free_spirit_etc

I am with PR with this one. Your benefits can go back to the day you filed. So waiting before you get all the evidence together can result in lost benefits. When you file they should schedule you for a C&P exam.

The question posted in this forum is different than the question posted before. The question before was whether he would need a VSO. The current question is whether he should file now, or wait. I don't see any problem with starting a new thread to ask a different question. Reiterating some of the history was helpful for those who may not have read the previous thread.

Did your doctor write a statement that said the fibromyalgia is secondary to your PTSD? He would need to provide you with a nexus statement.

Applause! Eric must still love you...

Yes. I know there is a lot in the regulations. But I thought this case was interesting, and might be useful to someone because it covers retrospective evidence.. And it was decided by a panel of judges. No. 99-132 Stephen T. McGrath, Appellant, v. Hershel W. Gober, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Decided August 16, 2000 )

Just be very careful if people are trying to cover their a**. Make sure they don't sacrifice you in the process.

Can you get copies of your x-rays from the VA and have someone else look at them. My husband had x-rays of his neck and the VA said it just showed minor end plate changes. But the next year, the C&P examiner took the x-ray from the year before and made a copy and pointed out the spurs and the calcified anterior longitudinal ligament on that earlier x-ray. Of course, the RO did nothing with the information. But if you can get copies of the x-rays, they might be useful.

Maybe a letter to your Congressman asking for assistance. Something like "While appreciate the fact that the nurse looked at my 2 year old x-ray and told me that my back is fine, that doesn't help address the increasing pain I am having in my back..."

Cover your butt well on this. From the changed diagnosis, to the noting not service connected (that no one can explain) to now not giving you a referral when you complained of increasing back pain because the nurse looked at a 2 year old x-ray and said it is fine.... Something is not good here....

That's interesting. I did a quick research and it looks like they have found a connection between the two conditions. They are actually doing some research on it at Ft. Hood. http://delta.uthscsa.edu/strongstar/subs/rpinfo.asp?prj=11 I don't think there would be a problem with how long it took for a secondary condition to be diagnosed. But your doctor would need to write a clear IMO connecting the two - and perhaps cite some studies.

Odd on the diagnosis. You had spondylisisthesis in the military. I didn't think that went away by itself. I don't use the VA for medical care -- since I am not eligible -- but I read somewhere that if you commnicate with them on the https://www.myhealth.va.gov/index.html system that it becomes part of your medical records. Of course, it isn't the doctor's statements, but you can create a record (i.e. paper trail) of complaining of back pain. Not sure about that -- but read it somewhere.

I am happy for you!

That would be wonderful! When my husband died, I kept his phone on for quite some time just so I could call it and get his voice mail message and hear his voice.

The above case was an original claim though; not a reopened one. I think that makes a difference.

I wonder if registering would mean you can also get the discount online. Some stores will actually give the military discount for online purchases if you pick them up in store. They adjust it when you pick it up. That is a your mileage may vary type of thing though.

In the case I linked to the diagnosis came much later: "In May 1994, the appellant submitted a letter from Dr. Henson. In his letter, Dr. Henson stated that the appellant currently suffered from PTSD. Dr. Henson opined that in 1972, when the appellant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, the appellant was "using large amounts of alcohol, which in conjunction with [his] PTSD, could have presented with similar symptoms. This may explain why you were given a diagnosis at the time of schizophrenia." That same month, the appellant also submitted a letter from Dr. Robert H. Keiter. Dr. Keiter stated that he had been treating the appellant since January 1994. Dr. Keiter stated, "You related to me that you were diagnosed in the past with schizophrenia. In my experience with you, at no time have you demonstrated symptoms indicative of the diagnosis of schizophrenia." In August 1994, the appellant submitted another letter from Dr. Bennett. Dr. Bennett concluded that the appellant had been suffering demonstrable and overt symptoms of PTSD since May 1975 when he began treating the appellant." "The Board found that the appellant had a pending and unadjudicated claim for a nervous condition which would include a claim for PTSD since January 1972. Nonetheless, the Board determined that the VARO did not receive evidence which established that the appellant's nervous disorder was related to his military service until 1992, when he filed his claim for compensation for PTSD. The Board, therefore, found that the appellant was not entitled to an earlier effective date." The Court said it did not mater when he got the diagnosis, or when the VA received the evidence. What was important was whether the evidence showed he had the condition at an earlier date (since he had a pending claim).

I am shocked and sad to hear the news. Testvet was "good people."

I am seeing a pattern in some BVA decisions that concerns me. When claimants file for earlier effective dates - the BVA is stating that the veteran has already received a benefit greater than he should have been afforded because he received benefits back to the date of the re-opened claim, rather than the date of the VA exam or the date the VA received evidence that supported granting service connection for the condition. Somehow, they seem to interpret the date entitlement arose as the date of the exam, or the date they received the evidence. This is an interesting court case that shows that the date entitlement arose is not based on the date of the exam or the date the evidence is received. The date entitlement arose should be based on the date the evidence shows the veteran was disabled, regardless of when the VA exam was, and regardless of when the VA received the evidence that supported the claim. http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/60f5ec1a-28de-42f4-81f5-84ee1cf4cf1d/5/doc/ "However, in an original claim for benefits, the date the evidence is submitted or received is irrelevant when considering the effective date of an award. As noted above, the effective date of an award "shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor." 38 U.S.C. 5110(a). Thus, when an original claim for benefits is pending, as the Board found here, the date on which the evidence is submitted is irrelevant even if it was submitted over twenty years after the time period in question. In this case, the Board found that the appellant had an unadjudicated claim for compensation pending since January 1972. This does not prevent the appellant from using this evidence, whatever date it may be submitted, to support his claim for an earlier effective date in his original claim for compensation."

Congrats for hanging in there!

"And the VA examiner wrote rash..." They have such a magical way of diluting things....

Fast Letter on topic in this thread

Just watch and make sure they don't try to cover their XXX in a way that makes it worse for you. (i.e. start documenting stuff to "prove" that it isn't related to the military to cover their error in making the change in the first place. Sounds like he diagnosed the other doctor correctly....

Try this thread:

Maybe you can ask them to CUE themselves since they counted your marginal income as substantial.

It sounds like you should win your appeal then... since it is a family work environment and you have had to cut your hours, etc. I am not so sure that they didn't bother reading the rest based on your income. I used to believe that they didn't read. Since reviewing my husband's claims I have come to the conclusion that they know a lot more about your claim than they appear to. They know exactly what to ignore (as in, yes they read it and ignored it) and they know exactly what to point out. That way they can deny a lot of claims and know that the odds are against people appealing.