free_spirit_etc

Popped in to see if Josephine was partying yet! Free

Well it's about danged TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give 'em Hell Betty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P

Granted - the nexus is important - and I know the VA often tries to discount a doctor's opinion if the doctor relied solely on the vet's report for the in-service ocurrance. And yes, it would be stronger if the SMRs show treatment. But this Federal Court case also pretty well indicates that the VA can't discount lay evidence merely because it isn't supported by the service medical records - and that they can't discount doctor's opinions merely because the doctor relied on the vet's lay testimony. http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12125 http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7174.pdf You DO want to build as strong of case as you can. But I also think this court ruling can be used for appeals in which a doctor who is not favorable to your claim uses as his ONLY (or main reason) that the LACK of evidence in your SMR's means something did NOT occur. For instance, in my husband's case where the reason the VA doctor said my husband's cancer couldn't be connected to asbestos exposure was because there is no evidence my husband was in any occupational screening programs. Well duh... they didn't START them until the mid 80's (my husband was an Air Force electrician from 1970 - 1983) So in this case - the doctor's reasoning that my husband's cancer was not related to asbestos exposure was that - because he was not in a screening program - he was not exposed. I think this court case can be very helpful for vets when: 1. The VA says something could NOT have occured because it isn't documented in the medical records. 2. The VA says a doctor's report holds no value because it relies on lay testimony which isn't documented. I think the court was pretty clear on the fact that the VA CAN discredit lay testimony, but NOT merely because it is not backed with medical documentation. For instance, in my husband's case - what is more credible: 1. The fact that he worked as an air force electrician (documented). That once the asbestos programs were started (AFTER my husband crossed trained in another field) the electricians WERE a part of occupational screening (thus my husband WOULD have been - had he STILL been an electrician - --which would also indicate that he spent 13 years working in an environment that was later considered a risk for exposure). OR 2. The VA's reliance that he was NOT exposed to asbestos merely because the doctor stated he wasn't part of a screening program (that was not even in existance at that time).

His credentials check out. DOs do have a different slant on medicine, but the military uses DOs, so I can't see how the VA could disregard his opinion just because he is a DO. I agree that the $25 fee is reasonable for the price he charges for IMOs. I guess it could be aggravating to someone to pay the $25 fee and have him respond that he can't help you. But I take it that he is charging the fee to keep people from taking his time reviewing all their information to never hear from them again. He does appear pretty new, but does have experience with the VA - so he knows what it takes...or should know. So many vets have pretty clear cut cases but just need a doctor that is willing to write an IMO - so the opportunity to get an IMO for those cases at a pretty reasonable rate is a good thing. Extremely complicated cases might be different. But then again, he might be very good - and again, has reasonable rates. I have checked his website a couple of times. He is still designing it. I haven't been able to find the new consultation request form, under the forms tab. - or whatever it is yet (What you send with the inital fee to have him decide if he can help with the case). Free

My husband died last February. I filed for DIC in June. On my form, where it asked for family income, I indicated I did not submit information on my son's income, as he was over 21 and I would be submitting a formal claim for him. I sent an IRIS to ask some questions, including: ?Additionally, as my son is over 21,and disabled, the guidelines say that I will need to submit a separate DIC claim for him.When I submit HIS claim, will I need to submit all the medical evidence regarding my husband's lung cancer (that you would already have on record from my husband's claim and my claim?) Or can I just refer to my husband's previous claim and my claim in regard to the medical evidence for service connection?" Their response stated: "It is also unnecessary to file and additional claim for your son, XXX. We are trying to establish him as your dependent on your claim, but we need the information we requested in our recent letter. We need to establish that he became disabled, incapable of self support, prior to his eighteenth birthday." Of course, my claim has been denied - and I will get around to pulling all that together when I get done fighting the Social Security Administration (who must have taken reading lessons from the VA). But I was just thinking... I do not think they are correct on establishing my son as a dependent. From everything I read, you have to file a separate claim for children over 21. And the one year deadline of my husband's death just passed. However, I would think that my statement on MY DIC claim, and my message through IRIS SHOULD constitute an informal claim on his behalf. So, should I count on what they have told me - and hope if they later decide that is wrong that they will toll the one year period. Or should I go ahead and FILE a formal claim for DIC on my son's behalf by June, indicate that I understand from the IRIS dated June 13, 2007 that such a separate application is NOT required, however, I am submitting a FORMAL claim WITHIN one year of the INFORMAL claim I submitted on his behalf, in case such a claim is needed. I just thought that way - I could at least get it on record that an informal claim HAD been submitted on his behalf WITHIN a year of my husband's death - and that a FORMAL claim was being filed WITHIN a year of the informal claim. Free

