free_spirit_etc

Another point to keep in mind while deciding what to do - is being sure you have the evidence you need to win the claim at the BVA. The Court of Veteran's appeals won't actually re-decide claims. They can decide the law and regulations weren't followed - but they won't retry the facts. So they won't get into the issue of how evidence was weighed. They won't determine that your evidence is more credible than the BVA said it was. If the BVA denies - and there is ANY evidence to support the denial - the Court won't put the decision aside on THAT basis. (They won't say your evidence was stronger than the evidence the BVA relied on). If there are medical opinions that support the BVA's decision - they will uphold it and not redecide what weight that evidence would have been afforded. However, the Court can put a decision aside for OTHER reasons. My gut feeling is that the BVA won't deny your claim - because of the new evidence you submitted. My personal opinion is that they will most likely either grant the claim (make a decision that the evidence supports your claim enough that they can grant it) or that they will Remand the claim - (decide that the new evidence raises enough possibility that your claim should be granted - that they won't deny - and they remand it back for further development). I can't see them denying the claim with the weak report they got from the doctors they specifically asked to either revise their opinion upon consideration of the new evidence - or PROVIDE REASONING as to why they hold the same opinion. The fact that they merely listed what they considered and said they didn't change their opinion - with NO reasons as to why -- and the fact that your new IMO points out they had no medically supportable reason to give you that diagnosis in the first place -- HAS to be addressed. So I would look for the BVA to decide in your favor or remand. I don't see how they can deny it at this point. Free

I am not sure if it is starting over - I would think you could do as the lawyer did in the case you posted - Submit MORE evidence - and THEN submit a waiver that lets them know you have submitted all you have to submit and you waive the remainder of the 90 days - and waive the right to have the evidence considered by the RO - and ask that the BVA decide your case without waiting for the 90 days to expire. Of course, the BVA then would have the option of deciding your case or remanding your case back to either the RO or AMC. If you want to RO to review the new evidence, rather than the BVA - I would imagine that MIGHT take longer - as it is kind of starting over - i.e. the case being sent BACK to the RO because of New Evidence, not as the result of the Remand. It seems like they are going to toss this back and forth. Not sure if the RO is going to be willing to decide in your favor. It seems like they are more prone to decide very clear cut cases - and they pass the rest of them up to the BVA. And the BVA often remands them back telling the RO what they are supposed to consider. Not sure what the best way is to get out of the hokey pokey - but going back to the RO MIGHT just add time -- because I would think that if they deny - you have to go through the NOD again, and waiting a year for the statement of case again - and then the DRO again - and then waiting for the SSOC again - and then the I-9 again - and then waiting to get on the BVA docket again - HOPING that they DECIDE the case - and don't pass it back down by remanding it to the RO or AMC. I may be wrong -- I am not fully educated on the whole process. But I would encourage you to not make a decision to start back with the RO - until you find out what that decision will entail. Right now - you have reached the place where you CAN ask the BVA to decide - and they MIGHT remand it (and you don't get to choose who they remand it to - if they issue a remand). But before deciding to go the route of NOT waiving the right to have the RO consider the evidence - check out where that path can lead you. And then pick the best path. Free

Hey! Welcome! How long has it been since you have been out? You might want to consider going ahead and filing the intent to claim - and start the clock ticking... and THEN getting all your evidence together. The date of claim is the date they recieve it -- so you can be brief on the initial letter - and add evidence later. If you are within a year of discharge - they can date the claim back to when you were discharged. Wellllllll - not DATE it back - but PAY from that time. Free

Again, it sounds like a due process thing -- that you have to be given the 90 days to submit more evidence unless you waive it.. This could mean several things.. It COULD mean that the judge didn't remand or grant your claim and, therefore has to give you the 90 days before taking action. Or it could just mean that the judge saw you hadn't had your 90 days, and so he didn't even LOOK at the evidence yet - until he was sure you had it.. What is odd is why they rushed to get it TO the judge so quickly (well just at that one time when you were trying to get the IMO - they decided they had to rush things) It seems like they would have given you the 90 day letter then. It could be as simple as the judge not reviewing it because you hadn't been provided with the letter. My husband's claim sat at the BVA for a long time - they looked at the file long enough to see there was no DD-214 in it (the RO misplaced every copy they got) - and so they sent it back to the RO on remand -- they didn't look at the case at all until the form was in there. Free

