timetowinarace

Jim, The difference here is that you was approved after documentation. The military was given the chance to determine eligibility. This person says he had asthma "real bad" and said he "lied" to enlist. It's easy to understand that waiver's are granted in some cases. Maybe even most. This person never gave the opportunity to determine the true circumstances. Yet, wants paid for the condition he hid and OH, was never diagnosed for in service. I do not have a problem with someone lying to join the service. Not one bit. I did not but sure would have if I wanted in bad enough. I do not have a problem with a person recieving the benifits they earned by that service. They earned it. I do have a problem with someone asking to get paid for the condition they lied about. They have allready beniffited a great deal in doing what they had wanted to do and had done the country good. Now to ask to be paid for a condition that was hid and that very well could have existed without the benifit of the service is downright disgracefull. It does not matter what the regs say. This is just the type of thing that taxpayers do not want to pay for. It is cases like this that make the public want the VA to keep a tight reign on veteran benifits. Encouraging this is counter productive to getting faster, equitible claims decisions. It is counter productive to getting the public behind us. One story like this wipes out a thousand story's of veterans struggling to recieve beniffits for obviously good claims. The public will vote to protect their money from one wishy washy claimant at the cost of thousands of deserving brothers and sisters IF WE ARE HELPING AND ENCOURAGING IT! No hard feelings here people. This is my opinion. To knowingly help this person, is to continue to make it difficult for the rest. He has some possible ligitamate conditions. Those should be addressed. Question: Was the claim filed through the DAV? Did you tell your SO that you lied at enlistment? Why did your SO not file the NOD?

Okay, found some verification. There is a researched link between GWI and lipomas. But it's being ignored. Imagine that. From DVA ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS Federally Sponsored Research on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses for 2002 Among the 19 skin conditions, only “miscellaneous benign conditions” (including lipomas) were significantly more prevalent in disabled Gulf War veterans than in healthy Gulf War veterans (12.6% vs. 4.1%). “miscellaneous benign conditions” were four times more frequent in disabled Gulf War veterans than in healthy Gulf War veterans. The authors concluded: “Skin disease does not appear to be contributing to ill health in Gulf War veterans, with the exception of an unexplained two-fold increase in seborrheic dermatitis.” These numbers may be low since this was a small sample group but even so they are significant. With what newbie is saying about observations at the VA and good amount of concern among GW vets with these lipomas, I'd say this is a significant issue to address. Time

Ive searched quite a bit and limpomas are not uncommon. However, there does seem to be a trend that is not verified. Limpomas affect females more often than males, yet quite a few GW males seems to be alarmed at having them. Persons are more commonly affected by one limpoma, yet GW individuals seem to be commonly complaining of multiple limpomas. Problem is that, these conditions are not uncommon in the general population. That a number of GW vets are concerned about their limpomas (including me) will have little impact on the medicall community untill it is shown statistically that GW vets have a higher rate of developing limpomas than the general population. A 1998 GAO report on GULF WAR VETERANS, Limitations of Available Data for Accurately Determining the Incidence of Tumors, there is no accurate way to determine the rate that tumors affect GWV, canceruos or not, at that time. I cannot find any other studies that look into this. This would be a common, concrete and physical link to a true Gulf War Illness if it is verified. Something more than the "subjective, undiagnosed" conditions like fatigue. (hmmm, no accurate records on tumors?) It has me curious enough to keep looking. This question has been raised on a number of GW Vet forums. Time

Jim has a good point. Fraud can be used to deny a claim easier than it can to get one approved. It's much harder to come up with records that don't or shouldn't exist than it is to simply deny evidence exists. I believe it is just as fraudulant but almost imposible to prove when decisions are made without the proper and full evidence. And when it is proven, no one is held accountable. It is a matter of Law on both sides. A wannabe should be prosecuted for fraud. A rater should be prosecuted for fraud. Time

WOW! I haven't looked for new ones lately, but I have at least 13 lipomas. I'm 38 years old. Oops, yep, found a new one! I started noticing them around '93. I'll have to look at my records to see for sure. So it would be rare to have four or so of these at 24 years old? I new older people had one or two but I always that I had too many and was too young, but noboby has ever been concerned about them. I wonder how to get this researched? I'm still searching but so far most of what I've read says lipomas commonaly start to develop in early adulthood. Time