Pete, Dataman, kinyo - Thanks a lot. I MIGHT hear in 2 months. It hasn't been quite that long yet. Amazing that they want all the evidence within 10 days of requesting the hearing. I doubt we will have to go before a judge. It should probably be decided once someone besides the local office reads the evidence. But since the local office has played around with the claim so much, who knows WHAT will happen. Free

I read that when you request a ALJ hearing you will get a letter. I submited a request for a hearing on December 14, 2007. I have not recieved a letter yet. I called the hearing office and they don't have an appeal request from me yet. Of course, Social Security ALWAYS wants you to find out everything from you LOCAL office. But it is the local office causing all the problems. Could someone tell me - SHOULD I have received a letter yet acknowledging my request for a hearing? Free

You can also get copies of medical records directly from the VA medical center. That way you can see them and not have to rely on what the VA tells you they say. My husband's SOC said "the doctor said this - the doctor said that." But if you pick up your med reports from the VA center - you can see EXACTLY what the doctor said. I think you can also do this with C&P exams. You can get a copy of the report well before the VA uses it to make a decision. That way, if there are things you do not agree with in the report - you can try to get them handled before a decision is made. Free

I'm not sure if this will help http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/veteran...ns_overview.htm Veterans Service Organizations - Overview There are many Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) at the National, State, and local levels. Aside from their fraternal aspects, many offer assistance to veterans with disabilities and their families who are attempting to receive benefits or become employed. Some VSOs are "chartered", which means they are federally chartered and/or recognized or approved by the VA Secretary for purposes of preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans Service Organizations Topics This version of WorkWORLD has separate topics for the Veterans Service Organizations listed below. · AMVETS · Blinded Veterans Association (BVA) · Disabled American Veterans (DAV) · Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) · Paralyzed Veterans Of America (PVA) · The American Legion · U.S. VETS · Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) · Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) Directory of Veterans Service Organizations The Office of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs publishes an online Directory of Veterans Service Organizations as an informational service. This up-to-date, database driven website allows you to view VSO information in a variety of ways. You may also search through the VSO database to find information that suits your needs. See the database online at: http://www.va.gov/vso/ Congressionally-Chartered Veterans Service Organizations A list of Veterans Service Organizations ordered by date of Congressional Charter, with links to their websites, is maintained by the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It is available online at: http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/ Recognition of Veterans Service Organizations The Office of General Counsel in the Department of Veterans Affairs publishes Bulletin 23-0, a list of national, state, and other veterans service organizations approved pursuant to the authority granted in 38 United States Code § 5902(a). This section is shown below. § 5902. Recognition of representatives of organizations (a) (1) The Secretary may recognize representatives of the American National Red Cross, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the United Spanish War Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and such other organizations as the Secretary may approve, in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims under laws administered by the Secretary. (2) The Secretary may, in the discretion of the Secretary, furnish, if available, space and office facilities for the use of paid fulltime representatives of national organizations so recognized. The most recent Bulletin 23-0 is available in Microsoft Word format online at: http://www.va.gov/ogc/docs/23bulletin.doc The Office of General Counsel also publishes Information Bulletin 2-151, listing veterans' service representatives currently recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the presentation of claims before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The most recent Bulletin 2-151 is available in Microsoft Word format online at: http://www.va.gov/ogc/docs/2151bulletin.doc Contact Information United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Special Assistant to the Secretary for Veterans Service Organizations Liaison 810 Vermont Ave. NW Washington, DC 20420 United States House Committee on Veterans' Affairs 335 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-3527 United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Majority Office Senate Russell Building 412 Washington, DC. 20510 Majority (202) 224-9126 United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Minority Office Senate Hart Building 202 Washington, DC. 20510 Minority (202) 224-2074 Additional Information The Senate Committee On Veterans' Affairs also maintains a website. Its homepage is located at: http://veterans.senate.gov/ See also: Veterans Affairs (VA) Benefits - Overview Source Information for this topic was drawn from the websites at: http://www.va.gov/OGC/page.cfm?pg=35 http://www.va.gov/directory/guide/facility.asp?ID=2011 http://veterans.senate.gov/ http://www.va.gov/vso/ http://veterans.house.gov/