http://www.va.gov/vbs/bva/page6.htm What is the 90-Day Rule? When your claims folder is transferred from the local VA office to Washington, D.C., the local VA office will send you a letter letting you know that you have 90 days remaining (from the date of that letter) during which you can add more evidence to your file, request a hearing, or select (or change) your representative. The Board will accept items submitted within the 90-day period. However, the Board cannot accept items submitted after the 90-day period has expired, unless you also submit a written explanation (called a "motion") of why the item is late and showing why the Board should accept it (called "showing good cause"). A motion to accept items after the 90-day period will be reviewed by a Board member who will issue a ruling either allowing or denying the motion. {38 U.S.C. § 7104; 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304}

This sounds like a due process thing... that before they let the BVA decide the claim - they have to make sure the vet has been afforded all the protection of due process (that you have the right to have the RO review the evidence before the BVA decides - and that you have to officially waive that right - i.e. they can't take it away..) I thought you already waived that though... Free

It sounds like the VA hokey pokey to me... You put the claim in....you take the claim out..you put the claim in and you shake it all about... I'm not sure what a 90 day letter is... but would not take it to be a sign of granted... would think it would more likely be remand or denied... Might be a remand so they can let the VA docs see the NEW opinion... That is what is so frustrating sometimes - is the BVA often can SEE the claim should be granted - but then they REMAND it back to get the RO to do it - and the RO messes it up a bit more before they pass it up... Hopefully, if it is not granted - it is a remand - as those usually don't take quite as long... But yeah... I can see where you would be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO frustrated - because you have worked SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO hard and SOOOOOOOOOOOOO long already.. Free

The Secret Garden lyrics Musical "The Secret Garden" soundtrack lyrics Hold On What you've got to do is Finish what you have begun, I don't know just how, But it's not over 'til you've won! When you see the storm is coming, See the lightning part the skies, It's too late to run- There's terror in your eyes! What you do then is remember This old thing you heard me say: "It's the storm, not you, That's bound to blow away." Hold on, Hold on to someone standing by. Hold on. Don't even ask how long or why! Child, hold on to what you know is true, Hold on 'til you get through. Child, oh child! Hold on! When you feel your heart is poundin', Fear a devil's at your door. There's no place to hide- You're frozen to the floor! What you do then is you force yourself To wake up, and you say: "It's this dream, not me, that's bound to go away." Hold on, Hold on, the night will soon be by. Hold on, Until there's nothing left to try. Child, hold on, There's angels on their way! Hold on and hear them say, "Child, oh child!" And it doesn't even matter If the danger and the doom Come from up above or down below, Or just come flying At you from across the room! When you see a man who's raging, And he's jealous and he fears That you've walked through walls He's hid behind for years. What you do then is you tell yourself to wait it out And say it's this day, not me, That's bound to go away. Child, oh hold on. It's this day, not you, That's bound to go away!

Are you looking for someone to do an IMO for you? I would certainly never recommend that anyone get an IMO from someone they, personally, don't trust. My personal opinion is that you certainly have the right to request a CV before you retain someone to do an IMO for you. I cannot say I am in agreement that you have the right to require him to post his CV to the board before any other vet has the right to see his information. I am not in agreement that you should have the right to censure the information other members get if he does not meet your demands. Again, I think we have to watch trying to protect people from the right to make their own choices. I think each of us have the right to make our own choices. I did not see his initial post as advertising. I saw that he introduced himself, told us a little bit about himself. I think he was pretty real with us, and also pretty open about his experience and his intent. This could be an opportunity for a win-win situation for the doctor and some vets -where they will get affordable IMOs to support their claims and he will get more experience to grow his business. Perhaps not; time will tell. I was amazed when I looked up information on a medicine my husband was on and the website said if you lived in certain states you were not allowed to view the website. I was appalled! How in the world can they make it illegal to obtain information? That's what we call censorship - restricting the right of others to obtain information that we don't think they need, or that we don't want them to have. When we start controlling the information other people have access to in order to control the choices they make, we are, in essence, taking over the power to make their choices for them. If you have asked for the CV and the doctor does not provide it to you - then you certainly have the right to decide not to request an IMO from him. However, trying to restrict OTHER members from access to information that they can use to make THEIR OWN choices is a whole different ballgame. I know you have positive intentions; and you want to protect other vets from getting burned - but when we start trying to protect people from themselves and protect them from making their own choices - I get a bit nervous about that. I think some of the most horrid things that have been done to me were done by people who thought their intentions were positive - that they were looking out for "my best interests" and somehow thought they were better able to judge what was in my best interests than I was. Often people with good intentions can whack your life harder than sworn enemies. And because they think they are "helping" you -they just keep on whacking." I used to say a prayer of protection - "God, please protect me from people with good intentions." Free

