free_spirit_etc

After two years of requesting it - I finally got the Surviving Spouse's Month of Death payment this Friday. I can't take much credit for getting it - as all my requests, IRIS, letters, etc for the past two years kind of faded into "VA space." They used the old "we have forwarded your request to the person who is supposed to handle it" ploy for two years - which I found actually meant "You won't be hearing from us again on this matter." However, I did contact my Congressman - and asked him to check on it. He hasn't received their response yet, but I got my check this week. So I imagine they will now write him a response that excuses the whole delay away as a "glitch" - and I doubt they will address the fact that I have been requesting this payment for TWO YEARS. But the good news is - I DID get the check!!!! Finally..... Hey! Wouldn't it be nice if WE could put a hold on funds in the VA's bank account until they pay us, like they can put a hold on ours? Free

Pete, Could you tell me what you meant by "checked into" my question? Does that mean you actually checked into my question - and asked someone who is "in the know" to clarify if the tax reduction APPLIES to ALL disabled vets, and not just those who were certified disabled at discharge? Or does that mean you re-read the law and it is your opinion it will apply to everyone? I am concerned because it seems like the issues are being clouded here. One issue involves the percent of the reduction. I agree with you that the law is very clear that the percent of the reduction is based on the percent of disability from the VA. However, the other issue is who actually qualifies for the reduction. It is THAT part of the issue that concerns me. The percentage has nothing to do with WHO is eligible. It only applies once eligibily is established. So again, I am not clear on what you meant by the statement you checked into my question. I am not trying to be difficult. I have merely been in this position several times before, though it was mostly in regard to Union negotiations. I point out something the law / rule / proposal actually STATES - and the fact that it could lead to a problem. But I am often met with people intepreting the law / rule / proposal differently (mostly interpreting it more like they WANT it to be, rather than how it actually reads). And of course, they think I am taking it too literally - disregard the warnings - and move forward. Unfortunately, the law / rule / proposal is often passed - and unfortunately it usually means what I said it meant - and unfortunately everyone then starts complaining about how the other side is "screwing us over" because they are interpreting the law / rule / proposal EXACTLY as it is WRITTEN. I would prefer to NOT see all your hard work go down the tubes in this case. I would prefer to NOT have to hear stories of how the Illinois disabled vets went to apply for their property tax reduction and were denied the reduction (despite the fact the VA has awarded them a certain percentage of disability) because they did not have a letter from their branch of the military certifying that they were disabled (as the law states is required to be defined as a "disabled veteran" for the purpose of this law). If Congress intends for the law to cover ALL disabled vets, I think the law could be stated more clearly in that respect. If Congress does not intend for this to cover all disabled vets - I think we shoud know that upfront. Again, I am not clear on what your statement you checked out my question meant - as your answer addresses the amount of the reduction, when my question was about the actual eligibility. Free

Bronco - I don't think my claim has been farmed out to Nashville. My IRIS on other issues still go through the IRIS response center - and get routed to Chicago. Someone at the IRIS response center answers - and lets me know that they have routed it to Chicago. But the ones that I send and use the Survivor Month of Death Payment link go straight to the VA NASHMOD unit - and they NEVER answer. It sure is a heck on an outreach program - when they route the month of death inquiries directly to a unit that never answers. Par for the course, I suppose. By the way - I actually DID get my check this week (most likely due to the Congressional Inquiry). Free

Thanks Sharon, I actually did contact my Congressman in mid-January. He sent a letter in my behalf. But I always got responses to my IRIS before now. I had even wondered if they didn't answer me, because they were going to answer the Congressman. I still have not received an answer to any of the three IRIS - But I DID get the check for the month of death payment on Friday. Free

Can you just GO to the pain clinic - and tell them you NEED to be seen? Though they may say you need an appointment - I would think they may have to see you at some point - or someone might have to do something! Free

