tdiu Va Didn't Read Evidence. What Now?

[Sergeant G]

I filed an appeal regarding my entitlement to an earlier effective date for my award of individual unemployability (IU) on March 1, 2011. Last Wednesday, I received a Statement of the Case (SOC), which confirmed the current effective date.

I’m mad as hell because the morons at the regional office ignored the document I submitted as my appeal. Even though they obviously received my appeal (since they responded with an SOC), they did not list the document under the evidence considered on the first page of the SOC. Also, when I visited the (Boston) regional office (RO) in July, I saw my appeal at the very top of my claim file, so there is no excuse for the author of the SOC to miss it. Like I said, morons.

Also, the SOC is essentially a restatement of the rating decision I appealed. The appeal I submitted was 16 pages and thoroughly detailed the reasons why the rating decision was incorrect; however, the SOC did not address a single one of the issues I raised.

Is there a way for me to compel the RO to read the evidence they ignored and have them issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC)? I plan to file a Substantive Appeal within the next 60 days to perfect my appellate rights; however, I don’t think I should have to wait 2+ years for a BVA hearing merely because of someone’s laziness and incompetence at the RO level. Furthermore, according to the M21-1MR, an appeal cannot be certified for the BVA docket if it requires corrective action.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

Sergeant G

[carlie]

Carlie,

Thanks for writing. I was trying to be as brief as possible in my original post, but I guess some background information is in order. Please note the following is a LONG post, but it includes the language from the rating decision, SOC, and my arguments in support of my claim. I appreciate you reading it.

In 1999, I was awarded a 10% rating for depression.

Eventually my condition got much worse and my diagnosis was changed to bipolar disorder.

In December 2007, I filed a claim for an increased rating.

I was unemployed at the time and met the criteria for individual unemployability as outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16.

VA treatment notes support this.

In June 2008, my rating was increased to only 30%.

Question - if your percentage wasn't even increased from 10% to 30% until the June 2008 rating decision,

then why do you feel (that when you filed for an increase in December 2007), you met the criteria for IU ?

I appealed and eventually was awarded 70% in September 2009, with an effective date of December 2007.

Exactly what is stated in the Reasons and Bases Section of this June 2008 rating decision

that increased mental health from 30% to 70% ?

Was ANYTHING mentioned in this rating decision in regards to IU ?

I filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) and asserted that I had an informal claim for IU when I filed for my increased rating.

Why do you feel you had an informal claim for IU at the time you filed for an increase in December 2007

and what 38 CFR reg supports this contention ?

At the same time, I filed a formal application for IU.

What is the date you have (by evidence) of submitting a signed and completed 21-8940

and how did you submit it ?

My application was denied in April 2010 because VA failed to consider all evidence of record. Go figure.

What exactly is stated in the Reasons and Bases Section of this April 2010 denial ?

What was the evidence of record that you feel VA failed to consider ?

I promptly filed a NOD and requested a de novo review and personal hearing.

In June 2010, I had the hearing and presented a mountain of evidence in support of my claim for IU with an effective date of January 2007.

The DRO granted IU in January 2011 with an effective date of July 2009,

which was when I stopped working pursuant to medical advice from my VA treatment providers.

What was the "evidence" you presented at your DRO hearing that supports an effective date of January 2007 ?

I can see here why the DRO adjudicated an effective date of July 2009 and do not see anything yet as to why

a different effective date would be warranted.

Did you get a copy of the transcripts from your DRO hearing ?

The last time I sustained gainful employment was June 2006.

I had a few different jobs from then until July 2009, but they all were considered marginal employment according to the definition in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16,

and, therefore, not gainful.

During the hearing, the only questions the DRO asked focused on when I practiced law, where I was licensed, and non-legal jobs I held.

I am licensed in Massachusetts and was living in Texas when I filed my claim in 2007.

I returned to Massachusetts in June 2008.

Did you get a copy of the DRO hearing transcripts ?