On my claim, I was denied all symptoms other than "undiagnosed fatigue". They will deny every symptom that they can. For the symptom's that they say are not disabling, you'll still want to NOD for SC, even at 0%. (skin growths could become cancerous, eye spots could progress to vision problems) The rest of the symptoms are medicaly present and problematic. A minimum rating of 10% must be given if found SC. So the only way to deny is to deny SC. If they have not given a clinical diagnoses for these conditions (no cause for them) they fall into Title 38 , 3.317 CFR as Berta posted below. I don't know the best way to word it but I'd just stick to facts. It is, after all is said and done, legal manuvering and emotion won't get far. (I fail at that part and it hurts me not them) As much Press as the presumptive issue has had, and the Gov and VA patting themselves on the back for allowing SC for the presumptive illness's (Gulf War Illness is never mentioned in my claims file except for doctor notes and the registry) very few claims have been approved for it. Up to 2002, undiagnosed claims proccessed was 12,754. undiagnosed claimes granted was 3,276. undiagnosed claims denied was 9,578. 2,796 of those are recieving SC comp at 10% or higher. Half of those are at 10%. Those are the most recent #'s I have. Time

First, NARA told me the VA had ALL of my medicall records. It took me two years to find out different. Request the hospital records from them. The VARO knows this but will use it to deny claims. Hospital records from the Persian Gulf Era are NOT in SMR's. NARA knows this as well but will not say so, if you are requesting SMR's, that is all they will look for. If the hearing issue is noted in the C&P exam it can be considered an informal claim. File a formal claim on the issue and the effective date will be the date of the exam. When I filed for undiagnosed condition (GWI) I was given a FULL medical workup under Gulf War guidelines. In short, I was evaluated by a non VA physician (IMO) requested by VA, and every issue was examined. Blood work done, X-rays taken, the whole nine yards. They are looking to put a name to the condition. If they can do that, SC is usually denied. In your case, the RO denied the condition exists so with the medical evidence you have, further follow up should result in SC. These ratings are generally low however. Time

The Records issue is a common one for denial. The VARO knows quite well where to get these records but did not request them for you. Illegally. How do I know they didn't request them? The Duty to Notify. They are required by law to notify you if records could not be obtained. This is axcactly what happened to me. Hospital records for injury during that time are not in SMR's. You have to request them specifically. For both incidents you need to know the dates of hospitalization and the hospital/medical facility. There is now a DoD data base that lists many of these records. you can call to see if the records in question are in this data base if they are, they will send you the forms already filled out, just requiring signature, to request them. If they are not, include them in a request anyway because not all are in the data base. Special Assistant's office- 1-800-497-6261 (data base) And/or request specific hospital records from; National Personnel Records Center, 9700 Page Ave., St Luis, Mo. 63132. Include treating facility, and Dates of treatment. If you do not know axact dates, request them anyway. You might get lucky. They denied my head injury happened,(denied claim) and then denied my secondary condition of my SC because it was "caused by a head injury in service". Hope this helps. I am SC for GWI. I'll try to address that later. Time

By the above two statements, there is NO question as to this posters intent. If my claim is waiting under this one I hope we meet. Time

Well, allrighty then. You want paid for something that the Army wouldn't have let you in with? No wonder Veterans can't get claims approved. Thanks for holding up my claim. Time

Might be faster and easier to request your whole c-file. It's good to have the whole thing anyway. Your C&P exam results will be in there. (better be). Like Testvet said, your c-file is at another VARO because of backlog at your current VARO. Claims that are ready to rate are sent out. If at first they reqested another exam and then decided they don't need one, I'd be ready for appeal. If a decision is questionable in your favor, you can bet that you'd get the exam. That is just opinion though, and not always true. You have 1 year to appeal a decision at the VARO level. 120 days if it is a BVA decision. Time

Cutting back? Don't have enough doctors? How can that be? Aren't the politico and Nicholson touting a doubling of funding? That the VA is well funded? Hmmm. Could it be that we are being LIED to? I had to pass an entrance exam to enlist. They should know vets aren't stupid. But then, I hadn't thought that maybe THEY are too stupid to put it all together. Sorry, no comment here to help anybody. I just couldn't resist. Time

I can't imagine why he would lie to you. A test is a test. It has to have results. As humans have the ability to comunicate using written language, these results can be put to paper. You have the legal right to the results. It does not matter if you can interpret them. You may choose to carry these results to someone that can. When a Doc sends me for testing of any kind, I request a copy of the results go to the requesting physician, another copy be sent to me. Time

Someone may correct me if I'm wrong. I think it is more likely to say that all the evidence has been obtained, and the claim has moved on to be adjudicated. Not necissarilly that SC has been determined. I'm still trying to figure out the exact proccess myself though. Hope that gives you an idea. Time

