vlb-all-products

vlb-c-file-manual


  • Topics

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,127
    • Most Online
      3,604

    Newest Member
    biorob
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      61,597
    • Total Posts
      397,511
  • Posts

    • I figured $1196.13    I used 50% with spouse and a child (which the child is $40 under 18), then added 130 for an additional child in college and another $90 for the difference for the second child in college.  They don't really have on their charts.......spouse with college aged child so you have to look at the difference between child under 18 and college aged child to get your total.  I hope that helps.
    • A remand is your most likely outcome of a Board decision: According to the 2015 BVA Chairmans report (the most recent), 47.07 percent of compensation cases are remanded, 17% are denied and 31.8% are allowd (awarded).  http://www.bva.va.gov/docs/Chairmans_Annual_Rpts/BVA2015AR.pdf  page 26 "compensation" cases.    In 2014,  only 46% of cases were remanded, so its actually gotten worse for remands according to the BVA chairman. Compensation 15,627 29.7% (awarded) 24,261 46.1% (remand)  10,786 20.5%  (denied)  Thus, the number of remands got worse, at least from 2014 to 2015.  
    • I say hire an attorney, if you feel so led.  NOVA (National Association of Veterans Attorney's) is a good place to start.  Attorney NOVA directory is here: https://vetadvocates.org/welcome/find-an-attorney/  You want an experienced attorney who represents Veteran claimants against VA.   If you take your claims file to a NOVA Attorney, ask their opinion, that is, will they represent you.  Many NOVA attornies will review your file to see if your claim has merit, and then you can decide if you want them to represent you.   As far as cost, there are limits on what an attorney can charge Veterans.  First and foremost, The EAJA pays to attorney fees for many if not most Veteran claimants.    If your attorney charges MORE than EAJA fees, these fees have to be approved by the courts before VA will send the attorney money due to you.   Personally, Im represented by an attorney and my cost is "0", because the attorney agreed to do it just for EAJA fees, at no cost to me.   They may or may not do the same for you.   However, ONCE YOU HAVE A BVA denial, it is usually fairly easy to get an attorney to represent you for "only" EAJA fees.  Reason:  CAVC appeals go much faster than BVA, and, in many cases, the CAVC will be decided within a year or less.    Mine was filed in the spring of this year, and probably will be done before Christmas.   Personally, I have had good luck so far with Julie Glover, who does Veterans law and nothing else: http://gloverluck.com/    
    • IF the VA "reduces" (cuts) your SMC S, then fight it as a reduction.  Remember, VA has to jump through all the hoops to reduce you, and going from 100% plus SMC S, to 100% is a reduction in rating.   File a nod to said reduction, if it happens, and argue that VA did not comply with this, below:  3.344 Stabilization of disability evaluations. (a) Examination reports indicating improvement. Rating agencies will handle cases affected by change of medical findings or diagnosis, so as to produce the greatest degree of stability of disability evaluations consistent with the laws and Department of Veterans Affairs regulations governing disability compensation and pension. It is essential that the entire record of examinations and the medical-industrial history be reviewed to ascertain whether the recent examination is full and complete, including all special examinations indicated as a result of general examination and the entire case history. This applies to treatment of intercurrent diseases and exacerbations, including hospital reports, bedside examinations, examinations by designated physicians, and examinations in the absence of, or without taking full advantage of, laboratory facilities and the cooperation of specialists in related lines. Examinations less full and complete than those on which payments were authorized or continued will not be used as a basis of reduction. Ratings on account of diseases subject to temporary or episodic improvement, e.g., manic depressive or other psychotic reaction, epilepsy, psychoneurotic reaction, arteriosclerotic heart disease, bronchial asthma, gastric or duodenal ulcer, many skin diseases, etc., will not be reduced on any one examination, except in those instances where all the evidence of record clearly warrants the conclusion that sustained improvement has been demonstrated. Ratings on account of diseases which become comparatively symptom free (findings absent) after prolonged rest, e.g. residuals of phlebitis, arteriosclerotic heart disease, etc., will not be reduced on examinations reflecting the results of bed rest. Moreover, though material improvement in the physical or mental condition is clearly reflected the rating agency will consider whether the evidence makes it reasonably certain that the improvement will be maintained under the ordinary conditions of life. When syphilis of the central nervous system or alcoholic deterioration is diagnosed following a long prior history of psychosis, psychoneurosis, epilepsy, or the like, it is rarely possible to exclude persistence, in masked form, of the preceding innocently acquired manifestations. Rating boards encountering a change of diagnosis will exercise caution in the determination as to whether a change in diagnosis represents no more than a progression of an earlier diagnosis, an error in prior diagnosis or possibly a disease entity independent of the service-connected disability. When the new diagnosis reflects mental deficiency or personality disorder only, the possibility of only temporary remission of a super-imposed psychiatric disease will be borne in mind. (b) Doubtful cases. If doubt remains, after according due consideration to all the evidence developed by the several items discussed in paragraph (a) of this section, the rating agency will continue the rating in effect, citing the former diagnosis with the new diagnosis in parentheses, and following the appropriate code there will be added the reference “Rating continued pending reexamination ___ months from this date, § 3.344.” The rating agency will determine on the basis of the facts in each individual case whether 18, 24 or 30 months will be allowed to elapse before the reexamination will be made. (c) Disabilities which are likely to improve. The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply to ratings which have continued for long periods at the same level (5 years or more). They do not apply to disabilities which have not become stabilized and are likely to improve. Reexaminations disclosing improvement, physical or mental, in these disabilities will warrant reduction in rating.   If VA argues they made CUE in awarding said SMC S, well then make them show it was UNDEBATABLE, that you did not qualify for SMC S.  For example, did they do a C and p exam where the examiner said you were definately "not" substantially confined?  They would have to have medical evidence that you DID NOT meet SMC S eligibility, and the burden would be on them to prove you did not meet it.   Also, if the VA made 2 or 3 decisions, and continued your SMC S, then VA is admitting they THOUGHT you were entitled to SMC S, therefore, its not undebatable..even VA is not clear on it!!   Cue is tough for us, make it tough for them, too.  Use their words and ratings against them.  
    • Roger that Navy4life  You did a well prepared Job on your part! other veteran should learn from this.





Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
annahonda

Nexus Statement For Ptsd - Triggers

13 posts in this topic

Hi everyone,

First of all I want to thank you for all the information I get from this site. My question is about the needed nexus statement for a PTSD claim. I recently had a C and P exam and the closest thing to a Nexus was the last paragraph.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

"After reading the C-Folder , the electronic medical records and the medical literature it is reasonable to conclude that the veterans allegations of manifesting PTSD as a result of sexual abuse(victim) are considered credible and the PTSD in question is fully linked to the service. The conclusions of these reports are based purely on the veterans allegations. This examiner does not have independent verifiable information as the veteran never reported the incident."

I have read through the forum that a nexus must read 'as likely as not" or "more than likely". Does this mean that I will still need to get a Nexus statement from another source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Warning Possible ......TRIGGERS....

One other thing that I noticed when I reread the entire C and P Exam was this paragraph:

"The veteran stated doing well until about 1985 when she was stationed in Germany, specifically at Stuttgart and another serviceman that she does not know the name of she can only describe him as a AA/NA male who, more than likely than not, was at the rank of E-5 -raped her "

My question is the more than likely than not the fact that his rank was E-5, or the fact of the rape..? Which is more likely than not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning Possible ......TRIGGERS....

One other thing that I noticed when I reread the entire C and P Exam was this paragraph:

"The veteran stated doing well until about 1985 when she was stationed in Germany, specifically at Stuttgart and another serviceman that she does not know the name of she can only describe him as a AA/NA male who, more than likely than not, was at the rank of E-5 -raped her "

My question is the more than likely than not the fact that his rank was E-5, or the fact of the rape..? Which is more likely than not?

annahonda,

Welcome to Hadit.com .

The "more likely than not" will need to be viewed by the decision maker

as relating to the rape (MST) and not the rank of the perpetrator, in order

to help grant SC.

In regards to,

"

RECOMMENDATIONS:

"After reading the C-Folder , the electronic medical records and the medical literature it is reasonable to conclude that the veterans allegations of

manifesting PTSD as a result of sexual abuse(victim) are considered credible and the PTSD in question is fully linked to the service."

THIS PART ABOVE IS GOOD FOR YOUR CLAIM TO SC PTSD

BUT - then the examiner mucks it up with the part below,

"The conclusions of these reports are based purely on the veterans allegations.

This examiner does not have independent verifiable information as the veteran never reported the incident."

Does anything in your C-Folder, the electronic medical records or the medical literature, of record

support that the event occurred ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did submit alternative evidence on form 21-0781a.

Some of the things included medical reports four months ofter the incident showing suicidal ideations, and depression.

My security clearance was suspended do to work performance.

I have a statement from a roommate in the barracks who I told about the incident, she provided a statement and I have family statements noting changes they saw after the incident.

But I was seen for depression several times during the Army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought, If the VA conceded my stressor, could this statement be classified as a "Nexus" ?

"PTSD in question is fully linked to the service"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would certainly be a favorable nexus statement from the doctor. However it doesn't end with that.

This is a recent remand for a MST claim and the BVA refers to

VBA Fast letter No. 10-25 (July 15, 2010) in the remand. That fast letter should be here under our Fast Letter topic-if not I will find link and post it.It involves how the VA is supposed to handle MST claims.

As you can see the claim diagnosis was re -charaterized in this recent decision:

The diagnosis in this case doesn't matter as much as the evidence.

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp10/files3/1028680.txt

Do you have copies of your SMRs and your 201 file?

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0