That's totally powerful! Free

Maybe they think they doctors do what they do - just read the last list on the SOC and state things a little differently to look like they reveiwed the claim. Most of the decisions I see that discuss Dr. Bash's opinion show that he usually goes into detail about the details. So it would be surprising if he did not. I would think that the evidence listed in the last SOC would be the evidence that was "relevant" to your claim. Are they saying that Dr. Bash should have also discussed irrelevant information to prove he viewed your claim file? But I do have a question on this. I thought if I have a copy of the claim file - I could send THAT to a doctor. Do they require the doctor to get the C-file from the VA? ANd how long does it take them to send C-files to the Doctors? Free

Paul, I am so sorry to hear that. My thoughts and prayers stay with you right now. Free

He did not remove his phone number from his website. His phone number was not ON his website. He apparently prefers to handle his business solicitations by email, which he certainly had the right to do. Yes. I did find his license. I reported it. However, I don't think I will report it again. People will either find it or not. I would suggest that people who are very distrustful of him might not want to use his services. They have that choice. To me, he was pretty direct and honest. He stated that he is still "tweaking" his website. It is new. Some people might not care when he graduated from medical school. They might only care that he is licensed as a doctor and can and will write them an IMO. I think he has the right to put on his website any information he chooses to. If people want more information than he provides they can: 1. Ask him 2. Choose not to use him 3. Something else Every doctor is not for everyone. But he has the right to set his own boundaries and make his own choices about how he wants to run his business. As we have the right to set our own boundaries and make our own choices about who we want to do business with. He was open about the fact that he is pretty new to this. That is why he said he would offer IMO's much cheaper than anyone else wants to charge. And yes, he did say when his business grows to where he can't keep up with the IMO's - he will raise his prices. Once again, He was pretty direct. And I, personally, don't see anything wrong with stating that. I don't see anything wrong with him charging higher fees down the road. What is he supposed to say? I promise that when I become successful and everyone starts swamping me wanting me to write an opinion, I will keep writing opinions very cheaply? Would that make him a better person? Those who question his experience or ability to write them an IMO can choose not to hire him. Those who want to give him a chance, also have that choice. I would think the fact that he already had experience with military medicine and the VA would help him immensely. I thought he was pretty honest about his experience and his intent. However, once again, if you don't trust him, you have the choice not to hire him. I hope we Vets don't ruin his business before it even gets off the ground. Because he might be able to help many vets get benefits they wouldn't get otherwise. Not because they were entitled, but because they couldn't get an IMO to prove their case. If his IMO is good enough to get SC granted - that's good enough for many people. Anything above that is just icing on the cake... Free

I thought he was very upfront and direct. I am not quite sure why he would need to post his license number in here. I would certainly think that anyone who wanted to try to steal veteran's identities would certainly be smart enough to obtain a license number to do it. Dr. Barson's credentials checked out when I researched him. Each state maintains records on professional licensing. There is a real Dr. Barson. His credentials check out with professional regulatory bodies the way he reported them. I would imagine that if someone just started using his name to create a website to start ripping off vets - the REAL Dr. Barson would step up pretty quickly. I find it sad that so many have complained about not being able to get an IMO, not being able to afford an IMO, etc. - and then someone comes in and offers to help - and we think he is a criminal. My opinion is that we deserve to have choices, and that we should be trusted to be intelligent enough to make our own choices. How many people have come in here asking about Dr. Bash? People give their opinions, the person that asks either does or does not check him out further - and then they make whatever choice they make that is right for them. He was pretty direct and clear about why he was charging less than the going rate. He is new to the game, and he is willing to charge less until he gets more experience. He also explained that his website was new and he was still tweaking it. Will his IMO be as "good" as others from those with more experience? Maybe. Maybe not. It most likely depends on the sitatuation. Most vets don't need the "best" IMO. They need one that is good enough to get them awarded benefits. In many cases, it isn't extremely complicated. In some cases - it is. However, it should be up to each individual to choose whether they want to retain his services or not. Those who don't trust him, or do not think he would write them a good enough IMO will probably not choose to employ him. However, others may choose to do so. I think he deserves a chance. And I think we have to watch trying to protect people from the right to make their own choices. Free

