DRO hearing vs review

[USMC_VET]

I have been "scheduled" for a dro interview, when that will be who knows. 

I am considering dropped the dro interview for a dro review since i have started to come to the conclusion that a hearing wont bear me that much more fruit than a review. 

I have heard in the Pro Category that it is nice because they see your face and not just a stack of papers, however i am not sure if this is that much more advantage given the time it takes to actually get a interview.

I am looking for opinions on the subject to help me make my decision.

[Vync]

Good question!

The DRO is an experienced claims 'expert' that applies a fresh set of eyes on your NOD (i.e. de novo), but there is no guarantee of a result different than previous raters.

If you are very comfortable that what you submitted will be accurately read and rated in your favor, then an in-person meeting is up to you. Due to the shortage of DRO's, it is true that an in-person meeting may take longer to happen because it must be scheduled. In some cases, if you disagree with their findings, you may be able to go back and get a second DRO review before taking it to the BVA.

The problem I have with skipping the in-person meeting is that you place a lot of trust that they will get it right the first time and not miss anything. However, it is still possible for the DRO to ignore evidence and issue a rubber-stamp denial just like a regular rater. Being able to interact directly with a DRO is a rare opportunity. Given the track record of the VARO raters screwing things up repeatedly, why not take the extra time and opportunity to sit in front of the DRO to ask questions and get answers. In the end, solid evidence wins claims.

During my review, I presented each contention carefully and concisely. Things like: Here's what the rater missed. Here's the rating I should have received because of this evidence. Here's the staged effective dates based on the evidence over time. Here's evidence contrary to the C&P findings. And so on. I asked a list of questions to help me understand if I was missing anything, would receive correct ratings, etc... Of course, the DRO said they would need double-check everything and I would receive their findings in the mail.

Carlie, Gastone, Buck52, myself, and others here have stated that it was worth the extra time and had one or more positive DRO experiences. However, Slowlane, Asknod, K9MAL, lotzaspotz, and others have reported DRO reviews as being negative experiences and having better luck at the BVA or CAVC.

If you live too far away, the DRO review can be done by video. Your VSO will be with you, but sometimes they can be a benefit or a detriment. During my DRO review, I felt like my VSO was on my side, really cared, and fought of my behalf. However, K9MAL indicated the his VSO threw him under the bus. Make sure you are on the same sheet of music with your VSO before your meeting. Sadly, not all VSO's are pro-veteran.

 

Here's the VA's documentation explaining how the DRO works. It sheds some more light on what they can and cannot do, the process, etc...

www.benefits.va.gov/WARMS/docs/admin21/m21_1/mr/part1/ch05/pt01_ch05_secC.doc

Part 14 discusses Informal Conferences (i.e. in-person review)

14.  Informal Conferences

 

Introduction

This topic contains information on an informal conference, including   ·   definition of an informal conference ·   the purpose of an informal conference ·   when to schedule and conduct an informal conference ·   requesting, canceling, or rescheduling an informal conference ·   where and how to conduct an informal conference ·   who may attend an informal conference ·   presenting evidence during an informal conference ·   the Informal Conference Report, and ·   handling new issues raised during an informal conference.

 

Change Date

March 28, 2011

 

a.  Definition:  Informal Conference

An informal conference is a tool available to the DRO and other Veterans Service Center (VSC) personnel during the DRO review process to ensure that   ·   all parties understand the issue(s) pending review ·   the issues are focused and clarified, and ·   the record is fully developed.   An oath or affirmation is not used for an informal conference.   Note:  While informal conferences are not part the traditional appellate review process, direct communication with the Veteran and his/her representative is not precluded in these cases and should be initiated in order to facilitate resolution or clarification about matters on appeal.

Continued on next page

 

14.  Informal Conferences, Continued

 

b.  Purpose of an Informal Conference

The purpose of an informal conference is to   ·   clarify the issues the appellant wishes to appeal ·   provide explanations, and ·   identify additional sources of pertinent information.

