• Topics

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Posts

    • A CUE in a recent decision SHOULD be resolved ASAP! It is callous violation of our rights , for the VA to make ANY legal errors at all. And they get paid to make errors...no accountability at all..... I think many errors are deliberate,hoping we do not challenge them....and for some vets, they don't even know a legal error might have been made, an error that keeps $$$ in the VA coffers and not properly in their checking account.And they also might have a vet rep who does not have a Clue on CUE or does understand it but ignores the potential of a CUE 'claim' and never tells the veteran. This is quite a Victory and everything anyone needs to know about CUE is in our CUE forum.              
    • You should get housebound, per Howell.  You should read it.  https://asknod.org/2014/08/25/cavc-howell-v-nicholson-what-smc-s-really-says/
    • This has happened to me over the last year at the Boise VA Med Center.  I won't mention names, but here's what happened. Developed sores on my arms and legs, extremely itchy!!  Figured I'd use over the counter medicine to try to cure it. Saw my Psychiatrist (as I do every three months) for medicine.  He noticed the sores and said "you look like some of the people that use meth".  Gee, thanks Doc. A couple of months later, I saw my team NP.  She determined it was psoriasis and gave me some meds.  She told me to call back if no improvement.  This was around April 2016.  Called back and the nurse took a note.  I can see the note in E-Benefits (MyHeathyVet). Never heard from her. Told my anxiety and agoraphobia therapist about it.  No help. Decided "forget them" and went to a civilian dermatologist, who had a completely different diagnosis. Pretty much the only thing I can count on from the VA is a physical and that my meds will continue to be lowered.  I'm thinking that if Doc lowers my meds once more, I'll seek civilian treatment.  I don't need a Doc that belittles me and doesn't meet my needs. My suggestion to you would be to document it and try to elevate it.  Then seek treatment outside of the VA.
    • This is a must listen. Dr Cantrell is a very good advocate for all things PTSD .     http://www.blogtalkradio.com/haditcom/2016/08/26/bridget-c-cantrell-phd-is-an-award-winning-post-traumatic-stress-expert
    • I agree with J basser, If you were rated 90% IU  getting paid at the 100%  and also 70% for Depression =Meets the Criteria for SMC-S 1 Or if your were IU & Later got 70% Depression They should have gave you the statutory SMC-S- 1 H.B. Depression is a mental rating!  So it would be separate. jmo ........................Buck

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Ptsd Denials

2 posts in this topic

I was surprised to notice today how many legitimate PTSD claims have bee denied by VAROs in 2006.I didnt read them all just enough to wonder what is going on.

This one is good example:


"The veteran was awarded the air crewman badge which is

indicative of combat exposure. Therefore, the veteran is

entitled to the combat presumption under 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.304(f). Additionally, the veteran's personnel records

reflect that he was a lineman/wireman which likely would have

placed him in a combat zone.

The veteran has reported several credible stressors. At a VA

examination in September 2003, the veteran reported driving a

truck as part of a convoy which was shot at, causing him to

lose control of the truck and get into an accident. At a

hearing before the Board, the veteran's representative stated

that the veteran was repeatedly exposed to rocket and mortar

attacks on Hill 837 (and the veteran indicated that they were

shelled every other night for six months on Hill 837); and

the veteran referenced several accidents in which he ran over

civilians while driving a truck. "

Apparently the VARO screwed up on VCAA or DTA regs too:

"In light of this result, a detailed discussion of VA's

various duties to notify and assist is unnecessary (because

any potential failure of VA in fulfilling these duties is

harmless error)."


Service connection for PTSD is granted."

Is it beyond my comprehension why claims like this cannot be properly resolved at the RO level- cant they read at all?

It took 2 years for this decision from the VA and who knows how many more years it was at the RO-with all the evidence needed to award-and then denied and sent to the BVA.

Makes you sure wonder what the VFW (POA on the brief so I assume on the initial decision too) did to help him-

obvious DTA errors in the RO decision as well as probative evidence in the c file-ridiculous!

(The aircrewman badge does not specify combat but the regs indicate what it is for:

Crew Member: Individual must be on flying status as a crewmember in a specified position or non-crewmember in the case of observers, medical aidmen, gunners, aircraft maintenance supervisors or technical inspection)

I believe his MOS in a combat zone was more indicative of "engaged in combat" for the presumption.)

Edited by Berta

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it could be the difference between 38 U.s.c. § 1154 vs. 38 U.s.c. § 1154. Although this is VA law, maybe the BVA reserves the right to discriminate between who was in combat and who was not.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0