You brought up a good point about the computer systems. They make the forms that are supposed to simplify things - but a lot can get lost in the process. Your choices start being restricted to fill in the boxes (which may or may not apply. Another interesting thing we ran across with this. My husband's military base went digital. Med records were on the computer system. He asked for ALL of his post-service records. He picked them up - and they were all those click the box and jot a few notes on the screen thing. VERY brief. I thought here they put such a BIG emphasis on what the med notes say - then they click little boxes where the notes ay NOTHING. I couldn't believe it. He had surgery and was hospitalized for several days - and there were just a few lines of "notes." I was appalled! I said they have reduced an ENTIRE SURGERY and HOSPITALIZATION to three or four LINES????????????? So he went back to the base and said "What is THIS crap???" (He was always SO eloquent :o ) - and they told him - Oh the OTHER information would be in the DOCTORS notes - and the doctors keep those in their offices - and told he he hadn't ASKED for the doctor's notes........ Geez..we THOUGHT that was included in ALL OF MY MEDICAL RECORDS. No - the medical records didn't INLCUDE doctor's notes. You have to ask for those separately. We asked - and got them - and DID find things in the notes that helped his case. We are not sure if the VA had those notes - as they might just ask for the medical records. BUT I am going to ask that they be considered to be "constructively" in the file... because they should know more what their left hand is doing than we do... Free

Will do! B) Will GLADLY be someone's "success story!" :o Free

Thanks for saying I was correct to a certain extent. :o I was not trying to compete with your form. My personal opinion is that the form would be good if that is ALL that you can get (i.e. that it is better than nothing) but I wouldn't expect it to carry me very far in a contested claim...especially if it is filled out exactly as it is written - since it doesn't even ask for REASONS the connection to military service were made. I was merely providing some ADDITIONAL information to go along with the form for someone who asked what the VA is looking for. The C&P examiner guidelines provide a guide for what the VA is looking for in C&P exams (and also private practice). We all know of cases where THEIR doctors did not follow these guidelines - and cases where opinions of private doctors were not given enough weight BECAUSE they did not follow the guidelines they set for their own doctors. My personal opinion is that getting something is better than getting nothing. If a doctor balks at giving very much of an opinion - at least getting him to fill out and sign the form would be SOMETHING. If the doctor is willing to provide a little MORE information - then I would encourage him to at least add SOME info on REASONING as to WHY he checked the box he did on the form. If the doctor is willing to take it one step further - I would provide him with the C&P exam guidelines - and so his opinion could be written as closely as possible to the format they expect. If the doctor is willing to write an opinion, but balks at using their guidelines - I would take whatever opinion he was willing to write. But then, again, what do I know? I haven't been able to get a doctor to be willing to write and opinion. B) But for those who ARE able to find a doctor who might give one - I was adding my two cents worth of opinon about my concerns with the form alone carrying a claim very far - and some suggestions on on obtaining something that might have a more solid weight. I ask that people understand that I am not an expert, I have no idea what I am doing let alone the ability to provide expert advice to anyone else - and to consider what I say as my personal (and often uneducated) opinion - before acting on any suggestions I put out there. Free

