Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
mountain tyme
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
VA Disability and Benefits Information
VA Benefits News
Store
Posts posted by mountain tyme
-
-
oneshot wrote "I really can't understand what your trying to claim. Looks like you just wanted out of the Navy. Why should the VA pay you? The Military did not hurt you, it seems like you just couldn't adjust to the Navy."
Human nature has made us all unique individuals...I have been behind betty from her first post...you read what you want to read...and reacted without stepping back and looking at the whole picture.
How is a 19 year old suppose to act...esp. a young person who felt that there life was in danger...of course there going to voice that they made a mistake that they want out of the military...perhaps at that time Betty felt betrayed by her supervisor for forcing her into a situlation that threatened her life so of course your not going to just place blame on the supervisor...you place your frustration on the system in this case the navy...so in fear and desperation everything to do with the navy looked bad to her from the minute she stepped in ....I don't know what she went through but I feel for her...and I am no sucker...but I do read between the lines...nothing is just back and white...If you read the navy doctor reports how differnt they are the first one eludes to her just venting yet she is still a valued servicewomen...then the second evaluation.. yet they are just a week or so apart...there is a marked difference why..it is because at this point her commander decided to have her released perhaps it was due to the fact she was seeking help and she was put on medication...now betty is a liablitiy to the navy...so the commander has her evaluated for the second time..but this time the doctor has the thumbs up to write a report to support the commanders desire to have betty discharged and that is how he writes his report to refect the commanders wish. to have her released....
It's not like she could just quit...At least she didn't go AWOL like some veterans I know that were back on a rotation and just didn't report back to base until they reached out for help...I can not tell you how many young men made it to our front door reaching out for help...knowing they dug themselves a hole and my Dad helped them out and went with them when they turned themselves in back on base...and in most cases it worked out well a slap on the wrist...so the next time you have such a urge to incite your Freedom of speech please remember Betty is also an American Veteran who also served her country in an honorable way.
MT
-
even flow wrote:
"If you have done your part and had a few visits to your VA PCP annually, ordered and taken your meds, and everything else you are supposed to do, then you will not loose your 100%."
I was not aware that one had to use the VA for there medical care for there s/c disability. Other then the C/P I was sent to a year ago or so..I have never set foot into a VA facility for any medical care. I am fortunate enough that I have other health insurance that covers the cost of my continueous care.
I did call the VAMC that is about 2 hours for me to see if I could set up an appointment and I was told there was a 3 month waiting list just to be put on a team...then after I was able to be put on a team that it would take another 90 to 120 days just to get an appointment.
So I have just stayed with my family doctor and I am content not to change. At least this way I have regular apointments and excellent care.
I never heard of anyone losing there rating for not going on yearly appointments to the VA clinics...
but then again I don't know to many disabled vets outside of the ones I have meet though this process.
MT
-
you could submit a reconsideration with a copy of your ssdi paperwork stating that you were awarded ssdi due to your service connected disability sometimes in cases like yours esp. since your ssdi is based on your sc disablitiy it will go faster.
I also believe you have one year to file for an increase but the faster you put in the better it is.
You can also call the 800 number to make sure of the time...but normally on your paperwork the VA sent there should be a letter stating if you do not agree with the decision you have such a such time to file a Notice of disagreement.
hope this helps.
mt
Yes congradulations on your award I too am sc for Ptsd due to MST
-
Betty the letter of Denial I am assuming that was the SSOC...I read what you posted did the denial letter state anything about your condition not being serviced connected due to no nexus? OR are you being denied based soley on the medical evaluation...
The VA. examiners have determined that your " disability " manifested in service was an immature personality.
After reviewing the evidence in its totality, we have concluded that the most current, credible diagnosis is the one rendered by the board of Psychiatrist.
Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified, with borderline, histrionic and dependent traits.
The Anxiety Disoder noted in the medical records was not diagnosed in service, and not noted in legible treatment records prior to 1979.
Denied.