Well, well, well - You learn something new every day. I thought the DRO was the one who copied the reasons and bases for de denial straight off your SOC, and added a few lines so that your SSOC would be longer than your SOC was - and so it would look like they really had reviewed the evidence, and then mailed you the letter. Their job decription makes it look MUCH more complicated. I couldn't even find the part about copying and pasting LISTED. Free

COURAGE "Courage is more exhilarating than fear and in the long run it is easier. We do not have to become heroes overnight. Just a step at a time, meeting each thing that comes up, seeing it is not as dreadful as it appeared, discovering we have the strength to stare it down." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt This quote reminds me of how you took your claim one step at a time... even when the odds seemed SO stacked against you. Whatever road block they threw up - you grasped it - found a way to overcome it - and kept moving forward. You never gave up - you just kept moving forward one step at a time - moving through road block after road block. I remember when I first joined hadit. No matter what anyone was discussing - there you were - rattling on and on about Doris, and swimming pools, and quacks, and the AMC etc. etc. etc. At first your claim didn't make much sense to me. But you would NOT shut up. You would NOT stop trying to be heard. Every time I got on hadit, there was Josephine, talking about her claim, seeking advice, looking for answers. So at first I thought - "Poor thing. She just can't grasp that she doesn't stand a chance. I'll look at her information and see if I can give her SOME kind of HOPE, even if she doesn't stand a chance..." But the more I looked at your information - the more it all started falling into place and making sense to me. And the more I began to understand not only that CAN you have HOPE, but that you SHOULD have HOPE! And you just kept moving forward. One step at a time. So here's to NOT giving up! Here's to NOT losing HOPE! And here's to NOT shutting up - even when some of us weren't listening... Free