LOSING THEIR MINDS -- MORE U.S. SOLDIERS THAN EVER ARE SUSTAINING SERIOUS BRAIN INJURIES IN IRAQ -- BUT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THEM ARE BEING MISDIAGNOSED, FORCED TO WAIT FOR TREATMENT OR EVEN BEING CALLED LIARS BY THE ARMY This is from Salon.com...with thanks. Entire article below. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/01/...auma/index.html ------------------------- By Mark Benjamin Jan. 5, 2006 | After fighting in heavy combat during the initial invasion of Iraq, Spc. James Wilson reenlisted for a second tour of duty. Now 24 years old, he loved the life of a soldier. In the fall of 2004, his 1st Calvary Division was mostly fighting in Sadr City, a volatile sector of Baghdad. On Sept. 6, Wilson was manning a .50-caliber machine gun atop a Humvee when a bomb or bombs went off directly under the vehicle, rocking his head forward and slamming it into the machine gun. A fellow soldier told Wilson that his Kevlar helmet had been split open by the impact. The heat from one blast felt like "a hair dryer" on his skin, multiplied "times 20," Wilson later wrote in his diary. To the best of his recollection, the force of the blast also knocked the gun from its mount, smashing it into his leg. Although battered in the attack, Wilson didn't appear badly hurt -- on the outside, at least. But in the days that followed, the young soldier from Albany, Ga., says he often felt "really dizzy, lightheaded and dazed." Two weeks after the battle, Army medics felt Wilson was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and evacuated him out of Iraq for medical evaluation. Wilson was first flown to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, where wounded troops are stabilized, and then sent to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., in October 2004. After arriving at Walter Reed, Wilson repeatedly told doctors that he had experienced a hard blow to the head during combat in Iraq. He suffered from symptoms strongly associated with a traumatic brain injury, which occurs when the brain is rocked violently inside the skull, tearing nerve fibers: seizures, short-term memory loss, severe headaches with eye pain, and dizzy spells that have made him vomit. During a visit to the Pentagon around Christmas 2004, Wilson got so dizzy he vomited "all over" the carpet while meeting Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in his office. Despite Wilson's description of his injury and his symptoms, Walter Reed officials repeatedly questioned his mental state and the authenticity of his combat story. In a June 2005 memorandum from an Army Physical Evaluation Board, some Walter Reed doctors stated that Wilson exhibited "conversion disorder with symptoms of traumatic brain injury." Conversion disorder holds that symptoms such as seizures arise from a psychological conflict rather than a physical disorder. Col. James F. Babbitt, president of the Physical Evaluation Board, accused Wilson of being a liar. "I believe that the preponderance of the evidence available to the Board supports an alternative diagnosis … one of malingering," Babbitt wrote in that memo. Wilson and his wife, Heidi, who has been staying with him at the hospital, vigorously fought the psychological diagnosis and furiously sought medical treatment. The malingering charge was especially painful. "I want my dignity, pride and respect back," Wilson says. After serving his country, being accused of misleading doctors, he says, "is the worst thing in the world." Today, Wilson is thin and has a shaved head. He often clenches his eyes shut, as if to squeeze at the pain in his skull, or search out an elusive word or memory. Whenever a dim detail of his combat duty bubbles up in his mind, he types it into his diary. He holds his hands awkwardly, with his thumbs folded over his palms. His speech is at times slow and slurred. "I have been dealing with this all year because no one would help me," he says. On Dec. 19, 2005, more than a year after he was admitted, Walter Reed finally sent Wilson to a neurological center to be treated for traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychological testing done at Walter Reed on Oct. 11, 2005, led officials to conclude that "there was no indication of malingering." According to a neurosurgeon with extensive experience treating combat head injuries, an October 2004 MRI of Wilson, combined with a description of his symptoms, showed that he should have been treated for a traumatic brain injury right then. Medical experts say the failure to treat a brain-injury victim promptly could hinder recovery. Spc. Wilson is not alone among Iraq veterans who have been misdiagnosed or waited for treatment for traumatic brain injury. Other soldiers interviewed at Walter Reed with apparent brain injuries say they too have been deeply frustrated by delays in getting adequately diagnosed and treated. The soldiers say doctors have caused them anguish by suggesting that their problems might stem from other causes, including mental illness or hereditary disease. According to interviews with military doctors and medical records obtained by Salon, brain-injury cases are overloading Walter Reed. As a result, a significant number of brain-injury patients are falling through the cracks from a lack of resources, know-how, and even blatant neglect. Exactly how many brain-injured patients are being missed, going without care, or left waiting, as opposed to those who get prompt, top-shelf treatment, is difficult to say. Walter Reed officials and doctors say the Army is getting better at treating brain-injured patients but admit cases like Wilson's are a significant problem. A November 2003 report from the Army News Service states that because brain injuries aren't always obvious, they "may be neglected, or even pushed aside as merely psychological." Patients with traumatic brain injuries "are suffering as much, but may not get the same support as someone who has an observable injury like a bullet wound or a broken leg," says Dr. Louis French, a neuropsychologist at Walter Reed, in the article. One thing is certain: Due to today's military technology and insurgent tactics in the Iraq war, more U.S. soldiers than ever before are sustaining and surviving serious head injuries. In fact, traumatic brain injuries are a major problem among soldiers arriving at Walter Reed. According to the hospital's brain injury center, 31 percent of battle-injured soldiers admitted between January 2003 and April 2005 -- 433 patients -- had traumatic brain injuries. Half of those had what the hospital calls a "moderate, severe or penetrating brain injury." In past wars, brain-trauma rates among combat casualties hovered around 20 percent, according to the Army. The rate of brain injuries among troops wounded in Iraq has shot much higher because the bomb, rather than the bullet, is the weapon of choice for insurgents. In addition, today's better body armor and helmets save soldiers' lives in explosions that would have otherwise killed them. Through a spokesperson, Walter Reed and other Army officials, including Col. Babbitt, who accused Wilson of malingering, declined to be interviewed. "We cannot discuss specific cases with anyone except the Soldier due to the Privacy Act and HIPAA [the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act], nor could we address the case or responsibilities of the president of the [Physical Evaluation Board] without violating some portion of HIPAA," wrote Lt. Col. Kevin V. Arata, an Army public affairs officer, in an e-mail. "Therefore, I cannot arrange an interview." But according to a written statement that hospital officials provided to Salon, Walter Reed does have a plan to identify and treat brain-trauma patients. The military has a network of eight brain-injury rehabilitation programs under the rubric of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. The program was created in 1992 to prevent brain-injured soldiers from being misdiagnosed as mentally ill, or missing treatment completely. Some brain injury patients get treatment from neurologists or neurosurgeons; others get treatment from physical, occupational and speech-language therapists. The hospital says it screens for brain trauma all patients who arrive at the hospital who were injured in blasts, vehicle wrecks or falls, or who have obvious, penetrating head wounds. There are many success stories, says John DaVanzo, clinical director at Virginia Neurocare, a rehabilitation center in Charlottesville, Va., where Wilson is receiving treatment. "Yes, there are soldiers being missed," DaVanzo admits, but many others with brain injuries, who would've been overlooked in past wars, are being identified and treated. Still, working in partnership with Walter Reed, DaVanzo has seen the strain on the system during the Iraq war. "There is a massive influx of injured