-B)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How I read it is the VA is conceding that an immature personality manifested during service ("VA. examiners have determined that your " disability " manifested in service was an immature personality")which means two things...it was not pre-existing condition or perhaps you had a pre-existing fear of water and when you were thown into the pool that fear manifested out which could translate into that due to the pool incident that it aggravated a pre-existing condition but since there was not preexisting condition that can be proven I would say that is a moot point...the VA can not prove there was any pre-existing condition prior to enlistement so your condition manifested due to a trauma you incurred during your time in service (I hope that makes sense). So lets say for arugument sake that yes during your enlistment this condition manifested...now the question is DID this condition manifest due to the pool incident...if the answer is yes...then it is also possible that due to the immense feeling impending death you felt due to the sensation of drowing brought on PTS...due to the lack of understanding by the military it went untreated...you were perscribed medication due to your anixity I feel Betty that due to that trauma of the pool incident that you developed PTS and it went untreated now you have PTSD...all the conditions that the VA are pointing too are underlying conditions...and since they have conceded and stated that a condition manifested during your service enlistement they opened a door for you...Have you ever been told you have PTS? I think since the VA is not denying that the pool incident took place that you have a nexus...you just have to have your doctor refer you to a board certified phycologist OF YOUR STATE someone who would do SSDI claims..to evaluate you for PTSD...and link it to the inservice stressor of the immence fear of inpending death you felt...and that you did not receive apporoitate treatment...one has to remember that when one is enlisted in the military it is not like a civilan job you just can't quit...so you are forced to endure the same stressor each day....so it is more complexed...Betty you need to go out of the box on this one and use the VA rational as a positive and based on what they are saying you have a damn good chance of winning...I am going to do some research on this...
MT
-
Pete53 wrote: "Breaks my heart to see the sacrifice being made by so many and for what?"
I asked myself that question every day my son was in Iraq and the relief of him being back home is short lived for I know he will be going back again. He told me Mom I go where I am needed and right now I will do more good helping over there then here." he works in the mental health field he chose that calling because he saw first hand the devastaion mental health disabilities have on families. Everything we do in this life has an impact on the lives around us.
I read that right now " The huge influx of injured troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has overwhelmed the VA’s outmoded systems for providing medical care and disability benefits. The difficulties in handling the high volume of claims are exacerbated by the fact that the processes are riddled with inconsistent and irrational procedures. In addition, the archaic systems are structurally unsuitable for dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), a signature problem of veterans of OEF/OIF. As a result, the claims processing systems now in place are mere shells, and the due process rights of wounded veterans seeking care and compensation through these systems are routinely and repeatedly violated in multiple ways.
"Veterans with PTSD are among those troops who have suffered the worst due to the disintegration of the VA’s claims system. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have produced an unprecedented number of veterans suffering from this mental disorder. PTSD is prevalent in troops returning from the current wars because of multiple rotations into combat, the absence of battle lines, widespread use of improvised explosive devices, the moral ambiguity of killing combatants dressed as civilians, the unprecedented use of National Guard and Reserve troops, and the use of body armor that saves lives but leaves minds and bodies shattered."
" In addition, serious problems have surfaced regarding the VA’s use of a general ratings guide for mental disorders, particularly PTSD. This guide is used by the VA in the claims process to determine a disability rating. However, it focuses on a veteran’s employability rather than his or her more general level of impairment. This emphasis on occupational impairment unduly penalizes veterans with PTSD, who may display distressing and disabling impairments in important areas of life but who are often capable of working to some extent. The result is that veterans with PTSD often receive disability ratings that leave them at or below the poverty level and deprive them of needed medical attention."
one needs to see the whole picture when it comes to this war in Iraq...it should never take away from all the veterans in previous wars who have suffered equally...but this current war or conflict is differnt in the way the U.S. miltary has engaged in it...historically...
"At no time in U.S. military history have large numbers of troops been required to serve on the front line in any war for a period of six to seven months, let alone a year or more, without a significant break to recover from the physical, psychological, and emotional demands that ensue from combat. During WWII, entire units were withdrawn from the line for months at a time in order to rest and recuperate. Even during Vietnam, week-long combat patrols in the field were typically followed by several days of rest and recuperation at the base camp. Never before has our nation redeployed service members who have already been diagnosed with PTSD to the same combat zone where they were originally traumatized, as is being done now. In OEF/OIF, troops are serving longer and more frequent tours of duty than in past conflicts. Many troops have been deployed three or four times and have had their tours of duty involuntarily extended in length. A considerable number of troops are conducting combat operations every day of the week, ten to twelve hours per day, for months on end."