Here is the text from the original rating decision, which granted IU in January 2011 with an effective date of July 2009:

"Veteran contends that she should be granted individual unemployability from 2006 because she was unable to work as an attorney since that time. However, in her hearing of June 2010, the veteran admitted that she was not living in a state where she was licensed to practice law from 2006 until June of 2008. She states that she applied for attorney jobs but was not hired. She blames her symptoms rather than her checkered resume or the economy."

Check your copy of the DRO hearing transcripts to see what you actually stated.

The following is a long excerpt from the 16-page document I referenced in my original post, which was submitted as part of my NOD on March 1, 2011:

"In my opinion, the DRO misinterpreted and manipulated my evidence and testimony during my June 2010 hearing with the intention of assigning a later effective date.

Contrary to the DRO's decision, I did not contend that I should be granted IU merely because I could not work as an attorney since 2006.

I am entitled to an earlier effective date because I was unemployed and had an informal claim for IU on December 11, 2007 by having met the criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), and there was evidence of unemployability in my VA medical records within the 12 months prior to filing my claim and afterward.

Being "unemployed" in 2007 does not equate to having met the criteria for IU.

Again the question of, why do you feel you had an informal claim for IU at this time ?

As you have posted in reference to 38 CFR 4.16(a) - on December 11,2007 you did not yet meet the criteria for IU under this regulation

because at this time your SC'd evaluation was only at 10% and wasn't increased to even 30% until June 2008.

What was the "evidence of unemployability in my medical records within the 12 months prior to filing my claim" ?

I was unable to secure or maintain any gainful employment—law-related or otherwise,

and in evidence I submitted during my June 2010 hearing, I stated that I was unable to function in any work setting.

This was a lay statement made by you - apparently your doctor/s did support this.

The VA Adjudication Procedures Manual M21-1MR (M21-1MR) defines substantially gainful employment as: "employment that is ordinarily followed by the nondisabled to earn their livelihood with earnings common to the particular occupation in the community where the veteran resides." 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 provides that evaluations are based on the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. Considering the foregoing, it was relevant for me to state that I am attorney and to present average earnings for attorneys in the community where I reside. However, that was not my sole reason for being entitled to an earlier effective date. The fact that I did practice law on a full-time basis at one point shows my pre-morbid level of functioning and how, after my disability increased, I was not even capable of handling much less demanding part-time jobs such as graphic designer, life insurance sales representative, cashier, or administrative assistant. Mentioning my occupation as an attorney should have strengthened my claim instead of detracting from it. I could have referenced any one of my several other "occupations" from 2007 through 2009 and I was still not substantially and gainfully employed according to the definitions in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) and in the M21-1MR.

The DRO had a duty to assist me in developing my claim and to grant every benefit that can be supported in law. Most of the DRO's questions during the June 2010 hearing appeared innocuous; however, after reading the rating decision, I believe the questions she asked undermined my claim and were intended to assign a later effective date. First, she suggested that the "economy" or my "checkered resume" could have been responsible for my unemployment and unemployability instead of my symptoms. Indeed, my symptoms—both manic and depressive—are responsible for the "checkered resume" and this has been substantiated in my medical records. Next, despite my extensive testimony regarding an informal claim for IU, the only other questions the DRO asked focused on when I lived in Texas and moved back to Massachusetts, the status of my license to practice law in those states, and jobs I held that were not law-related. Contrary to 38 C.F.R. § 3.103©(2), those questions were not intended to "explore fully the basis of [my] claimed entitlement" or to be advantageous to my position. In fact, ultimately, the answers to those questions were used to refute my evidence and to support the DRO's rationale for assigning a later effective date. "The VA disability compensation system is not meant to be a trap for the unwary, or a stratagem to deny compensation to a veteran who has a valid claim…." See Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1369 (2009). Accordingly, the DRO was not entitled to manipulate my evidence to assign a later effective date. Even according to the reasoning in the DRO's own decision, she failed to explain why she did not grant an effective date of at least June 2008, which was when I moved back to Massachusetts where I am licensed to practice law. Moreover, I would also like to note that even though I presented indisputable evidence of marginal employment (e.g., tax returns and printouts from the Census Bureau's website), the DRO would not agree that my employment from 2007 through 2009 was marginal.