I used the Complaint Clicker last Tuesday to complain that the VA had never responded to my February 3 IRIS that was following up on my January 19 IRIS that the VA never responded to. So far, they have not responded to my complaint either. The complaint was routed to the 'VBA NASHMOD'as were the first two inquiries. Does anyone know what this unit is. I think it has something to do with the Inquiries being about the month of death payment. Are they that swamped - or are the still ignoring the widows? Free

The VA website does say that FOIA requests can be faxed, though they require a signature: https://iris.va.gov/Scripts/iris.cfg/php.ex...nduser/home.php "FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests FOIA requests must be in writing and signed by the person submitting the request. VA does not accept requests via the Internet or by email. Only signed requests received by postal mail or fax will be accepted." Free

That REALLY sucks then!! The lawyer got paid way before you did? Geez... Hopefully the lawyer can get this straightened out pretty quickly. And hopefully they can pay you what they THINK they owe you - and not hold the whole thing up while figuring the rest of it out. I am appalled that people who make a living figuring these things out do it so poorly sometimes. Similar to them thinking you were drawing Worker's Comp - when you weren't --- Back when my son was under 18 - they did an offset for Child Support on his SSI. The Court records clearly showed that my ex was ordered to pay $237 per month and was paying $50 per month. The print out each month showed: Support Ordered - $237 / Support Paid - $50 / Arrearage - $187 Then it kept a running total of the arrearage. Social Security sent us a notice that his benefits were being reduced based on the FULL amount of support - even the part that he wasn't getting. I got print-outs from the court - took them to the office and SHOWED them - SEE!! He is NOT GETTING $237 a month. That is what is ORDERED! He is GETTING $50 a month. That is what is being PAID! Even when I showed it to them in black and white - the worker kept telling me - But the $237 has been CONFIRMED! We have an employee whose job it is to go to the court house and CONFIRM these things. (I think they just pull it up on the computer now). I eventually won - but had a hard time convincing them that what had already been "confirmed" was not true. I think once and SSA employee "confirms" something - they don't even have to document much about it EXCEPT that it has been confirmed. I was appalled that the employee whose JOB IT WAS to confirm these things didn't even know how to read the records at the court. I have no idea how many children who received child support (but did not get the full amount) also had their benefits reduced because the employee only went by the amount ordered, and didn't even know how to look to see if the child had actually RECEIVED it. But again - it is hard for them to see past what they have already "confirmed." And again - I hope your lawyer can get this straightened out pretty quickly. Which leads me to my next question - As your attorney was paid a portion of your back benefits -will his services include following through with this part at no extra charge, or will you have to pay more to get this settled? Free

Man! That sucks!! I think they do a Worker's Comp offset for Social Security. But you said that they had you down as receiving Worker's Comp for the last three years. Were you NOT getting it? If so - you can appeal the amount, and have it recalculated. I am not sure how long this will take though. And it has been my experience that once SSA makes a decision, they somehow keep gravitating back to it. Quite a few years back - they said my son had been over paid SSI, based on my income (that was "deemed" to him while he was under 18). But they based that decision on what they ESTIMATED my earnings were. They began taking $50 a month out of his checks. I took in PROOF of my earnings. They told me that the estimates had been "confirmed" and they didn't know if they could change it. ???? How in the world can you CONFIRM an estimate??? And why in the world were they using estimates when they can pull up actual pay records? Anyway - I finally got them to accept the proof - and they sent us a check for over $900 (money that they had taken away in error. Guess what? The NEXT month - we got a letter that he had been OVERPAID - the EXACT amount of the check they had just sent us. So they didn't change SOMETHING in the record - sent us the check - and then considered it an overpayment. It was an obvious error - but I didn't fight it back then. I just figured they would keep going through the same loop, giving it to us and then wanting it back. So I figured I might as well let them take it back then if they wanted it that bad. Today - I woud fight it. Thank God for places like hadit and even the internet. Back then, you had to go to the library and look in the law books to find anything out. Free