It is an outrage NO IT IS A CRIME that after a Vet has been diagnosised with PTSD that he would be rotated back to the front lines!!! I feel helpless in this I speak out I send letters to the White house my state and local reps...a system will not change so the change has to come through those who care...helping one vet at a time...one person can make a diffence in the life of those they reach out too...so I look at the numbers...
"As of September 30, 2006, more than 3,000 troops had been killed and 50,500 troops had been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since the onset of OEF/OIF. (Linda Bilmes, Soldiers Returning from Iraq and Afghanistan: The Long-Term Costs of Providing Veterans Medical Care and Disability Benefits, RWP07-001 (John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Faculty Research Working Papers Series, 2007) (“Bilmes Study”) at 11-12.)1 By early June 2007, the death total had reached 3,810. The Department of Defense (“DOD”) reported that, as of May 2007, 111 of these troops had died of self-inflicted wounds; the DOD does not report suicides among veterans of OEF/OIF"
enough said...perhaps that is why that song touched me so deeply.
http://www.flashdemo.net/gallery/wake/index.htm
MT
-
http://www.flashdemo.net/gallery/wake/index.htm
A song from our troops..
very moving and touching
MT
-
Hi Betty I would say it would only require one signature...normally more then one may mean they awarded you a grant fingers and eyes crossed!! It's too bad that the
"VA refuses to award any interest on claim awards, regardless of the length of time between a final determination and the effective date or whether the initial claim denial was caused by the VA’s own errors. The VA’s retroactive awards of SCDDC are based upon historical amounts rather than the higher, current SCDDC amounts. In effect, the VA enjoys the financial benefits of inflation caused by its own delays!"
But Betty when you get your award just think of how many VA employee's you helped in the past years to receive bonus....I read this a while back and saved it for something to ponder to see a bright side of a system gone wrong...at least someone was able to get something good out of my or others plight! and this statement reminds me of your case.....
"The VA’s incentive compensation system for employees encourages the “churning” or recycling of claims, enabling employees to accumulate more work credits and bonuses. The recycling of claims is accomplished by prematurely issuing denials without completing the required development steps, failing to take evidence-gathering steps or arrange for examinations known to be grounds for remands from the BVA or CAVC, and various other manipulative methods or techniques. These incentives are confirmed by the May 2005 VA Office of Inspector General report, “Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation Payments” (“2005 VA IG Report”). The 2005 VA IG Report recounts comments by VA ratings staff such as, “there is a lot of pressure to make your production standard. In fact, your performance standard centers around production and a lot of awards are based on it. Those who don’t produce could miss out on individual bonuses, etc. . . .” (Dep’t of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation Payments, Report 05-00765-137 (May 2005) at 61.)...
I know that God has a greater plan with you in mind...I hope all the people who MISHANDLED you claim and those of others Have themselves a Merry Little Christmas!
how they can look themselves in the mirror is beyond me!
Betty things will work out in Gods time...believe in the truth that is all we really have.
God Speed
MT
hummmm I still feel strongly you have been given a partial grant...(I would say full but with a SSOC...I suppose they would miss your sweet voice if they gave you a full grant so it is another way of keeping you around a bit longer!!)
-
-
The best way I can explain my thoughs on this matter in regards to your case is based on the new evidence you submitted over the past year or so...and the steps the VA took in regards to what those two quacks said....First A supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) presents the appellant with changes or additions to the SOC. These changes and additions are usually based on additional evidence received after the issuance of the SOC, before or after receipt of a substantive appeal, or after a remand....in your case I am hoping for that christmas ray of hope that the SSOC is based on the fact that the new evidence you have submitted does not result in a total grant of the issue under appeal but maybe Betty they are granting you part of it...which means you could have been granted SC but not everything you are asking for.