soldiers," he says. "People are overworked." Walter Reed hospital is renowned for state-of-the-art technology and certain kinds of care. One Walter Reed physician tells Salon that the care for amputees at the hospital is "amazing," and praises the work of colleagues, adding that the nurses "work their butts off." However, the physician is worried that a distressing number of patients at the hospital with brain injuries aren't getting adequate screening and care, and says many doctors at the hospital know little about brain injuries and are prone to making a wrong diagnosis. "A lot of things are missed because the doctors are swamped," the physician says. Many military doctors are away serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, and some patients are forced to wait too long for surgeries they need. "We're overwhelmed in terms of resources," the physician says. (Salon agreed to withhold the identity of the physician, who was not authorized to speak to the media, and feared retribution from the hospital.) The delay in proper diagnosis and treatment for Wilson and others with apparent brain injuries is particularly troubling because patients tend to benefit from a prompt response. An April 13, 2005, article about brain trauma from the Department of Defense's own press service says that "if the injury is detected and treated early, most victims can recover full brain function, or at least return to relatively normal lives." Traumatic brain injury can come from a car wreck, or when the sudden pressure from shock waves from an explosion collide with the fluid-filled cavity around the brain. Diagnosis can be tricky because the memory loss, personality change or depression that can accompany traumatic brain injury can also mimic other combat injuries connected with mental health, including post-traumatic stress disorder. But Dr. Gene Bolles, a former chief of neurosurgery at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, says it is plain wrong to place the burden of proof on wounded soldiers. Soldiers coming out of combat who say they've suffered a head blow and who show symptoms of traumatic brain injury should be treated for it, says Bolles. "You do what you can for them," he says flatly. "You believe them." Bolles reviewed a summary of Wilson's October 2004 MRI from Walter Reed. He says it showed "evidence of loss of blood supply" to the brain and was "compatible with a head injury." Alongside Wilson's story and symptoms, he says, "This sounds like typical head injury syndrome to me; you can make that diagnosis." He notes that the "shearing effect" on nerve tissue that comes with a serious head blow can be invisible to MRIs and CAT scans and that "there are no definitive tests that prove this syndrome." But soldiers even remotely suspected of having a brain injury, he says, should be treated aggressively for it, rather than with skepticism. Bolles, who now practices at Denver Health Medical Center in Boulder, Colo., treated U.S. soldiers evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for two years at Landstuhl. While many soldiers get good treatment, in other cases "the system is kind of like you have to prove yourself with an injury before anyone believes you," he says. "I wish we would accept the word of a patient if a patient says, 'This is what I'm feeling,' rather than trying to prove somebody is malingering." It is better to treat soldiers for what they say is wrong with them, he says, even if that means a few cheaters get through the system. Annette McLeod says her husband, Spc. Wendell McLeod Jr., was belatedly diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. McLeod landed at Walter Reed in August after being hit by a truck in Iraq but was not diagnosed with a brain injury until December. "If you come in and are missing a limb, they know how to handle you," says Annette McLeod. "Anybody with injuries you can't see is shoved to the side." McLeod says that to her knowledge her husband, Wendell, was not initially screened for brain injury, even though he'd been hit by a truck. But his behavior was so erratic and his memory was so horrible, she says, that she badgered doctors until they ran some tests that identified his problem. "I knew there was something wrong because of the changes in him," she says. "He kept saying, 'I can't remember. I can't remember.' This is a man who used to remember everything." McLeod, 40, arrived at Walter Reed last August with a fractured vertebra, a chipped vertebra, four herniated discs in his back, and a shoulder injury. He also began suffering from bizarre mood swings. "I can't hardly remember anything," he says. Annette, who is staying with him at Walter Reed, took McLeod to the supermarket recently. "He walked down the aisle three times and could not remember what I asked him to get," she says. She makes her husband sit in the back seat of the car because ever since his accident he wildly grabs at the steering wheel. McLeod was tested for traumatic brain injury in September but did not hear anything about the results until he was diagnosed in the first week of December. In the meantime, McLeod was told by officials that he might have been born with his brain problem. "They tried to say it was inherited," McLeod says. Annette says they were also told it could be psychological. The misdiagnosis and delays have been excruciating, she says angrily, with a lot of "just waiting around and waiting around and waiting around." Sgt. Steve Cobb, age 46, tells a similar story. Injured in an armored personnel carrier accident in Iraq in 2004 while serving with the West Virginia National Guard, a head blow left him with short-term memory loss, hearing loss and the loss of peripheral vision in his left eye. He slurs his words and is so dizzy that he walks with a cane. Medics in Iraq first missed his brain problem completely and gave him aspirin. He served another eight months after the accident. Cobb arrived at Walter Reed last May. In July, he was diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, but did not start getting therapy until September. He says that he, too, was told by hospital officials that he may have been born with his problem. "They said it was hereditary," Cobb says with disgust. His memory is so bad that his wife, Natalie, is afraid he can't take care of himself. She has left her 13- and 19-year-old kids at home with family in West Virginia to be with her husband at Walter Reed. "We heard it was brain disease. We heard it was hereditary," she says over dinner one evening at a restaurant near the hospital. "I feel that they are letting the traumatic brain-injury patients slide through the cracks." The stress of being misdiagnosed can further harm soldiers, says Bolles, the neurosurgeon, especially if patients get stuck in a pattern where doctors are denying that their injuries exist. "That in and of itself becomes a disability to these people if they get angry and frustrated," Bolles says. "That alone makes it worth treating these people early." Wilson came back from Iraq a totally different man, according to his wife Heidi. In a photo of the couple from before his injury, the two are sitting on the edge of a fountain. Wilson stares squarely at the camera with a deft, slight smile. Heidi, in a white dress, sits in his lap, holding a bouquet. Wilson's injury has left him so sensitive to light that his room at Malogne House, a residential facility behind the main hospital at Walter Reed, looks cavelike, lighted only by two dim bulbs. Looking at bright light, Wilson says, "is like welding without your mask on." Sometimes even the dim bulbs are too much. "It kills him," Heidi says one evening in the room. "He puts little blankets over them." Heidi says her husband's brow turns a deep red during his worst headaches, which he says feels like his eyes are being sucked back into his skull. "I just want to take a drill and drill into my head," he says. Sometimes Wilson remembers events from long ago, but not what happened five minutes ago. He still writes bits in his diary, attempting to piece his memory back together. He used to enjoy cooking Cajun food but now that's gone. "Everything tastes like rubber," he says. "I look at stuff I want to taste. I feel like I remember what it tastes like, but I can't." When Heidi is away for a few days, his memory loss and olfactory problems collide, though he tries to keep a sense of humor about it. "If she is away, I may not take a bath for six days, until she gets back," he says. Heidi nods vigorously. "I'll get his bath ready and say, 'Time to get in the tub,'" she says. But when the conversation returns to Wilson's treatment, their smiles quickly fade. It's hard for them to believe, after two hard tours of duty, that this is the kind of treatment he has received. "I just want to be taken care of," he says. "I just want healthcare." -------------------------