The preponderance of evidence supports my claim. The DRO did not attempt to clarify my position during the June 2010 hearing. If any question remains as to what my contention really was, then the benefit of the doubt doctrine is invoked. At the very least, there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence supporting my position. Accordingly, it is mandated in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 that I receive the benefit of the doubt and prevail.

For what exact reasons do you feel that "The preponderance of evidence supports my claim" for an earlier effective date ?

For application of the BOD, the evidence of record must first be found to be in relative equipoise.

What is the exact evidence of record that you feel represents "an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence"

to support your position, that an earlier effective date is warranted.

Keep in mind that the VBA decision maker is the one with the authority to assign the weight to the evidence.

Sorry - I am tired for now and can not make anymore comments at this time - carlie

Additionally, I did not say anything about my occupation(s) when I originally filed my claim for an increased rating in December 2007. My status as an attorney and where I was licensed to practice law would be irrelevant if the Columbia and Boston regional offices adjudicated my informal claim in the first place.

As previously stated, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.400, I am entitled to an effective date of at least December 11, 2007. In order to qualify for IU pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), the claimant's disability must be severe enough to warrant at least a 60% rating. The Boston RO acknowledged my severe occupational impairment by assigning a 70% rating, which was effective on December 11, 2007. Under the criteria for a 70% rating, a claimant should demonstrate "occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas such as work, …judgment, thinking, or mood…" The criteria for a 70% rating overlaps with the criteria for IU because the claimant must show that she has difficulties performing in a work setting, and not being able to perform in a work setting is likely to prevent a claimant from being substantially and gainfully employed. Considering the foregoing, the Boston RO essentially acknowledged that my condition was severe enough to qualify for IU on December 11, 2007."

I said that I am entitled to an effective date of at least December 11, 2007, which was when I filed my increased rating claim, but, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2), I am also entitled to an effective date of January 2007 because there was evidence in my medical records that my condition increased in severity prior to the date I filed my claim. I addressed this issue separately in the document.

Like I said, the March 2011 document was ignored and the SOC was a restatement of the January 2011 rating decision. Here is the text from the SOC:

"The decision cited VA Form 21-4192's received in conjunction with the claim. They showed that you last worked on July 15, 2009, with a sporadic work history since 2006 working in graphic design, real estate and several menial jobs. The decision noted your contention that you should be granted individual unemployability from 2006 because of being unable to work as an attorney since that time. The decision noted your admission that you were not living in a state where you were licensed to practice law from 2006 until June of 2008. You have also contended that you made bad decisions with regard to career pursuit.

The decision notes your contention that you were told by treatment providers that you should not work. VA treatment records show a letter dated July 2, 2009 in which providers do recommend not working. VA Form 21-4192 from [my last place of employment] show that you last worked on July 15, 2009.

The decision granted entitlement to individual unemployability from July 16, 2009, the day following the date last worked."

Everything I said in my March 2011 NOD applies to the SOC. When I submit my Substantive Appeal, I will also address the comment about me making "bad decisions with regard to career pursuit." I'm not sure what the author of the SOC's point was in stating this. If anything, it supports my claim for an earlier effective date because the "bad decisions" were the result of my service-connected bipolar disorder. I will also note that it was improper to use the last day I worked as the basis of assigning the effective date since my employment was not gainful.

So there you have it. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to read this and everyone's input.

[retiredat44]

pictures most of my medical records.. they didn't even bother to look at my records until I forced them to recognize I have many records...

if they had I would not be going through the hell they put me through..

I posted my photos before, but instead of looking up the post, here is a photo

[Sergeant G]

Carlie,

Here are the answers to your questions.

Question - if your percentage wasn't even increased from 10% to 30% until the June 2008 rating decision, then why do you feel (that when you filed for an increase in December 2007), you met the criteria for IU?