Yes a SSOC usually reflects a denial of some sort...but not always a total denial...I perfer to think that they conceded on some parts and granted a partial...
fingers and eyes crossed
God Speed
MT
P.S. FYI...
"If a decision is considered a partial grant of an issue under appeal, a signed rating codesheet will be prepared separately on blue paper and included with the SSOC for the entry of amended award data.
If a decision is considered a full grant of an issue under appeal, a rating will be prepared with a codesheet, and the SSOC will address only the issues still continued on appeal."
-
This is the season for miracles...so it could be good news!! did you call the 800 number and just ask what your service connected percentage is...if they say you are not connected then there is your answer..if you ask what the status is they will simply say that the a letter has been sent...at least if you just ask what your compensation percentage is they will either tell you a number or not...this way the wait is over...if they tell you a number well then it is a start.
I can't even imagin what you are feeling...but know that you are in my thoughts...and prayers...
MT
-
Hi Betty...
if your claim has made it to the post and determination department then a decision has been made on your claim.
Post Determination Team
Notify the veteran
Prepare the award of benefits, or the disallowance document. I would say you should hear something in about 2 weeks (hopefully). This is what you can do...call up the 800 number and ask them what your pecentage is if you have been awarded compensation they will tell you a %, but if you ask them what your status is they will not tell you do to regulations...that is why you ask what is your current rating %...biting my nails...
mt
-
Hello Betty,
"I'm with John D. and others who say do NOT, under any circumstances, go for an aggragation in service case. It is simply not true and as you know, it is the truth that will set us free."
after keeping up with your case for over a year...not once did you ever entertain a thought that your condition was pre-existing prior to enlistment. So under no cirmumstance should you even entertain such a thought now to do so would open the door to a denial...and that is what the VA wants to do...entrapment come to mind.
The people who are handling your case seem to be banking on that you will change your course and concede in order to file under a different tatic like aggervating a pre-condition in order to be granted SC, I would say the VA person that is handling your case is playing a game of chess with you don't play it...stand firm on the truth of the matter...and don't cave in to this outragous miscarraige of justice that is occuring.
Your story is what movies are made of...and if you stand your ground Betty you will prevail in this maze of maddness they have created and you have become a victim all over again...not only you but your family as well.
The more I think about this the more I say send out a mass mailing to all the syndicated newspapers and TV stations New stationed...until someone listens...right now the VA does not need this type of publicity.
enough said ...I have you in my prayers the Greatest weapon you have is on your side and that is the Man upstairs...
God Bless
mountain tyme
-
jbasser you wrote:
"The presumptive rule for Hypertension is: within the first year after service discharge the Veteran must show Hypertension that is compensable. That means that the Systolic reading (Top number) must be 160 or higher, or the diastolic (bottom number) must be 100 or higher. 160 / 100 is the threshold for compensation. Either or and not both. The word predominant also comes into play as the readings must be predominatly compensable. it also stated compensable with continuous medication for control."
The question I have...if your SMR shows that your B/P has a history of being high...and in the SMR there are two notes that a 5 day B/P is ordered...would that show that the Veteran had hypertentsion...the reason I am asking I helped a Vet put in a claim for hypertension...within his medical records there is a pattern of high blood pressure...(I also noted that more times then not B/P was not even taken during clinic visits not sure why)and on two occassions there was a request for a 5 day take...but I could not find anywhere in the SMR the 5 day results...the vet told me that he remembered having it done but one time he was tdy...the second time the doctor that had the test done left the base (transfered) yet still I would think that the results would be in his records...but I went through them with a fine tooth comb...when he retired out of the military he had a them make a Copy of his SMR...and there are two volume of records...I checked for labs results within the maze of records and I found none...
So I went ahead and filed for him a claim for hypertentsion...I went through his medical records and made a copy of all his B/P readings which were a page full that would be considered high...since he retired from the military he has been treated for hypertension and is on medication to control it.
At the same time that I filed for his hypertension I also filed for gerds, increase for headaches (was rated 0% when he retired), sleep apena.
He received his decision...
10% for Gerds
0% for increase in headaches (tension)
and the hypertension was referred at this time.