I don't know about MS, but you will not succeed with a brain injury case without neuropsych testing. Not with SSDI either. NP testing is the only concrete proof of cognative problems. Otherwise, the claimant just SAYS he/she cannot remember, has difficulty concentrating, ect. All subjective. Even most of the neurological problems are subjective and untestable. Think about it. How can you PROVE weakness? Maybe your not trying. When a claim is involved, malingering is suspected. To the best of my knowledge, no, the MMPI cannot prove malingering. As the origanal poster stated with his test. If it shows that a person is much sicker than thought by examiners, then that person is considered to be possibly mallingering while test taking. But it is allso possible that the examiner made a wrong assessment, or that the test was simply not compatible with the person (after all, the person IS brain injured). The whole neuropsych battery of tests together CAN determine malingering though. But the MMPI would not be needed to determine this. A full battery of tests cannot be cheated. Unless you are a neurophsychologist trained to give the tests and interpret them. link below The critical point here is that Dr. Thomas did not say that the MMPI-2results were not valid. Rather, he said only that the validity of the results wasuncertain. Dr. Thomas recommended that Mr. Hannum’s “test-taking attitudesshould be evaluated for the possibility that he has produced an invalid profile.”R. 255. He also recommended that “the possibility that [Mr. Hannum] could actout in an aggressive manner on his delusional ideas should be further evaluated.”R. 260. And contrary to the ALJ’s statement in his opinion, R. 13, Dr. Thomas didnot state that a true psychotic condition was “less likely” than other explanationsfor the test results. Rather, Dr. Thomas stated:[Mr. Hannum’s] responses to this questionnaire should be interpretedwith caution. He is presenting an unusual number of psychologicalsymptoms. This response set could result from confusion, stress orneed to seek a great deal of attention for his problems. Alternatively,they could represent a true psychotic condition.R. 259. Overall, Dr. Thomas’ report does not indicate that the MMPI-2 resultscould simply be discounted or rejected, as the ALJ did. Rather, Dr. Thomas’statements indicate that the MMPI-2 results may have represented a true -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 21 -20-psychosis or they may have represented an invalid profile. Further investigationwas required to determine which characterization was more accurate. The MMPI-2 yielded striking but questionable results. The medical expert’stestimony indicated that the issue of whether the MMPI-2 results were valid wasin fact decisive for the disability determination. Dr. Thomas indicated in hisreport that the validity of the profile should be evaluated further. If the MMPI-2results were as flawed as the ALJ suggested in his decision, then the ALJ had anobligation to obtain more information on the MMPI-2 results, to request a follow-up MMPI-2, to obtain expert opinion that no MMPI-2 would be reliable applied toMr. Hannum, or at least to discuss whether or not the MMPI-2 was necessary tofully evaluate Mr. Hannum’s psychological condition. In fact, the ALJ suggestedin his decision that further evaluation was needed to confirm or negate........ Time SSDI