I feel that because I was eventually assigned a 70% rating effective December 2007, I then met the schedular requirement for IU. In addition, I was either unemployed or marginally employed from June 2006 through July 2009 as a result of my S/C disability, and the evidence was in my VA medical records. I should have been rated 70% n the first place, but the Columbia, SC regional office failed to consider all evidence of record and relied on a non-compliant C&P exam. (More on this below.) When I was granted the 70% rating in September 2009, the Boston regional office should have evaluated my claim for IU as well as the effective date of my 70% rating, which, again, was December 11, 2007. When a reasonably raised claim for IU arises in a veteran's original claim for an increased rating, VA must consider a claim for IU if: the veteran's SC rating meets the minimum schedular criteria found in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), and there is evidence of current SC unemployability in the veterans claims file or under VA control. See M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section F, Page 8, Paragraph h.

Once the Boston regional office assigned the 70% rating, I met the minimum schedular criteria as required in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). There was evidence of unemployability in my VA medical records, which were obviously under VA control. My VA medical records include treatment notes such as these:

"She lost her job in insurance recently…couldn't keep up with the daily quota and paperwork…is an attorney…can't seem to stay with a job for very long…now unemployed and having financial woes…has no income to pay for rent and other bills…."

"[Veteran is an] unemployed lawyer, difficulty keeping job…"

"She is unemployed and has not sustained gainful employment since [June 2006]…."

"…My impression [is] that she has been seriously disabled for several years and has been trying to work despite severe psychiatric impairment which has resulted in a series of failed efforts."

"…There is no question that she has experienced significant impairment and severe consequences as a result of this disability…After leaving the military she has been unable to maintain any stability in employment or relationships due to episodes of both mania and depression…She also became seriously suicidal just prior to relocating from [south Carolina] to Massachusetts…The trajectory of her life changed dramatically once her bipolar illness surfaced…in my opinion she meets the criteria for 70% disability. In addition, she has met the criteria for unemployability since June 2006."

These notes alone should have alerted the Columbia and Boston regional offices that I had a potential informal claim for IU. There are other similar notes in my medical records. Also, when I was employed (only part-time), my income fell below the Census Bureau's poverty threshold; therefore, the employment was marginal and did not meet the definition of gainful employment in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a).

"[The rating activity] must recognize, develop and/or decide all issues, whether expressly claimed; implied; informal; potential; mandated; or ambiguous." See M21-1MR Part III, Subpart iv, Chapter 6, Section B, Page 4, Paragraph a. Moreover, when a reasonably raised claim for IU is identified, and additional evidence is needed, the rating activity must rate all other claimed issues that can be decided; show the issue of potential IU entitlement as deferred in the rating decision; send the veteran a duty-to-notify/assist ("VCAA") letter and enclose VA Form 21-8490 for completion. See M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section F, Page 8, Paragraph i. Even if the veteran fails to return VA Form 21-8490, a subsequent formal rating decision will be required to dispose of the issue of entitlement to a total evaluation based on IU. Id. At the very least, the regional offices should have spotted the potential issue of an informal claim for IU and deferred it in the rating decision if they felt additional evidence was needed to support the claim.

Exactly what is stated in the Reasons and Bases Section of this June 2008 rating decision that increased mental health from 30% to 70%? Was ANYTHING mentioned in this rating decision in regards to IU?