Personally, I think I'm going to give him a shot. I know I am going to need an IMO for my husband's cancer to support that it DID start in the service. He was in the Air Force for 28 years and diagnosed with adenocarcinoma less than 2 years post discharge. Though ALL of his doctors (military base - and tri-care providers) have stated that his cancer probably started WELL in advance of his retirement - (you just don't grow a 3.1 cm pulmonary adenocarcinoma over night) - NONE have been willing to come right out and write an actual opinon. They have been willing to sign a statement that says the standard doubling time is 180 days. They have been willing to provide us with hand written documents to explain to US that based on growth rate and doubling time the cancer probably STARTED YEARS before he retired. But they have not been willing to actually come out and say - it is more likely than not that his cancer started in service. The VA absolutely ignored our premise that it started in service until we pushed them to acknowledge it - The VA focused on the asbestos exposure - which is a whole other issue (though my husband was an electrician for 13 years - though electricians NOW have to have occupational screenings - though it is a medically established fact that smoking and asbestos combined GREATLY increases your risk of cancer more than smoking alone would - and though pulmonary adenocarcinoma is a cancer that is linked to asbestos exposure - the VA doctor merely stated that my husband's cancer was only linked to his smoking because there is no evidence that he was exposed to asbestos - as he wasn't part of any medical survillience or occupational screening programs. They didn't even HAVE those programs in the 70's and early 80's - the 13 years my husband was an Air Force electrician. And it wasn't even up to the VA doc to MAKE the determination whether my husband was EXPOSED to asbestos. He should have written an opinion that IF he was exposed, what was the LIKLIHOOD that the exposure contributed to the development of the cancer - and let the VA decide if he WAS exposed). Now that they have finally acknowledged our IN-SERVICE OCCURANCE claim - they are playing the same game. It looks like the VA doc ignored all our evidence that indicated that lung cancer is asymptomatic until it reaches late stages, that established medical principles dictate that not only CAN it be slow growing - it most often IS slow growning - the "standard doubling time" is 6 months - even if my husband's cancer grew more rapidly, it is VERY unliklely that it doubled every 12 days (the rate it would have needed to grow to gt to 3.1 cm AFTER his retirement). Instead the VA doc issued an opinion that none of his SYMPTOMS in service seemed related to his cancer. If I proceed without getting an IMO - when they finally decide to get an opinion of when the cancer started - they might get one of those doctors who state that the standards of medicine indicate that the onset of cancer is when it is diagnosed. You kind of wonder why they promote early screening if cancer doesn't really start until you FIND it. But - to me - the case is SO clear cut - based on medically established standards that it is more likely than not that a cancer that generally takes over 12 - 15 years to reach 3.1 cm did NOT grow that big in LESS THAN 2 years. But I have balked at having to pay a couple thousand dollars to get someone to state what it obvious. This is not a case that would involve a lot of research or connecting the dots to provide a nexxus. We have ALREADY provided the VA with tons of evidence from the National Cancer Institute, PEER reviewed journals, major universities, and THEIR OWN Studies that show that not only is it POSSIBLE his cancer started long before his retirement - SOUND MEDICALLY ESTABLISHED PRACTICE would indicate it is VERY PROBABLE. That is why the VA docs stay away from the whole issue of when it started. They would have to step way outside of the realm of medically established standards to do so - unless they take the route of stating that the onset of cancer is when it is diagnosed. The BVA has already awareded SC in lots of cases on the growth rate theory. And my husband's case isn't one of those that is close (ie. it is not a case of his cancer was discovered in ten years and it usually takes twelve years to develop. It was discovered in TWO years - a FULL ten years or more before it should have been discovered if it started when he got out of service). So, yes.. I have balked at having to get extremely complicated opinions or having to pay at least a couple thousand dollars to get someone to state what is obvious. One doctor told us that he would need 12 - 14 hours to review the records and write an opinion and wanted $450 an hour. Heck! $2,000 is cheap in that case. I am not saying that $2,000 is unreasonable for an opinion. If I had a complicated case that required a lot of record review and research - it would be a MORE than fair price. However, with the case not being all that complicated, I have been looking for an option where I wouldn't have to pay quite so much. Yes. The opinion will probably get me DIC. And I know I will get the money "back" by getting DIC. But I am also a widow who is struggling with raising my disabled child on my own again - without my husband's help or income. And we all knw how much the costs of even the basic neccessities have skyrocketed in the past year. I am not starving, but I am watching my money very closely. and even if I get DIC - I know that will be well down the road - the VA takes time. Free