I always wondered that too. With my injury, I was treated (stitched) by field combat medics, transported to a feild medical station that included surgeons, transfered to a naval feild hospital, then to a permanant hospital in Germany. The only records available are the regular hospital records even though records (or notes) went with me the whole way. The medical story was deluted by the time I got to permanant treatment. That can't be very accurate, but then the Veterans account is allways doubted. Hmmmm. Time

I think the password is 'VETERAN'. Whenever I've used it I recieve help from others, but not the VA. So don't worry, I don't think they are going to crack this one anytime soon.

Yes, the mountain needs moving. Replacing a lost paycheck does nothing to replace a lifetime of lost health, happiness, self respect, and all else that is lost. Not to mention a persons equall rights in a country founded on freedom.

A VA researcher is studying a frog: He cuts off it's front left leg, tells it to jump and it jumps. He cuts off it's front right leg, tells it to jump and it jumps. He cuts off the frog's back left leg, tells it to jump and it jumps. Finally he cuts off it's remaining leg, tells it to jump but it doesn't jump. Published conclusion: After cutting off all four legs, a frog loses it's ability to hear.

Yeah. I wonder if she knows that we only have a choice of one VARO to go to for benifits in our respective regions. I would like to see her research on which region Veterans are moving to recieve the favorable conditions. My bags will allready be packed when I'm evicted from my home while waiting for my regional VARO. If someone finds out where this fictional place is, let us underground Brothers and Sisters know please. LOL LOL LOL. And, in my experience, your local Vet Center is a very good place to go if you feel you have PTSD, depression, anxiaty, or a difficult time readjusting after combat. But, remember, mums the word. :D

