the Inspector General found records there in a 2014 inspection"     How would the Veteran possibly know those records were erroneously stored in a basement by a lazy VA employee in 1983?    No.  VA had "constructive receipt" of those records, even if they had no clue where they were.    Its the VA's job of record management in their possession..not the Veterans.   The Veteran has no control over VA employees, but VA does..so they have to manage them.   Blaming the Veteran for records stored in a damp basement does not fly under Bell.  
    • Trentalange and Kelley P.A
      I couldn't determine from your web site if you handle FTCA. There were some large settlements listed at the site but they were stated as 'confidential' and not specified if they were settlements from VA due to successful FTCA cases filed by veterans or by their survivors.  

  • HadIt.com Veteran to Veteran providing FREE information and community to veterans since 1997.

    I am proud that I've been able to offer all that HadIt.com has for free for 19 years and continue to do so. HadIt.com does accept contributions to help with costs we also offer paid ad free subscriptions. None of the paid options are required. The forum, the website, news site and podcast are free and will remain so. If you choose to support the site with a contribution or a subscription it is appreciated but never required. If you choose to make a contribution or purchase an ad free subscription, you can do so here. 

Tbird

"is Due To", "more Likely Than Not", "at Least As Likely As Not" What Do These Mean?

6 posts in this topic

"is due to" (100% sure)

"more likely than not" (greater than 50%)

"at least as likely as not" (equal to or greater than 50%)

"not at least as likely as not" (less than 50%)

"is not due to" (0%)

http://www.hadit.com...help_guide.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




I recently had a C&P where the examiner stated "is as likely as not 50/50"

What would the RO rater do with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a good plus with all the other evidence you have for your claim. Especially, when the rater see's that the examiner is one of thier own Dr.

Good Luck JHawks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is some great info, thanks for posting it.

The phrase that bothers me, and doesn't really seem to get enough attention, is that crap about "unable to opine without resorting to mere speculation". From what I'm gathering, that is a below-the-belt way for a sneaky C&P nurse to basically try and taint any opinions you have from actual medical professionals (not N.P. doctor wannabes). They seem to be trying to use it in the context that not just they, but any medical person could not offer an opinion in your favor based on any medical or historical facts.

Is there any official VA information on that "mere speculation" copout phrase?

Further, and even more exasperating, on my C&P report the N.P. uses the "mere speculation" statement for a number of conditions I am claiming, then each time she proceeds to give an opinion anyhow, just a negative one. So in fact, she is admitting she can't give a valid opinion, but she turns around and tries to shoot me down. Why should her "mere speculation" carry any probative weight whatsoever? At the point where a C&P N.P. says they can't give an opinion, the VA should tell them to just shut the heck up.

I have some great nexus letters from actual doctors. I hope they will be given more value than the rantings of a second-rate digital rectal examiner who hasn't enough confidence in her knowledge to actually offer a true opinion.

JHawks, everything I've seen tells me that when a C&P examiner gives you the "at least as likely as not" opinion, you're probably very likely to see SC for that condition. Best of luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

acesup,

In my opinion, "unable to opine without resorting to mere speculation" is inserted by the examiner so they do not have to spend any more time on your case. Instead, they go to lunch, leave for the day, or whatever. In the case of your NP, they probably were heading to the movies.

Your right about probative weight. The RO swears up and down by having the correct jargon (per T-bird's first post). They will not accept a private opinion labeled 'probably", which in all right should mean 50/50 and they treat it negatively. Regarding "mere speculation", should it also mean 50/50? I had one claim where I was given "mere speculation", but the RO awarded SC based on relative equipoise and a lot of supporting evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, and even more exasperating, on my C&P report the N.P. uses the "mere speculation" statement for a number of conditions I am claiming, then each time she proceeds to give an opinion anyhow, just a negative one. So in fact, she is admitting she can't give a valid opinion, but she turns around and tries to shoot me down. Why should her "mere speculation" carry any probative weight whatsoever? At the point where a C&P N.P. says they can't give an opinion, the VA should tell them to just shut the heck up.

I have some great nexus letters from actual doctors. I hope they will be given more value than the rantings of a second-rate digital rectal examiner who hasn't enough confidence in her knowledge to actually offer a true opinion.

acesup,

The C&P report by the N.P., will more likely than not be signed off on

by a MD.

When the decision maker applies weight to the evidence, hopefully they will pay attention

to the "great nexus letters from actual doctors" realize this puts the medical evidence in

relative equipoise and apply the BOD, in your favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now