I'm not sure about the SMC thing. I know that you have to apply for the insurance within a year of being granted SC - and any time you get a NEW condition rated you can re-apply. BUT - you have to be in good health EXCEPT for the C condition. For instance if you get SC for a knee condition, but also have cancer - then they don't have to accept you. I wish they would open enrollment up for people who are granted SC for conditions after their death. I will TRY to enroll my husband once I get the SC for cancer. But the decisions at the BVA don't make it look very promising. They DO allow enrollment after death, IF the vet was incapable of applying BEFORE death. Say the vet gets SC for something - and he becomes mentally incompetent within one year of getting the SC. They can actually enroll him / her AFTER death because of the incompetance within the one year period making them unable to apply. You have to SHOW they were mentally incompetent BEFORE death - and that the incompetance kept them from applying - BUT the laws REQUIRE a showing of incompetance AND they don't consider short periods of incompetence right before death to count. They say that if the vet didn't apply while they WERE competent - they shouldn't get it. This totally disregards the rights of those who were not granted SC until AFTER death. From what I read - you STILL have to show they were incompetent BEFORE death - which is ridiculous because they could NOT have applied BEFORE death (whether competent or not) if they weren't granted the SC. By the time my husband was granted SC for other conditions - he already had the cancer (that was NOT Sc'd) He didn't apply for the insurance - however, he wouldn't hav been accepted anyway - because the cancer would have made him NOT in good health (insurable) except for his SC conditions. Yet, if I get the SC granted for his cancer AFTER his death, according to what I have read - it would be an uphill battle to try to get the life insurance granted AFTER death - because the only mental incompetance I could show was that immediately proceedig his death (and drug induced). I have read a few cases at the BVA - and it doesn't look promising. They have left a gap. To me - if the vet APPLIED for SC BEFORE death - and SC is granted AFTER death - they should not REQUIRE the incompetance - because they weren't allowed to apply because they weren't granted SC yet. But I guess laws are laws. The best argument I could make is where the decisions keep saying that they do not consider brief incompetance immediately proceeding death to count - because if the vet did not apply while they were competant - the law wasn't meant to protect them - should not apply in my husband's case - as he was not able to apply while competant because he hadn't been granted SC yet - So that ANY showing of incompetance for ANY amount of time before death should suffice to meet the incompetance standard required by law. Free Free

"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you." ~Eric Hoffer When I saw this quote I thought of your constant reminders that we need strong IMO's..and knowledge of the system. Yep..What does the VA use to frighten us on our claims? Their constant declarations that our medical evidence does not support the claim (sometimes whether that is true or not). And their knowledge that many vets do not understand the system enough to put up a good fight. So I can imagine your IMOs might have frightened them. As does your knowledge. Free

I am one to consider strategy whenever dealing with spiderwebs. But my instinct tells me to keep moving FORWARD - try to PASS GO and collect $200 PLUSSSSSSSSSSSSS! My thought would be to NOT step BACK - unless THEY back you up. But even if it goes back to the AMC with a REMAND - the BVA should be VERY CLEAR about the reasons - which would give you even more information of what else you would need to do to succeed on the final lap. If YOU step back - and it doesn't get granted, all you will get for reasons for the denial is all the rinky dink silly little puffs of nothingness ideas that the RO and AMC likes to give, and still no VALID information about what the BVA would be looking for. And they should have them handle the remand FAIRLY quickly. My guess is that the BVA will grant OR remand. If they remand you will obtain valuable information. If they grant - we get to party sooner!! If you don't waive the 45 days, and it goes BACK to the RO - you'll be back in the loop of waiting your turn (since it won't be a remand) and getting all the silly little SOCs with their silly little reasons. I think you might just be ready to play with the Big Dogs - and not have to keep having the puppies peeing on your feet. I promise if I have a sudden flash of insight that would cause me to think otherwise, I will let you know immediately - BEFORE you wake the BVA up or make them work on Sunday Free

LOLOLOL Cowgirl KNOWS Betty! Cowgirl is afraid she will go to the BVA Judge's HOUSE and wake him up and make him decide NOW!!!! ;) Free

Ruby, I am not really familiar with your claim - sorry haven;t kept up with them all. But I viewed my husband's C-file in Chicago last year. I would suggest to have an idea of anything special you are looking for. My RO only allowed me one hour - with one of them in the room. They gave me post it notes to MARK any pages I wanted copied to send to me. That was last July...still have't gotten any copies - so if you find something really important - try to see if they will copy it when you are there. My husband's SMRs were NOT in order - which made it harder. I wish I would have had more than one hour - since I drove a 10 hour round trip and didn't have time to see everything. I had an appointment - but the worker at the intake desk was grouchy and asked to see the LETTER they had sent me - and tried to make me think I wouldn't get to see the file because I didn't bring my LETTER (to prove who I was). I Got a bit snappy with her - informed her that I had driven 5 hours to get there, that the letter didn't state I had to bring it, that I had an APPOINTMENT IN MY NAME - and that my Driver's License Proved who I was. I also sent in an IRIS complaint when I returned home about her rudeness. It was uncalled for and unwelcome. Good question and Good luck! Free