 

c.  When to Schedule and Conduct an Informal Conference

Informal conferences are scheduled and conducted at the discretion of the DRO.

 

d.  Requesting, Canceling or Rescheduling an Informal Conference

A claimant may request, cancel or reschedule an informal conference in writing, by e-mail, by fax, by telephone, or in person.  If this is done by telephone or in person, the DRO or employee receiving the request should promptly complete a VA Form 21-0820, Report of General Information, to document the request.

 

e.  Where and How to Conduct an Informal Conference

Conduct an informal conference   ·   in person at the RO -  of jurisdiction, or -  nearest to the appellant’s residence ·   by telephone, or ·   by videoconference.   Informal conferences may be conducted in work areas as long as all participants agree on the location.

Continued on next page

 

14.  Informal Conferences, Continued

 

f.  Who May Attend an Informal Conference

The appellant and his/her representative may attend an informal conference at their discretion.   Note:  If the appellant’s representative is an attorney, emphasize ·   the informality of the conference ·   that rules of evidence do not apply, and ·   that leading questions are permissible.

 

g.  Presenting Evidence During an Informal Conference

During an informal conference, the appellant or his/her representative may   ·   introduce evidence into the record, and ·   make arguments and contentions with respect to the facts and applicable law.

 

h.  Informal Conference Report

Use the Informal Conference Report to   ·   document the informal conference, and ·   describe -  all the issues in detail (Example:  The Veteran seeks a rating increase from 50 percent to 70 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder.) -  specific additional evidence required -  a summary of the discussion during the informal conference, and -  the course of action agreed upon by the parties.   Note:  The Informal Conference Report should be placed in the claims folder.   Reference:  For a sample of the Informal Conference Report, see M21-1MR, Part I, 5.C.16.

 

i.  Handling New Issues Raised During an Informal Conference

If a new issue is raised during the informal conference and a decision on that issue has not been made, refer it to the appropriate activity for development and a decision.

[USMC_VET]

This is my evidence submission that was sent for the NOD and updated with a few new things and sent to the DRO as per their letter.  I feel this is strong enough to show that a 0% rating was not correct.

Let me know what you all think

 

I think I will go with a DRO review or informal interview as i see no benefit to a formal interview.  I can record a informal interview myself if need be.

EVIDENCE SUBMISSION August 2015 FULL SIGNED_Redacted.pdf

[broncovet]

I have read much on this issue, even tho I have never been to a DRO hearing.  You see, since I have a rather severe hearing loss, I can't "hear" much of what they say at a "hearing".    This is the gist of what I have read.  

A hearing is good that you can review the evidence the VA has on file.  This is critical, because, we often dont know which evidence they have in their possession, especially evidence since the last time we asked for a copy of the c file.    At the hearing you can take your evidence with you, review the C file, and say, "Gee, I noticed you did not have DR.  Jones favorable medical exam in there.  Here let me make you a copy of mine, so its in the file."  

Time after time, VA manipulates the evidence which is under their complete control.  It would be like if you were suing your neighbor, and you said,  "Here, hold on to this evidence I have against you, and don't lose any of it.  Its the only copy, so I am trusting you to not lose it."   Your neighbor will probably snicker as you hand over to him only copy of the evidence that will convict him, as he puts it in the trash.  

There are many rules as to when the Veteran can submit new evidence.  And, importantly, if you appeal to the CAVC, the RBA is "locked" and the CAVC will only consider the evidence in the RBA that was before the Board.  That's even when it was the RO who shredded it.    Its just maddening to me that we have to trust VA to not lose our evidence, when that is exactly what they want to do.    

  

[Vync]

There really is no 'formal' interview. My DRO review was just in a small office with a desk and a recorder. It's not like going before the BVA.

If you are not sure what is in your c-file, I would advise scheduling a separate appointment to review it in person beforehand. I requested a copy of mine and got it in the mail before my DRO meeting. Knowing what is missing ahead of time makes it easy for the DRO to see you have your ducks in a row. If something is legitimately missing or if the previous rater completely overlooked evidence, you can notify the DRO and submit it promptly. Make the most of your time with the DRO.