No, the rating decision does not address IU because the Columbia regional office only assigned a 30% rating, which didn't meet the schedular requirements for IU. The decision is more than a page long, so I am not going to type it up here. Instead, I will provide a summary. First, the Columbia regional office never sent my records to the C&P examiner. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 provides that "t is . . . essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history." In failing to review my medical records, the examiner did not view my disability in relation to its history. Therefore, his evaluation was of questionable probative value. See Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 305. The majority of the reasons and bases section of the decision focused on the Mental Status Examination. For example, it noted that I was neatly groomed, could spell "world" forward and backward, count backwards in increments of three, etc. These observations are hardly indicative of my ability to function in a work environment. The examination also noted that I "do not have a social life," do not attend church, and, at the time, did not attend therapy. (I could not afford private therapy and the VA did not provide therapy where I was living at the time.) The decision listed most of my symptoms, yet failed to apply to apply them to the General Rating Scale in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Instead, the rating specialist looked only at the GAF score of 60, (which is laughable considering my symptoms at the time), assigned by the examiner during the non-compliant C&P examination. The decision listed the criteria for 30% and 50% ratings and concluded that my disability warranted a 30% rating. There was also an extremely detailed treatment note entered by a VA psychiatrist four days after the C&P exam, which painted a completely different picture of the severity of my disability and it showed that I met the criteria for a 70% rating. The Columbia regional office ignored this note even though it predated the rating decision. Also, when reviewing my private psychiatrist's treatment notes, he wrote, "…[diagnosis] is looking more like 'BAD'…." The abbreviation of Bipolar Affective Disorder is 'BAD'; however, the Columbia regional office said that my diagnosis "was looking more like borderline personality disorder," which, of course, is not compensable. I could go on about the 2008 rating decision, but I believe I made my point. An idiot DRO at the Columbia regional office confirmed the rating decision. The SOC was a carbon copy of the rating decision. I filed a Substantive Appeal and requested a personal hearing, which took place at the Boston regional office as I moved to Massachusetts after the June 2008 rating decision was issued. The Boston regional office increased the rating to 70% in 2009 after the personal hearing. This time, they actually read the relevant treatment notes in my medical records. They did not, however, address the issue of my informal claim for IU, which I raised in my April 2009 Substantive Appeal. Instead, they sent me a 21-8940 IU application.

Why do you feel you had an informal claim for IU at the time you filed for an increase in December 2007 and what 38 CFR reg supports this contention?

I had an informal claim for IU in December 2007 for the reasons stated above. The supporting regulation is 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). "Any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, from a claimant…may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the benefit sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution…."

Case law also supports my contention. A claimant is not required to specifically label a claim as IU to be entitled to IU benefits because the VA has a duty to "fully and sympathetically develop a veteran's claim to its optimum." See Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (1998). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that "developing a claim to its optimum requires the VA to determine all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant law and regulation raised by that evidence regardless of how the claim is identified." See Norris v. West, 12 Vet.App. 413, 420 (1999). The Federal Circuit held that "[o]nce a veteran submits evidence of a medical disability and makes a claim for the highest rating possible, and additionally submits evidence of unemployability, the 'identify the benefit sought' requirement of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) is met and the VA must consider TDIU. The VA must consider IU because, in order to develop a claim 'to its optimum' as mandated by Hodge, the VA must determine all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations, regardless of whether the claim is specifically labeled as a claim for TDIU." See Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1384 (2001).

What is the date you have (by evidence) of submitting a signed and completed 21-8940 and how did you submit it?

October 2009 by certified mail with return receipt. However, a claim for IU may consist of VA Form 21-8940, or any written communication indicating that the veteran is unable to work because of SC disability. See M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section F, Page 4. Therefore, the regional office should have considered my claim for IU even without the 21-8940. My claim for an increased rating in December 2007 satisfied the "any written communication" requirement.

What exactly is stated in the Reasons and Bases Section of this April 2010 denial? What was the evidence of record that you feel VA failed to consider?

There were two reasons for denial. First, that I allegedly quit my job with no indication from my "examiner" that I was unemployable. The other reason was that VA said that none of my former employers returned the 21-4192 forms and that I failed to ensure that they did. Both reasons are false. I "quit" my job pursuant to medical advice from VA healthcare providers and there is a treatment note with a copy of the letter they gave me, which confirmed this. I found it interesting that they found the part about me "quitting" my job, yet failed to see the above-referenced treatment note. As for the 21-4192 forms, the regional office had all of them and this was confirmed in writing by IRIS inquiry with the dates they were received.

In addition to the above, the regional office did not consider other treatment notes indicating unemployability; Social Security records, which the regional office requested and received from the SSA; multiple notices of disagreement in which I stated how I qualified for IU; answers to questions presented to me by the regional office; and federal tax returns, which confirmed my marginal employment from 2007-2009.