"The encouraging thing is that every time you meet a situation, though you may think at the time it is an impossibility and you go through the tortures of the damned, once you have met it and lived through it you find that forever after you are freer than you ever were before. If you can live though that you can live through anything. You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, `I lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along.'" ~ Eleanor Roosevelt We have ALL watched you grow stronger and stronger throughout the whole process...just like a flower unfolding before our eyes... Free

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/ppaethics.cfm Section 2 A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception to appropriate entities. 5. Ethically, the psychiatrist may disclose only that information which is relevant to a given situation. He or she should avoid offering speculation as fact. Sensitive information such as an individual’s sexual orientation or fantasy material is usually unnecessary. 6. Psychiatrists are often asked to examine individuals for security purposes, to determine suitability for various jobs, and to determine legal competence. The psychiatrist must fully describe the nature and purpose and lack of confidentiality of the examination to the examinee at the beginning of the examination. That is from the code of ethics - American Psychiatric Association. Of course, if you would issue an ehtics complaint - they would say they didn't state it as a fact - because the SAID appears, seems, etc. But if they are VA docs they dang well know the VA terminology. And they dang well know they worded their speculation in a deceptive way - so that the VA could ACT like what they stated was a fact. Why say it APPEARS like an unpreviously diagnosed Personality Disorder SEEMS to do anything. They know the terms to use are more likely than not and less likely than not. By using APPEARS they could throw their speculation out there - let the VA put their own interpretation on it - and be able to defend themselves with "We didn't SAY probably..or more likely...." But that is also another thing you can use if you HAVE to appeal - but hopefully you won't have to - because the BVA should know they shouldn't grant weight to evidence that doesn't even give a point of measurement. I remember when I first joined hadit - and people were suggesting that vets include a statement that they intend to appeal and pursue their claim until it is granted - to put the VA on notice that they weren't going to get rid of the claim by wearing them down. One thing you have going for you is that EVERYONE at the VA now KNOWS that you are NOT going to back down - and giving some flimsy denial is not going to get rid of you...lol Free

"Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all" ~ Dale Carnegie We're ROOTING for you!!! Go Josephine! Go! Free

I am not sure if this link will be too long - but I searched Veteran Special Need Trust in Google - and it brought up this book. http://books.google.com/books?id=dnfbveKmF...Z9qu71051GdSXik In this - It states that the VA General Council decided in one case that the trust DID count as a resource. But it points out that the trust stated it ws to pay for food, shelter, clothing. So, if the trust designates that trust money has to be used for that - then they can count it. I remember they USED to word them to specifically state that the trust COULD NOT be used to pay for anything the government would pay for - and could ONLY be used for SUPPLEMENTING. But the going thing is that the trust has to allow the trustee COMPLETE discretion. The trust can't state one way or another what the money can or cannot be used for. I think that is to protect the trusts more. Because NO ONE can come in and MAKE the Trustee to pay for ANYTHING. The money is only available for whatever the trustee decides it is available for. http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files2/0513555.txt The above link is a BVA decision - where they DID count the Trust - but that was because the veteran had received an inheritance - and converted that into a trust. As the money was HER propery before going into the Trust - they counted it. They specifically say: The question which must be answered is whether the Trust is the veteran's property. The Board finds that it is. While it is true that her trustees retain control over the trust, the Board finds that it must be considered her property in light the applicable GC opinion, which is binding precedent on the Board. I only came up with two results on a BVA search -- it is an interesting case - but it seems like the decision to count the trust was because it became her property and THEN was transfered into the trust. Again, it is worth investing in a specialized attorney for setting these up right.