He is Board Certified: http://www.vahealthprovider.com/results_ge...e_no=0102201485 He would not show up in BVA decisions - as he is just getting started in this field. And a doctor not showing up on google is not neccessarily a "bad" thing... Actually, as long as a doctor is board certified and has some expertise in an area - the VA can not throw out his opinion just because he is not well known - and being "not well known" may even work to the vet's advantage at some times. DO's have a bit different angle than MD's in their practice - a more holitistic approach - treating the body more as a whole - than chunking off parts and acting like they are separate - which can also be a "good thing" for nexus statements and secondary conditions. Does he have a "solid" track record with the VA? No. He has clearly stated that. And he has clearly stated that is why he is not charging near what those with solid track records charge. Does he offer an viable option for those who: 1. Can't afford the cost that many IMO providers charge. 2. Want an EXTRA opinion to couple with another IMO to help shift the balance of evidence even more in their favor without spending a huge amount to get it. 3. Have pretty clear cut cases but can't find a doctor who will make a statement that verifies the dots that have already been connected. 4. Have medical issues that are well within the DO's scope of practice, or his area's of expertise by training. Yes. I think he does. Free

Cowgirl - Here is a C&P clinicians guideline that guides the VA docs on what to do for various exams http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/guide/...iciansguide.doc I also ran across this quite a while back: C&P Service Clinician’s Guide "1.15 Should opinions of merit or percentage of disability be given by the examiner? The examining clinician must avoid expressing an opinion regarding the merits of any claim or the percentage evaluation that should be assigned for a disability. An opinion should not be given to the claimant regarding insurability, degree of disability, incurrence or aggravation by military service, or the character and sufficiency of treatment during military service or subsequently thereto. When asked about employability, the examiner should not state that an individual veteran is or is not individually unemployable, but should describe in full the effects of the conditions being examined on functioning, and how that relates to employment. 1.16 How do I give an opinion for nexus (relationship to a military incident? When asked to give an opinion as to whether a condition is related to a specific incident during military service, the opinion should be expressed as follows: 1. “is due to” (100% sure) 2. “more likely than not” (greater than 50%) 3. “at least as likely as not” (equal to or greater than 50%) 4. “not at least as likely as not” (less than 50%) 5. “is not due to” (0%)" It looks like they are telling them NOT to give a percentage - but how VAspeak will "interpret" certain phrases. Free

It is also kind of misleading that they put that choice in the middle, rather than list them in order of "level of confidence." Kind of looks tricky. But is probably just one of those "sloppy" things they put out there, like calling chart reviews exams - knowing it CAN work to the deteriment of the vet - but not bothering to be clear. Free

Yep. When they have to play games to deny you - it must mean you are eligible - or they could deny you straight up. I wonder how long it takes to get the opinion from the BVA. I imagine it might take a few months. My prayers are with you. Free

Thanks. I never thought of numbering ALL my documents. I number the pages of each document..but I guess I could number the pages of the entire package too. :o Free

Related to Possibly related to More likely than not related to I was concerned about the middle one. Possibly related to does not rise to the level of more likely than not. It just means it might be related - but there is a chance that it is not related. It doesn't give a point of reference for what that chance is. To have a doctor say something is possibly related to the service is better than them saying it is not related to the service. But it only says it is a possibility; not at least as likely as not. Free

That MIGHT be an idea! Though my orginal question was about the VA - I am currently having a problem with Social Security. A claim worker is really messing with me there - and I have recently discovered he did NOT submit two out of three appeals I submitted to the office. I HAND DELIVERED ALL of them to the local office. But the Security Guard there takes them from you and puts them in the drop box. At that time I never thought of a worker actually messing with my claim. They are NOT losing the papers. They are covering their own tracks. By the time I figured that out - it is too late for some things. When I figured out about the tampering - I thought "but how would they know that I didn't have proof I submitted it, since I hand delivered it?" I know now. The items in the drop box were taken by the Security Guard. So they KNOW any item that was in the drop box has nt crossed the desk - and therefore has no proof of being delivered. Dang. I went the hand delivery route - hoping to avoid any "lost" items or proof of delivery. But I wasn't on my toes enough to realize the opening I left them to mess with my claim. One time I even told the Security Guard I wanted to give the item to the desk. He said I had to give it to HIM. I think it is horrid they have the Security Guards do "grunt work" for them - because you are supposed to "honor" the Security Guards - or you can get kicked out of the office. Maybe I could write about my concerns to a Senator - send All the documents I have hand delivered to Social Security - ask that the Senator assures they get to the place they need to be to gt placed in my file - and also ask if the Senator can STOP of the practice of the Security Guard taking paperwork from the claimants, unless HE stamps them as received. Here I thought I had all this written stuff in my file - and it has probably been thrown away. Or could I send all the stuff to the OIG - and ask that THEY assure the itmes get in my file? Free