 

 

USMC_VET,
I took a look at your PDF and believe they definitely low-balled you. Keeping a log is a good idea. Your records are pretty easy to follow. I think that the initial rater screwed up by not reading your records entirely.

On the 5th page, under Diagnosis, it says "Migraines. Injury due to war operations by roadside IED". You also stated having headaches on your post-deployment form. You have the "due to" right there which would cover the SC part. One of your pages states "Chronic headache disorder", so you got the "chronic" statement covered. The imitrex you are given is an entry level migraine med. Based on the frequency and prostration (laying down, dark/quiet place), I would assume you should have received either a 30 or 50% rating. Having to leave work frequently may qualify you for the 50% level. That whole "productive of severe economic inadaptability" statement is kind of subjective in my opinion.

8100   Migraine:    
With very frequent completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability    50
With characteristic prostrating attacks occurring on an average once a month over last several months    30
With characteristic prostrating attacks averaging one in 2 months over last several months    10
With less frequent attacks    0

The only thing I would recommend is to ask for something for nausea, perhaps zofran, so you can take it with the imitrex.

[john999]

What the DRO process is that you are getting another bite at the apple before it goes to the BVA and you have to wait two years.  I had pretty good luck with the DRO process.  If you have a claim that is really going to bust their &^^% then you will probably lose either way until you get to court.  The really tough claims that set precedents get decided in federal court or maybe at the CAVC.   To each his own.

[FormerMember]

An important difference between informal versus formal hearings is thus. An informal hearing doesn't go on the record (i.e. transcription and inclusion into the c-file) whereas a formal one does. If the DRO is way off base, or, as Bronco pointed out, is unaware of certain evidence/facts, this info will never be acknowledged in an informal review hearing. Your c-file is a compendium of all the evidence for or against your claim. As such, if you are denied at this level, you want it all in the record for consideration on appeal. This applies to hearings only. There is no such thing as an "informal DRO review" under 38 CFR 3.2600.

I cannot point out in detail how important this is in a single sentence. Your appeal to the CAVC, if you are unavailing at the BVA, will consist of that c-file- by then known as the Record Before the Agency (RBA). It will make your case or break it. Nothing more can be added to the c-file when you appeal to the Court. The CAVC can only review it based on case or controversy (law or facts). If you choose an informal review hearing and lose, all that potential evidence and argument is lost on the cutting room floor. There is nothing confrontational about either one (formal vs. informal) regardless of what your VSO tells you. A good DRO Hearing should be confrontational because up to now, you've been losing. If your case has merit, you need to enunciate why  very clearly in no uncertain terms. And most importantly, you need to get it into the RBA on the off chance you lose. Otherwise,  this whole exercise was a complete waste of your time. 

Many of you want the "in by ten out by two" decision as rapidly as possible without thinking it through. VA will tell you an informal review will result in a decision sooner. What good is it to invest that time in a potential rapid denial that endangers the future appeal? In construction, we call that 10 cents holding up a dollar. You are in this for a compensation check for life- ostensibly. Right? Rushing to get a decision-any decision- sooner is narrow minded and short sighted. Do it right. A DRO is obligated to consider everything, but we know from experience and the abysmal 85% denial rate, that they are notorious for overlooking evidence or simply misinterpreting it.

From a vast pool of experience, I can tell you that a VSR, RVSR or DRO  cannot grant a jetgun claim at the AOJ for HCV- no matter how compelling the evidence for. Every one of them is booted up to the BVA. It's simply above their pay grade. I suspect, but cannot prove, that there are other "contentious claims" that fall into this crevasse. In those cases, a DRO review hearing, formal or informal, is a waste of everyone's time as well. You, as Veterans, should be apprised of this information honestly. Sadly, you will not get that honesty from other than venues such as this or asknod.org. This is, perhaps, where some get the impression that I have a negative perception of DRO actions. Every claim is different. Being unique requires a viable game plan carefully fitted to the circumstances.