You are probably going to want to see an attorney on this one. Special Needs Trusts can get kind of tricky. I've looked into these for quite some time - as my son is developmentally disabled. But, yes a trust can be set up to SUPPLEMENT - and NOT REPLACE any government benefits. It is based on the idea that your father has no legal duty to support you - and therefore he can set money aside in a trust - and the trust does not have to be used for your support. With your father unable to set up the trust - you would need to check into other ways it can be set up. I don't think you would have to have a guardian - over either your person or your estate - but the trust would have to have a trustee. YOU could not have any decision making capacity over the money. And actually the trust would not legally be YOURS. The money belongs to the trust and it can be spent on you (you are the beneficiary of the trust - but the trust is it's own entity). I know the trustee has to have complete discretion over how the money is spent. That doesn't mean the trustee can't listen to your opinion - but they have to have complete legal control of the money - and complete discretion as to how it is spent. (Therefore - no one can order them to spend it any other way). I am not sure how the VA handles "in kind" contributions. I know with SSI - a trustee has to watch out paying for any housing or food costs - but they can pay for other things (but not give the person the money directly). And they also have to watch purchasing things for the beneficiary that would put them over the asset limits. Even many estate attorneys don't handle special needs trusts. But some attorneys specialize in them. Everything has to be worded "just right." A good place to seek more info on these is also in forums for parents of children with disabilities. Free

You are doing good to stay several steps ahead (even when you are behind) by checking out what is down the road as much as possible. That is one of the things that has really bothered me about them not letting attorneys get involved into late in the process --by then they have already set the case up like they want it. You see all this stuff in court - the vet didn't do this back then, the vet didn't argue that back in -- WELLLLLLLLLLL the vet wasn't ALLOWED to have an attorney BACK THEN. (they could, but the attorney couldn't charge anything). It is like only allowing people have an attorney for their CLOSING ARGUMENT... and the attorney has to scramble around pulling the pieces together. And I imagine the vet gets to hear "You should have done this. You should have done that." Anyway - staying steps ahead helps you see which ways to present your case NOW. At least some. I recommend looking at some of the court decisions from time to time and starting a file of cases that look like they apply. But it gets so involved too. Because you read one case - and think you have an argument - but when you read other cases - you can realize - I'm glad I didn't argue THAT - because it didn;t hold up. But I see a lot of times the case will say something about what COULD have been argued - but that the vet didn't advance the argument. And you are SOOOOO right on getting copies of everything. My husband just had his SOCs - but he never asked for copies of his exams. There were SO many things he COULD have gotten SC for. One was a shoulder injury. He was in the Air Force for 28 years. He filed his claim BEFORE he retired. He claimed he had hurt his shoulder and that it was hurt BEFORE he retired and WHEN he retired. But they sent him on the C&P - and though they found an injury - they said none of his SMR's indicate that his shoulder was injured - so they wouldn't SC it. That makes NO sense to me - as it is unlikely that he injured in 28 years before - and he was claiming it was injured BEFORE he retired. But nope. It wasn't in his SMR's and no one can seem to FIND his discharge physical. He claimed cervicle strain. His neck hurt pretty bad. Actually - even when he was in the later stages of cancer - when he asked for pain meds and I asked what hurt - it was his neck - not the cancer. Anyway - that WAS in the SMRs - but they said the X-rays didn't SHOW any injury. So they denied for no CURRENT injury. On the Appeal - they did another X-ray - but just saw a SLIGHT separation on two of the cervicle disks. I think they should have granted SC and rated it at sero percent, but at least rated it. But nope - they denied SC. I knew he was denied SC later for headaches. They denied him based on the undiagnosed illness thing - but here is their profound statement "We can not grant Service Connection for your headaches as they have been diagnosed as headaches." Is that profound or what??? But when we went to the VA a couple years ago and got his med records - I read the C&P for that exam. The VA doc stated there were TWO causes for his headaches: 1. Cervicle strain - and they used as evidence the x-rays that showed significantly more damage at the same location as had been found before (it had worsened). 2. Chronic sinutitis - which the C&P doctor stated had been diagnosed in service. Not only had he had significant sinus problems in service - the C&P reported that he had received X-RAY IN SERVICE that confirmed the CHRONIC condition. But though the C&P doctor said his headaches were CAUSED by TWO service conditons (one that had been diagnosed as chronic in the service - and one that he had claimed on discharge from the service) - the SOC merely denied service connection for the headaches because they were NOT an UNdiagnosed illness. It is NUTS!! Free

