ptsd New Ptsd Regs

[Berta]

The new regs are so important it pays to bump them up here- I suggest strongly that anyone filing under these new regs read ALL of the info available.

The whole 9 yards of the new PTSD regs are here:

2 hyperlinks and Tbird posted a video.

The new VBM 2010 edition from NVLSP contains an separate addendum and the important part to this addendum is:

It is important to note per the addendum that "the veteran must have been located" either in or within close proximity of the "hostile military or terrorist activity"that produced the "fear of" this activity.

The new reg is Not a "liberalizing" rule and the reg itself is insufficient alone in attempt to re-open a previous denial.

If a veteran's PTSD claim was denied and final prior to July 13,2010 and he/she files a new claims after July 13, 2010 they should give "as much detail as possible" regarding the experience they had or were in close proximity to that led to their "fear of hostile military or terrorist activity."

Edited September 18, 2010 by Berta

[Tbird]

Excellent Berta, thank you.

[Lurp]

Bumping this up again-

the diagnosis of PTSD MUST come from a VA doctor (This has been challenged in curt but no changes yet to the regs)

and the stressor must be consistent with the MOS or their"close proximity" to an event that was a stressor.

In case of any question of the stressor ,then VA will run the stressor through JSRRC (Joint Services Records Research Center)

for val;idation of it.

Isn't there an exception for COMBAT related PTSD claims?

[hedgey]

Please forgive me if I'm being stupid and reading this wrong, but is this all saying that a vet has to have been in combat to have PTSD?

My husband has just started treatment for PTSD symptoms (diagnosed by the VA LCSW therapist) and has yet to see a Psychiatrist or Psychologist (appointment coming up). His PTSD from a MVA in the early 70's. He was on his way to VN, but spent nearly a year in the burn center at BAMC from the MVA instead of from combat.

It reads to me that the VA isn't going to be allowing claims for non-combat related PTSD anymore. Am I reading that right?

I'm sorry if I'm asking a stupid question. I get so upset so quick, and can't process information right...

[Philip Rogers]

hedgey - there's no way possible the VA could just limit PTSD claims to just combat. They seemed, to me, to have just made it easier, for combat vets. It's all about documentation, treatment and nexus. jmo

pr

[GuaymasJim]

I have been reviewing BVA decisions concerning PTSD and fragging events. In almost every case there is a positive outcome. However, I seem to be misunderstanding the use of the new PTSD regs. Many of these cases go back to Vietnam and have been in the appellate stage for several years, but it appears that the new regulations are being applied to them rather than the regulations in effect at the time of the denial.

Could someone clear this up for me?

Thanks!

[Philip Rogers]

By statute, when the VA changes a regulation, they are required to apply it to any claim, that is actively being prosecuted, and then use the regulation that is most favorable, to the claimant, when deciding the claim. The only time this wouldn't happen is if it was stated so in the new regulation.

pr

I have been reviewing BVA decisions concerning PTSD and fragging events. In almost every case there is a positive outcome. However, I seem to be misunderstanding the use of the new PTSD regs. Many of these cases go back to Vietnam and have been in the appellate stage for several years, but it appears that the new regulations are being applied to them rather than the regulations in effect at the time of the denial.

Could someone clear this up for me?

Thanks!