A Political Debate On Stress Disorder As Claims Rise, VA Takes Stock By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 27, 2005; Page A01 The spiraling cost of post-traumatic stress disorder among war veterans has triggered a politically charged debate and ignited fears that the government is trying to limit expensive benefits for emotionally scarred troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the past five years, the number of veterans receiving compensation for the disorder commonly called PTSD has grown nearly seven times as fast as the number receiving benefits for disabilities in general, according to a report this year by the inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs. A total of 215,871 veterans received PTSD benefit payments last year at a cost of $4.3 billion, up from $1.7 billion in 1999 -- a jump of more than 150 percent. Experts say the sharp increase does not begin to factor in the potential impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the increase is largely the result of Vietnam War vets seeking treatment decades after their combat experiences. Facing a budget crunch, experts within and outside the Veterans Affairs Department are raising concerns about fraudulent claims, wondering whether the structure of government benefits discourages healing, and even questioning the utility and objectivity of the diagnosis itself. "On the one hand, it is good that people are reaching out for help," said Jeff Schrade, communications director for the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. "At the same time, as more people reach out for help, it squeezes the budget further." Among the issues being discussed, he said, was whether veterans who show signs of recovery should continue to receive disability compensation: "Whether anyone has the political courage to cut them off -- I don't know that Congress has that will, but we'll see." Much of the debate is taking place out of public sight, including an internal VA meeting in Philadelphia this month. The department has also been in negotiations with the Institute of Medicine over a review of the "utility and objectiveness" of PTSD diagnostic criteria and the validity of screening techniques, a process that could have profound implications for returning soldiers. The growing national debate over the Iraq war has changed the nature of the discussion over PTSD, some participants said. "It has become a pro-war-versus-antiwar issue," said one VA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because politics is not supposed to enter the debate. "If we show that PTSD is prevalent and severe, that becomes one more little reason we should stop waging war. If, on the other hand, PTSD rates are low . . . that is convenient for the Bush administration." As to whether budget issues and politics are playing a role in the agency's review of PTSD diagnosis and treatment, VA spokesman Scott Hogenson said: "The debate is over how to provide the best medical services possible for veterans." People with PTSD have paralyzing memories of traumatic episodes they experienced or witnessed, a range of emotional problems, and significant impairments in day-to-day functioning. Underlying the political and budget issues, many experts acknowledged, is a broader scientific debate over how best to diagnose trauma-related pathology, what the goal of treatment should be -- even what constitutes trauma. Harvard psychologist Richard J. McNally argues that the diagnosis equates sexual abuse, car accidents and concentration camps, when they are entirely different experiences: A PTSD diagnosis has become "a way of moral claims-making," he said. "To underscore the reprehensibility of the perpetrator, we say someone has been through a traumatic event." Chris Frueh, director of the VA clinic in Charleston, S.C., said the department's disability system encourages some veterans to exaggerate symptoms and prolong problems in order to maintain eligibility for benefits. "We have young men and women coming back from Iraq who are having PTSD and getting the message that this is a disorder they can't be treated for, and they will have to be on disability for the rest of their lives," said Frueh, a professor of public psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina. "My concern about the policies is that they create perverse incentives to stay ill. It is very tough to get better when you are trying to demonstrate how ill you are." Most veterans whom Frueh treats for PTSD are seeking disability compensation, he said. Veterans Affairs uses a sliding scale; veterans who are granted 100 percent disability status receive payments starting at around $2,300 a month. The VA inspector general's report found that benefit payments varied widely in states and said that was because VA centers in some states are more likely to grant veterans 100 percent disability. Psychiatrist Sally Satel, who is affiliated with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said an underground network advises veterans where to go for the best chance of being declared disabled. The institute organized a recent meeting to discuss PTSD among veterans. Once veterans are declared disabled, they retain that status indefinitely, Frueh and Satel said. The system creates an adversarial relationship between doctors and patients, in which veterans sometimes take legal action if doctors decline to diagnose PTSD, Frueh said. The clinician added that some patients who really need help never get it because they are unwilling to undergo the lengthy process of qualifying for disability benefits, which often requires them to repeatedly revisit the painful episodes they experienced. The concern by Frueh and Satel about overdiagnosis and fraud -- what researchers call "false positives" -- has drawn the ire of veterans groups and many other mental health experts. A far bigger problem is the many veterans who seek help but do not get it or who never seek help, a number of experts said. Studies have shown that large numbers of veterans with PTSD never seek treatment, possibly because of the stigma surrounding mental illness. "There are periodic false positives, but there are also a lot of false negatives out there," said Terence M. Keane, one of the nation's best-known PTSD researchers, who cited a 1988 study on the numbers of veterans who do not get treatment. "Less than one-fourth of people with combat-related PTSD have used VA-related services." Larry Scott, who runs the clearinghouse http://www.vawatchdog.org/ , said conservative groups are trying to cut VA disability programs by unfairly comparing them to welfare. Compensating people for disabilities is a cost of war, he said: "Veterans benefits are like workmen's comp. You went to war. You were injured. Either your body or your mind was injured, and that prevents you from doing certain duties and you are compensated for that." Scott said Veterans Affairs' objectives were made clear in the department's request to the Institute of Medicine for a $1.3 million study to review how PTSD is diagnosed and treated. Among other things, the department asked the institute -- a branch of the National Academies chartered by Congress to advise the government on science policy -- to review the American Psychiatric Association's criteria for diagnosing PTSD. Effectively, Scott said, Veterans Affairs was trying to get one scientific organization to second-guess another. PTSD experts summoned to Philadelphia for the two-day internal "expert panel" meeting were asked to discuss "evidence regarding validity, reliability, and feasibility" of the department's PTSD assessment and treatment practices, according to an e-mail invitation obtained by The Washington Post. The goal, the e-mail added, is "to improve clinical exams used to help determine benefit payments for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder." "What they are trying to do is figure out a way not to diagnose vets with PTSD," said Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans advocacy group. "It's like telling a patient with cancer, 'if we tell you, you don't have cancer, then you won't suffer from cancer.' " Hogenson, the VA spokesman, said the department is not seeking to overturn the established psychiatric criteria for diagnosing PTSD. "We are reviewing the utility and the objectivity of the criteria . . . and are commenting on the screening instruments used by VA," he said. "We want to make sure what we do for screening comports with the latest information out there."