Thanks Pete! Very confusing to me too! But the battle has shown me that the key to winning is in noticing what they choose to ignore. It seems to be a matter of getting them to acknowledge something - because once they acknowledge it - they have to let you win. In this case, they ignored my son's legal adoption. My husband legally adopted my son. We had one final hearing to go when my husband died. But in our state, adoptions proceed to final judgement even if one of the parties dies in the interum. (i.e. the child and the other adopting parent aren't "penalized" by the other parent's death). Social Security kept giving me reasons my son did not qualify as a stepchild, equitably adopted child, or child adopted by the number holder's surviving spouse. But it took me MANY times of reading the reconsideration to realize they had NOT made a determination in regard to whether he qualified as a LEGALLY ADOPTED child. They remained totally silent on the issue. They didn't even try to say "You don't qualify as a legally adopted child, as your legal adoption was not final until after the number holder's death" because he was certainly my husband's legally adopted child - and as a legally adopted child he DID qualify! There were no policies to interpret, no weight to be given to any evidence - it was cut and dried. So they just IGNORED the legal adoption in the decisions. They remained totally silent on the issue!!!! I even pointed out that they had remained silent on the issue I asked that they make an INTIAL determination as to my son's status as a legally adopted child, submitting the question to Regional Council for a legal opinion if neccessary. Their response to that was - “The question is reserved as to whether you can be validly adopted in Illinois solely by your natural mother after her husband’s death.” They really dug in and made sure that they danced all around the fact that my son was my husband's legally adopted child. Because once they admitted that he was they could no longer find any basis (whether valid or not) to deny him benefits. I firmly believe that the key to winning a claim often lies in the issues they choose to ignore. I also firmly believe that when they play such games as choosing to ignore an issue - especially when you directly point it out and ask for a decision on that issue - that they are INTENTIONALLY trying to deny you benefits to which they know you are entitled. I also beleive that is unethical. Free

A list of who to notify is good too. I was so overwhelmed - and contacted who I could - and asked them to contact others - but I know that many people never got notified. Yet there were a few people that came to the funeral from a couple of states away - that had served with my husband at some time - and they shared there stories - and we were so blessed to have them there. I was so touched that they got the news in the morning - hopped in their car and headed to honor my husband. Free

My son got his hearing decision on his claim for Survivor Benefits on my husband's record. He will get the Adult Disabled Child benefits - and move over from SSI to SSD. The decision wasn't fully favorable - as it only goes back to May 1, 2007 - instead of February 2007. They approved benefits as a legally adopted child as of May 1, 2007 - but not as an equitably adopted child or a step-child in the interim. We sure had to fight hard to get there. They played some real power games all along. But we ung in there - thanks to all the fine people who kept rooting for us here at hadit! I haven't heard on my claim yet. I thought they were going to decide it. But now I hear they are going to schedule it for a hearing. So - that isn't a real good sign. Because the judge said he could make a decision on my claim IF it would be favorable. And they had me run the paperwork over there ASAP! But then, it kind of dropped - and I am told they will schedule a hearing. So that means (to me) they decided they couldn't make a fully favorable decision. Not sure why. Free

I am having trouble understanding this part. My son attempted to apply for survivor benefits Feb 21, 2007. Long story involved, but he was eventually given an appointment for March 16, 2007. He was denied on April 7, 2007. We appealed that decision April 20, 2007. Social Security had him fill out a new application May 18, 2007 (as his legal adoption was finalized) but we did not drop the appeal of the previous decision. That application was denied June 29, 2007. We appealed that decision July 11, 2007. He received a reconsideration on October 15, 2007. The October 15, 2007 reconsideration stated it was covering all applications up to that point. He was also received another reconsideration (denied) December 10, 2008 as part of MY reconsideration. We requested an ALJ Hearing December 14, 2007. My son's hearing was last month. The part I am having trouble understanding is that the Judges decision from hearing discusses all the dates (above) (with the exception that it says he filed a new application even though he was within the time frame for appealing the first decision -- which would lead me to believe that April appeal disappeared somewhere.) BUT the judge's decision SPECIFIED that he was only adjudicating the February 21, 2007 (protctive filing date) decision. It states in one place "The February 21, 2007 application is the application being adjudicated by this hearing decision." Later in the paragraph it states "This decision is only adjudicating the claimant's February 21, 2007 (the protected filing date) application for child's insurance benefits." Does anyone understand that? Why, if the issues were basically the same, the judge singled out only one application to adjudicate? And does that mean that other application is still "open" - as he did receive a reconsideration - and he did request a hearing? It seems kind of odd that the specify they are adjudicating the decision they don't mention was initially appealed. I am not quite sure what the specificity of the one application being adjudicated actually means. Free