What was the "evidence" you presented at your DRO hearing that supports an effective date of January 2007? I can see here why the DRO adjudicated an effective date of July 2009 and do not see anything yet as to why a different effective date would be warranted. Did you get a copy of the transcripts from your DRO hearing?

Evidence presented at DRO hearing: Outline of relevant issues and supporting evidence (included references to applicable laws and regulations); table of authorities; four pages of treatment note excerpts with corresponding dates; diagram showing progression/timeline of disability; copies of four notices of disagreement, which explained how I qualified for IU as of January 2007 and return receipts of certified mail; copy of substantive appeal from April 2009 and return receipt of certified mail; letters from SSA confirming that I am receiving benefits for bipolar disorder; copies of the 21-4192 forms that the regional office was supposedly missing (and response from IRIS inquiry showing that they were received); responses to questions asked by regional office regarding my former employment; copies from the Census Bureau website showing the poverty threshold for 2007-2009; copies of my tax returns showing that my income fell below the poverty threshold for 2007-2009; average earnings for attorneys in my community as reported by Salary.com; and copies of pertinent sections from Title 38 of the U.S. Code, 38 C.F.R., Parts 3 and 4, and the M21-1MR. And yes, I received a transcript of the hearing.

Did you get a copy of the DRO hearing transcripts?

Yes.

Check your copy of the DRO hearing transcripts to see what you actually stated.

I did. I basically read from the written evidence I submitted and answered the DRO's few questions about where/when I practiced law and non-law jobs I held. Contrary to 38 C.F.R. § 3.103©(2), those questions were not intended to "explore fully the basis of [my] claimed entitlement" or to be advantageous to my position. In fact, ultimately, the answers to those questions were used to refute my evidence and to support the DRO's rationale for assigning a later effective date.

Being "unemployed" in 2007 does not equate to having met the criteria for IU. Again the question of, why do you feel you had an informal claim for IU at this time? As you have posted in reference to 38 CFR 4.16(a) - on December 11,2007 you did not yet meet the criteria for IU under this regulation because at this time your SC'd evaluation was only at 10% and wasn't increased to even 30% until June 2008. What was the "evidence of unemployability in my medical records within the 12 months prior to filing my claim"?

I am aware that unemployed does not automatically mean unemployable. In my case, within the 12 months prior to filing my claim and afterward, I impulsively changed careers several times and exercised poor judgment due to manic symptoms. Also, my depressive symptoms interfered with my ability to function in a work and non-work environments. I don't think it is necessary to get into my specific symptoms. They are obviously numerous and severe enough to warrant a 70% rating with IU.

This was a lay statement made by you - apparently your doctor/s did support this.

Correct.

For what exact reasons do you feel that "The preponderance of evidence supports my claim" for an earlier effective date?

The exact reasons are discussed above.

For application of the BOD, the evidence of record must first be found to be in relative equipoise. What is the exact evidence of record that you feel represents "an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence" to support your position, that an earlier effective date is warranted?

I don't really believe that the BOD applies because the preponderance of evidence supports my claim. (See above.) The reason I mentioned the BOD doctrine is to show, hypothetically, at the very least there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding what my true contention really was. Specifically, the DRO said that it was my contention that I was entitled to IU merely because I could not practice law, and that is not my contention. I stated that I was incapable of employment in any field, law-related or otherwise and only mentioned that I am an attorney because it was relevant according to the definition of "substantially gainful employment" in the M21-1MR and 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. (See above.)

Keep in mind that the VBA decision maker is the one with the authority to assign the weight to the evidence.

I agree. However, the VBA decision maker must actually review the evidence to assign weight to it.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Sergeant G

[john999]

What it is is that the VA does not believe an attorney could be IU. They want to believe you are trying to con them. Why would a lawyer settle for VA compensation unless they really were disabled is my question? I have a degree in psychology. The VA accused me of trying to fake a DX due to my limited knowledge of psychology.