Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

Desiretofish'swife

Seaman
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Desiretofish'swife

Desiretofish'swife's Achievements

  1. Never mind my previous post. Found it. Thanks, Desiretofish'swife
  2. I have asked this before, but have lost the page. What should go into a good IMO? Thanks, Desiretofish'swife
  3. Hi Berta, Thank you for your quick response. I need clarification on one question though, can he file it as a new claim, even though it has already been denied (all the way through a DRO decision.) Remember, he filed on this lower back asking for direct service connection. I need to know if he can just let that decision stand instead of going to BVA with it? and go ahead and file a new claim as a secondary service connection to his knee? Its confusing as to if he can re-file a new claim on his lower back since he was already denied direct service connection. Thanks, Desiretofish'swife
  4. Hi, Hopefully, someone can answer my question. My husband filed a claim for low back trouble. He was denied due to lack of evidence in his SMRs and after service treatment lack of records all the way through a DRO review. He was diagnosed with degenerative disk disease by the VA. Ok, now for my question: Can he now file a "new" claim for this back trouble as a "secondary condition" to his service connected right knee. He was granted a hip secondary sc due to this knee condition. We feel that if we can just file a "new" claim (if it is still possible) that he stands a better chance at secondary (instead of direct) service connection. We were just not sure if you could file it as a "new" claim after he was already denied service connection (direct)for his lower back condition. I guess it just comes down to this question: do not file the BVA appeal on his lower back condition as a direct service connection? and then just file a new claim on lower back as secondary to his service connected R knee condition? Is this allowable? Or is it a done deal on filing on his lower back? Any help or advice would be appreciated. Best regards, Desiretofish'swife
  5. Hi, Would someone let me know where I can find those guidelines that doctors should follow when writing an IMO for a claim. I was able to find them yesterday, but now I cannot find them. Thanks, Desiretofish'swife
  6. Hi, This is my first post to this forum and any help that anyone can provide would be greatly appreciated. Sorry this is so long, but I felt I needed to explain, to the best of my ability, of what happended. A little background: My husband was rated at 70% PTSD and 10% knee injury for a total of 70%. When he originally applied for compensation benefits he included both military and post military trauma (which was in his C-file) prior to his first C&P exam in May of 2005. At the C&P examination in May of 2005 the examiner stated that she reviewed his C-file and after the exam her opinion was sent to the rater. He was then given a rating of 70%. Ok, this is where it gets a little complicated: My husband was then invited to apply for IU because of his 70% rating. After applying for the IU (we moved from one state to another before filing for this IU) he was then sent for a second C&P. We included his SSDI award. This SSDI was given to him after a post military trauma occured and he had to retire. The SSDI was based on his PTSD from this trauma. Now, when he was sent for the second C&P exam the rater asked the examiner to seperate the symptoms (military and post military traumas,) and he was also ask to state (in his opinion) what percentage could be attributed to military and to post military traumas. The rater then sent a proposal to reduce his rating for PTSD from 70% to 30% and keep his rating the same for his knee injury at 10% for a total of 40%. My husband then filed for a reconsideration hearing and was given one in November. We just recieved notice in today's mail reducing his rating to the 30% + 10%. So, now he has to file an NOD on this rating. My question: How can a doctor and rater seperate traumas from the military and post military to get a percentage for each? My husband's stressor and military nexus was proven in the first rating, but now they want to say that his military trauma only rates at 30% and his post military is 40%? so he will only recieve the percentage attributed to his military and they will discount his post military from the overall rating. This is no joke, this actually happened. They stated that the first C&P examiner was not FULLY aware of his post military trauma when he/she rated him at 70%. But the fact is that when my husband first applied for compensation the only records that were in his C-file where from the post military trauma, until he was able to provide the stressor and diagnosis, at which time they were then able to rate him at the 70%. We are both very confused as to how they can seperate symptoms from military and post military traumas for rating percentage purposes. What can we do? Is there any cases that anyone can think of that deal with this type of way to rate? We don't know where to go from here. We are going to file an NOD on Monday, but need help. Stressed on this one, but we just cannot follow this type of logic. Keep in mind that they did not take away his rating for PTSD, only reduced it because of his post military trauma. I thought that in order to get a rating all that you needed to do was prove the stressor occurred, that you had a diagnosis, and that it was an ongoing problem. We did that. Now they are reducing him because of his post military trauma, which the rater said the first C&P examiner was not fully informed about when giving him his original rating. Remember that all of his post military trauma records were in his C-file PRIOR to his first examination, and the C&P doctor even stated that she reviewed that C-file prior to his exam. The problem was that she only mentioned the post military accident in her report, and the second rater made quite a big deal about this fact. HELP would be welcomed. Best regards, Desiretofish'swife
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use