The decision was not quite as favorable as I was expecting - but was VERY favorable! The favorable part - my son was approved for Survivor's Benefits as an Adult Disabled Child on my husband's record. He has been on SSI since 1993 (at age 14) - but now he will move over to SSD. He was approved going back to May 1, 2007. The not favorable part - He was not approved back to my husband's death (February 2007). Though this only involves a few months - it also involves some pretty inmportant issues - concerning whether my son was living with and receiving one-half support from my husband at that time. Also questionable was they were all about making a decision on MY claim (for having an entitled child "in my care" and had me run my stuff over to the Appeal Office to make a decision - but now I was told it will be scheduled for a hearing. So that doesn't look like a good sign. Not sure why - but that is all I know. Free

Might even want to contact the Representative who introduced the Bill and ask them to clarify exactly what that means. Free

I am not sure about the counties. And usually each person at the county office will tell you something different. I am VERY concerned about the language on this!!!! Though it says the percentage of reduction will be based on the VA percentage - it specifically SAYS: ""Disabled veteran" means a veteran who was honorably discharged with a service-connected disability and for whom documentation, in any form, from any branch of the United States Armed Forces has been issued certifying that the veteran suffers from a disability." ""Disabled veteran" means a veteran who was honorably discharged with a service-connected disability - *I* read that to mean the veteran was honorably discharged WITH a service connected disability. (i.e. medically discharged.) It does NOT say a disabled veteran means an honorably discharged veteran who HAS a service connected disability. Those are two specifically different classes of people. And because they also tie it in with the REST of the sentence --- "documentation, in any form, from any branch of the United States Armed Forces has been issued certifying that the veteran suffers from a disability." It confirms the intent is for the veteran to have paperwork CERTIFYING the vet suffers from a disability FROM a BRANCH OF SERVICE. I don't even think this is twisted - this is the way it reads. If they want the tax abatement to apply to ALL vets with service connected disabilities - they need to clear up that sentence on "discharged WITH a service connected disability" and take out the requirement for them to have paperwork CERTIFYING the disability from a BRANCH of the SERVICE. The way it is written - it appears to me the intent is to provide abatement for vets who are medically discharged. Other vets might have evidence in their medical records showing injuries and illnesses. But they have NO record CERTIFYING they are DISABLED- EXCEPT the VA record (which you notice is NOT listed along with the Branches of Service). I haven't really kept up with this legislation. So I don't really know the history. Have they DISCUSSED it on the Floor yet? Transcripts from these sessions might show their intent - and how THEY are interpreting it. Free

Pete, Thanks! And yes. I am from Illinois. And thanks for the offer to help. I will sure keep that in mind. I think that HB0273 is much more clear as far as widows are concerned, than the current law. I would be happy if it stays that way. But language changes around when bills are re-drafted. And to me, I would prefer for Congress to be CLEAR that their intent is for widows to be entitled to the benefit, if that is their true intent. I am not certain I agree that the bill cannot be read different ways. ""Disabled veteran" means a veteran who was honorably discharged with a service-connected disability and for whom documentation, in any form, from any branch of the United States Armed Forces has been issued certifying that the veteran suffers from a disability." I can see that being read to mean any honorably discharged veteran who has a service connected disability. But I can also see it being read as any veteran who had a service connected disabilty WHEN they were discharged. Because of the language use - I do not think it is all that clear. I would much prefer - ""Disabled veteran" means any honorably discharged veteran who has a service-connected disability and for whom documentation from the Department of Veteran Affairs, or documentation in any form, from any branch of the United States Armed Forces, has been issued certifying that the veteran suffers from a disability." Actually, since they just go by the Dept of Veteran Affairs percentage, I don't even know WHY they have anything about documentation from the branches of the service. Those documents will nt do any good, without the certification of percentage from the VA. I see, as it is written, vets going to apply, and being turned down because though they have a VA __% SC rating, they were not " honorably discharged WITH a service-connected disability" and only their VA documents show service connection - but their branch of service did not issue any documentation CERTIFYING they suffered from a disability. TO me - it looks like it would most likely just cover vets who were medically discharged. Why not - ""Disabled veteran" means any honorably discharged veteran who has a service-connected disability as determined by the Department of Veteran Affairs." I like THAT!!! Free