Thanks. Sorry my frustration gets deeper every day. I know you are doing all you can for ALL vets. I hope you do not think I was implying otherwize. That was not my intention. You are a very special person to me and I think all who come here. I only worded that the way I did to make my point, and I know that each claim must be fought as the system is now. I'm the guy with my foot stuck in the railroad tracks. A train is comming. Every so often someone hears me hollar. They come and look it over. "Yep, you fell right through that crack. I sure wished I had the tools to get you out. Good luck". I'm still pulling on my foot. Understand if my frustration mounts. The train is getting closer.

Berta, I agree your veiws are accuraate for the average vet. Everyone keeps forgetting the Vet that is not average. The Vet who's disability prevents following your process. My claim is for brain injury. Learning IS my disability. Memory IS my disability. A lack of attention to detail IS my disability. An inability to performe complex tasks IS my disability. On top of that my body has failed me. I am not allowed by law to hire someone to help me with my claims. Therefore the VA is reqired by law to properly process my claims without the need for me to have assistance. EVERY VETERAN deserves this treatment. It is a life effecting matter for me, or someone like me. I cannot do what you propose I do for a successful claim. I cannot do what is neccissary for a successfull claim if the VARO is not held accountable on a higher level. The good people of Hadit are not the first to fight claims to completion, yet That is still what it takes to be approved for those that can. It has done nothing for those that can't. I'm beginning to realize that it IS okay to be the Veteran left behind. The ones with the inability to fight for themselfs are left to SSDI. For cryin' out loud, make the VA accountable. I hear over and over and over, "you are your best advocate". Thats how you win claims. Well, I've tried and tried to put it other ways but noboby is catching on or doesn't care. Either way, you've all made me feel like an xxxxxxx. My brain won't let me do what you say I need to, and everyone seems to think fighting each claim is the only way to go. I'm eventually going to get my claim, but does it make it okay for they next guy? It's not a simple thing. I'm sorry to put this way, but really, in this proccess I get shafted. I needed a VA that followed the LAW and the will of the people. Noboby has addressed that yet. Time

I think you are 100% correct in your assesment that things need to change at the VARO. I think the VARO level is THE bottleneck of the system. But, I also think it is well known and recognised by the powers to be, and not being fixed for a reason. It is well known that the AG(whoever has proper jurisdiction) has been contacted and asked to intervene numeruos times over persistant law violations at the VARO level. It never happens. I know for a fact, Senator Craig has been shown several claims from different individuals full of Law violations commited by the VARO, and these are ignored. 83% of CAVC cases are remanded. The VARO is akin to a group of unruly children that will not behave at school. Their 'parents' have been notified many times to bring their children in line with the rules of the school. The 'parents' have failed to do so. So, we must force the 'parents' to do THEIR jobs, or lose the right to be parents. I hope that makes as much sence up on the screen as it does in my head. B) But, I'm not sure how to do it, except to make the public aware, as our representatives seem only to respond to pressure. We all have to fight at the VARO to keep our claim alive, but in doing so, many without the expertise found at hadit or a very good, rare SO, will legally ruin their claim in the process. Thus, no chance of winning past this level. VARO mistakes are easily forgiven and eventually recognised, but veteran mistakes are most often permanent. Hmmm, I wonder why the VARO never gets fixed, and the numbers suggest something way more sinister than human error, by a WELL paid employee wanting to keep a job? NOBODY I've ever worked for would tolorate that amount of error in a part time $10k a year position. 83% remanded. Is this error? Time Berta, I need to say my thoughts are in addition to yours and not opposed. You are correct to pursue the issue as you are and we all should follow suit.