tssnave, Here's a link to an interesting example http://www.hadit.com/forums/lofiversion/in...php/t12125.html

I am NOT an expert on this - but it seems like the Court of Veteran's Appeals - from the cases I read - are just like any appellate court. They don't retry the facts - They do assure the law was followed. Ignoring evidence is not in accordance with the law. The law says they have to consider ALL evidence. I have seen cases where they did not consider lay evidence - and specifically said they were giving it no weight BECAUSE it was lay evidence. THe CVA reversed that decision because of the reasoning the BVA used - They have to consider ALL evidence - and they can't refuse to consider evidence because it was lay evidence. It was the reasoning the BVA gave that got them. Had they just said they gave it less weight, or did not find it convincing - they might have got by with it. But they gave an UNLAWFUL reason for not giving it weight. I would also think some of the more cruddy C&P's could be questioned - if the vet could show that they were not done according to the standards... Like in Josephine's case maybe. IT has been pointed out that the C&P examiners did not do an adequate exam. So I would think if they relied on it - she could question that the BVA relied on an inadequate exam. Then the issue would not be which report they gave more weight to - but the Court could decide whether the C&P exam was actually adequate - (done accoring to medical standards) or remand it back to the BVA to "explore" Or if they gave the reason for Josephine's case that the RO gave - We considered the opinion of the psychiatrist to have more weight because they were a psychiatrist. She might be able to fight that.Psychologists are actually more qualified to do psychological testing than psychiatrists. So dismiss a psychologists opinion merely because they were not a psychiatrist might not fly with the court. (In private practice - most psychiatrists actually send patients to psychologists to get psychological testing - and rely on the psychologist's interpretation to base their diagnosis. Psychologists are trained to give and interpret tests. Psychiatrists don't receive that much training in that area.) In Josephine's case - she could raise the issue of them going on a fishing expedition (trying to find someone who would back denying her claim). She had a favorable C&P and favorable statements from her private physican to begin with. They haven't even been acknowledging her initial C&P - who opined service connection. They merely sent her to ANOTHER C&P - with the quacks that DID agree that she had anxiety - but gave her the BPD - nonspecific - diagnosis - and said that caused her disability - with NO testing to back this NEW diagnosis. So she could raise the issue that they should have granted with the medical evidence of record all being in support of her claim - INCLUDING her FIRST C&P - and that they fished around until they found someone who would write a nonfavorable opinion. Actually, as it stands - the Court says the remands have to be followed to a T. In this case they did not. The BVA specified that the C&P docs were supposed to review the specific evidence they pointed out - and see if it changed their opinion. If it did not change their opinion - they were supposed to give REASONS for WHY their opinion did not change in the face of the aditional evidence. They did not follow the remand orders. They did not say "Rev.___ stated ___. However, that does not alter or conclusion because of __, ___, and __> (giving medical reasons). They just listed what they reviewed and said it didn't alter their conclusion. So if they STILL gave the quacks more weight - she could challenge that they did not comply with their own remand (requiring the docs to give reasons in light of the new evidence) And there is much more.... So there are LOTS of issues you can bring up and challenge... But it is not merely a retrying of a case (like the BVA does after the RO) You have to point out specific errors they made in procedure and law. And how they weighted the evidence isn't usually pat of the picture - UNLESS you can show that they did so as a result of a legal error. Free

Woo Hoo! I'm getting my party dress ready!!! Free