OMG! You are SO Sweet - thinking of your wife that way! So before we even TALK about all that red tape stuff - get all romantic!! A couple things my husband did that were such a blessing to me were: 1. Planted daisies!! Mt favorite flower in the whole wide world. And - I didn't even know he had planted them. He didn't tell me. But several months after he died, I walked out of my house one day and was SURROUNDED by daisies blooming - all around the yard. WOW! He found a way to keep giving me flowers!!! Now THAT'S romantic!!!! 2. He got me a CD with a Song "If tomorrow never comes will she know how much I love her." When he first gave it to me - I asked him "Are you trying to tell me something? Are you planning on not being around?" He told me no - but told me that he just wanted to make sure that if that time did come that he had showed me he loved me enough while he was here to last me for always. At first it was hard to listen to the song. I would CRY - just thinking about the possibility that he might be gone some day. But I listened to it many times - and then one day - it clicked in. I was able to tell him "The answer to your song is - YES. - Yes - You have shown me enough love that I will be able to hold it in my heart ALWAYS!" 3. Savored every minute! I still regret some of the times I "wasted." The times I could have done more, said more, listened more, loved more. Not horrid regret - but still get those pangs sometimes of "Dang.. I wasted those minutes I could have spent differently." BUT we DID savor so many minutes. Even in his last days in the hospital - when we weren't sure what the next day would bring - we savored those minutes together. Every night we would say - "No matter what tomorrow brings - I am glad we had today." And each morning we would say "No matter what today brings - I am glad I had yesterday." 4. Kept his sense of humor. Very, very,very,very important. Joy and laughter are beautiful gifts to share with those you love. I know you might have been looking for a bit more practical advice. I am just not feeling entirely practical at the moment. Oh... and the BEST thing you can do for your wife is stick around as long as you can, even if it means forever! Free - still lovin' my husband!!!!!!!

The bright side is that the VA disregarding your evidence has told you one very important thing. That your evidence is very favorable - and should get your claim granted. If the evidence was not favorable, or if they could find some things to take out of context - they would have kept at least one copy. Free

I have no problem with you doing what you do to get it approved. I applaud your efforts! However, I am also hoping that the law will be clear enough that it is not so easy to read so many different ways. And I did write to members of the subcommittee expressing my concern. And I certainly hope you live long enough that all the baby steps needed can be taken to get it to where it needs to go. Some of our husband's didn't. Free

The major concern I have on the current law, is in how it is being applied. As I read the actual law, it passes the right to the exemption on to the surviving spouse, without specifying the actual exemption, itself, had to be received (or applied for) during the veteran’s lifetime. However, upon a visit to my County Courthouse I was informed that the standard disabled vet exemption only carries over to the surviving spouse IF the veteran was granted the actual exemption during his / her lifetime. Considering the backlog of claims -- NOT good. Even if a widow is granted DIC because her husband's death was the result of a service connected condition - she cannot get the exemption UNLESS he had been able to get the condition service connected and apply for the exemption during his lifetime. Free

I guess they don't read either. But for the price you paid - they SHOULD read it. I am beginning to think that mail stands a better chance of being delivered properly with just a stamp. My mailman brought a package to my door Saturday. When I left home Sunday, I noticed the flag still up on my mailbox. The mail I was sending was still in there. Well dang... I would have run it by the Post Office if I knew he wasn't going to pick it up. Free

http://www1.va.gov/VHAPUBLICATIONS/ViewPub...asp?pub_ID=1391 Department of Veterans Affairs VHA DIRECTIVE 2006-013 Veterans Health Administration Washington, DC 20420 March 7, 2006 QUALIFICATIONS FOR EXAMINERS PERFORMING COMPENSATION AND PENSION (C&P) MENTAL DISORDER EXAMINATIONS 1. PURPOSE: This Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive establishes policy for VHA clinicians and managers regarding the professional qualifications required to perform Compensation and Pension (C&P) examinations for mental disorders. 2. BACKGROUND a. On February 9, 2005, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) issued C&P Fast Letter 05-01, Qualifications for Examiners Performing Compensation and Pension (C&P) Mental Disorder Examinations. C&P Fast Letter 06-03 revises those instructions and provides additional guidance. This VHA Directive is issued concomitantly to provide congruent directions to VHA personnel. b. The objective of a C&P mental disorder examination is to obtain competent, critical, objective, and unbiased results. To ensure that examination providers are competent to provide findings and opinions that are valid and necessary for rating purposes, individuals who conduct C&P mental disorder examinations must have specific qualifications. As discussed in subparagraphs 4a and 4b, only certain individuals are permitted to conduct initial mental disorder examinations. In addition to those individuals, certain other individuals are permitted to conduct review or increase mental disorder examinations as discussed in subparagraph 4c. c. To maintain the integrity of the patient-provider relationship, it is preferable that a veteran’s treating physician not perform the C&P examination for mental disorder. 3. POLICY: It is VHA policy that each mental health professional who conducts a VHA C&P examination for mental disorder must be appropriately qualified. 4. ACTION: Each facility Director, or designee, is responsible for ensuring that the: a. Mental Health Professional Conducting C&P Examinations for Mental Disorders is Clinically Privileged. The mental health professional who conducts a C&P examination for a mental disorder must be clinically privileged, as governed by applicable law and the policies established at individual VHA facilities, to perform and/or supervise the performance of the following activities as required for all C&P examinations for mental disorders. The mental health professional must be able to: (1) Diagnose all mental disorders, including personality disorders, using the nomenclature in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). THIS VHA DIRECTIVE EXPIRES MARCH 31, 2011 VHA DIRECTIVE 2006-013 March 7, 2006 2 (2) Provide an assessment of each veteran using the multi-axial system as set forth in DSM-IV with a narrative explanation of the Axis V determination. (3) Determine when clinician-administered psychometric testing is necessary and integrate the results of such testing into the examination reports. (4) Assess the need for, and effectiveness of, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment. (5) Provide a prognosis with respect to each mental disorder or condition. (6) When necessary, comment on the significance of the veteran’s prior mental health assessments (as reported) with respect to symptoms, occupational history, social history, and global assessment of functioning. (7) Identify veterans presenting with complex diagnostic questions or other issues that are beyond the examiner’s expertise, and refer those veterans identified to a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist who has the expertise necessary to complete the C&P mental disorder examination. b. Examiner Qualification Requirements for Initial Mental Disorder Examinations Are Met. Mental health professionals with the following credentials are qualified to perform initial C&P examinations for mental disorders. They are: (1) Board-eligible psychiatrists (those who have completed a psychiatry residency and who are appropriately credentialed and privileged) and board-certified psychiatrists. (2) Licensed doctorate-level psychologists. (3) Doctorate-level mental health providers under close supervision by a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist. (4) Psychiatry residents under close supervision by a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist. (5) Clinical or counseling psychologists completing a one-year internship or residency under close supervision by a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist. NOTE: Close supervision means that the supervising psychiatrist or psychologist met with the veteran and conferred with the examining mental health professional in providing the diagnosis and the final assessment. The supervising psychiatrist or psychologist must co-sign the examination report. c. Examiner Qualifications Requirements for Review or Increase C&P Mental Disorder Examinations Are Met. Mental health professionals with the following credentials are qualified to perform review or increase C&P mental disorder examinations. They are: VHA DIRECTIVE 2006-013 March 7, 2006 3 (1) Mental health professionals qualified to perform initial C&P mental disorder examinations (see preceding subpar. 4b). (2) Other mental health professionals, such as licensed clinical social workers, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants, any of whom must be under close supervision by a board-certified, or board-eligible, psychiatrist or licensed doctorate-level psychologist. NOTE: Close supervision means that the supervising psychiatrist or psychologist met with the veteran and conferred with the examining mental health professional in providing the diagnosis and the final assessment. The supervising psychiatrist or psychologist must co-sign the examination report. d. Documentation of Qualified Examiners is Completed. As required in the C&P examination worksheets, examining mental health professionals must sign the reports and, if applicable, obtain the signature of the supervising psychiatrist or psychologist. All signatures must include the individual’s professional credentials (i.e., MD, PhD). NOTE: These signatures denote compliance with the requirements of this Directive. e. Examinations are Returned as Inadequate for Rating Purposes, if Necessary. A C&P examination for mental health disorder may be returned to VHA by VBA as inadequate for rating purposes, when the exam: (1) Does not include the examiner’s credentials and signature, (2) Does not include the signature of a board-certified or board-eligible psychiatrist or a licensed doctorate-level psychologist. 5. REFERENCES: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR (Text Revision), American Psychiatric Association, June 2000. 6. FOLLOW-UP RESPONSIBILITY: The Office of Patient Care Services is responsible for the contents of this Directive. Questions may be directed to (202) 273-8434. 7. RESCISSIONS: None. This VHA Directive expires March 31, 2011. S/Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, MSHA, FACP Under Secretary for Health DISTRIBUTION: CO: E-mailed 3/8/2006 FLD: VISN, MA, DO, OC, OCRO, and 200 – E-mailed 3/8/2006

TITLE 38--PENSIONS, BONUSES, AND VETERANS' RELIEF CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PART 4--SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES--Table of Contents Subpart A--General Policy in Rating Sec. 4.1 Essentials of evaluative rating. This rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. For the application of this schedule, accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations are required, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition. Over a period of many years, a veteran's disability claim may require reratings in accordance with changes in laws, medical knowledge and his or her physical or mental condition. It is thus essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history. [41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976] TITLE 38--PENSIONS, BONUSES, AND VETERANS' RELIEF CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PART 4--SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES--Table of Contents Subpart A--General Policy in Rating Sec. 4.2 Interpretation of examination reports. Different examiners, at different times, will not describe the same disability in the same language. Features of the disability which must have persisted unchanged may be overlooked or [[Page 336]] a change for the better or worse may not be accurately appreciated or described. It is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination in the light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. Each disability must be considered from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. If a diagnosis is not supported by the findings on the examination report or if the report does not contain sufficient detail, it is incumbent upon the rating board to return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes. [41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976]

Amazing... When I got a copy of my husband's C-file, it had medical records of OTHER veterans in it - complete with names, addresses, birthdates, and Social Security numbers. I sent the VA an IRIS informing them of such - and asked: 1. Could they please check the files of THOSE veterans and see if my husband's discharge physical might happen to be in THEIR file. 2. What they VA wanted me to DO with the medical records and personal information of the OTHER veterans. Of course, they did not respond to either question. They merely told me I had received the entire file and there was nothing further they could do to provide me with a copy of my husband's discharge physical. So I guess I get to keep the information about the OTHER veterans. I was considering mailing the medical records (of the OTHER veterans) to the OIG - along with the copy of the IRIS I sent - and tell them the VA had not informed me what they want me to do with the confidential medical and personal records of strangers they had sent me - and I was tired of being the keeper of such sensitive information on behalf of the VA. And ask the OIG if they would be willing to relieve me of the responsibility of safeguarding other vets personal data for the VA. Free