Not sure what referred means?
should he refile for hypertension???
thanks
MT
-
I received one of those VDBC and like all survey's I recieve they hit my file 5...but I read this artical this morning in VA watchdog.com and found it interesting and will pass it along...
A FINAL WORD ON THE VETS' SURVEY -- The Vets' Commission does not
have a justifiable "Need to Know" veterans' personal information. And,
there are absolutely no guarantees that personal information will be
adequately protected. Do NOT take the VDBC survey.
After careful consideration, I must still advise all veterans NOT to participate in the survey being taken by the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC).
Why?
1. The VDBC has no "Need to Know" veterans' personal information.
2. The VDBC cannot guarantee the safety of personal information.
3. ORC Macro, the company contracted to implement the survey, cannot guarantee the safety of personal information
Background on this here... http://www.vawatchdog.org/nfDEC06/nf120106-1.htm
Veterans' Advocate Jim Strickland also advises against taking the survey. That here...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/nfDEC06/nf120106-11.htm
To be fair, here are the arguments given by the Commission (specifically by Ray Wilburn, Executive Director of the VDBC) as to why you should take the survey...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/nfDEC06/nf120206-1.htm
They are NOT good arguments.
And, Mr. Wilburn's assertion that "All individual-identifying information will be separated from your actual responses and then destroyed," is not exactly truthful. If the VDBC only got answers, the answers would be meaningless. Perhaps the veteran's name will be removed from the answers, but the veteran will, most likely, be identified by amount of disability and compensation, type of disability and other necessary personal and medical identifiers to help put the answers into context. It's the only way the answers can have any statistical meaning.
Also, ORC Macro must be keeping daily backups of their huge databases, and that would include the complete information on the veteran taking the survey and the answers. They would have to do this to reconstruct the data if lost, stolen or corrupted.
If you want to hand out your personal and medical information, print up 1,000 copies at Kinko's and pass them out at the Mall.
The VDBC's history of trying to study ways to cut veterans' benefits is already the stuff of legend. They tried to study veterans who get VA compensation and SSDI with an eye to offsetting payments. They tried to study lump-sum buyouts of VA compensation. Our service organizations headed off both of those areas of study.
Let me, once again, quote the American Legion on the VDBC: "A June 6, 2005 American Legion Bulletin notes members of congress including the chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee (Steve Buyer, Indiana, 4th District) and other government officials, have publicly expressed their desire to use the VDBC as a vehicle to institute radical changes in the VA disability system that would negatively impact and restrict entitlement to benefits for a large number of veterans."
And, a simple reminder from the VDBC's charter. They are charged to determine "whether a veteran's disability or death should be compensated." Whether? That's quite a question. I thought it was a given that a veteran's disability or death should be compensated. The VDBC thinks otherwise!
----------------
Larry Scott
-
Rev. Rul. 78-161
1978-1 C.B. 31
Sec. 104
Caution: Distinguished by Rev. Rul. 80-9
IRS Headnote
Armed Forces retirement pay; retroactive disability determination. The Service will follow the Strickland decision as precedent in holding that a taxpayer, who retired from a branch of the Armed Forces in 1976 for years of service and subsequently was awarded a retroactive service connected disability rating by the Veterans' Administration, may exclude from gross income under section 104(a)(4) of the Code that portion of the retirement pay received from the branch of the Armed Forces during the retroactive period that corresponds to the amount attributable to the Veterans' Administration disability rating; Rev. Rul. 62-14 revoked.
Full Text
Rev. Rul. 78-161 [fn1]
Advice has been requested whether, under the circumstances described below, a taxpayer may by reason of a retroactive disability compensation determination by the Veterans' Administration, exclude from gross income under section 104(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, any portion of the payments made to the taxpayer during the retroactive period by a branch of the Armed Forces as retirement pay based on years of service.
The taxpayer retired from the United States Army on January 1, 1976, for years of service and began receiving retirement pay. On February 15, 1976, the taxpayer applied to the Veterans' Administration for service connected disability benefits and was awarded, on December 1, 1976, a 90 percent disability rating retroactive to February 28, 1976. In order to receive actual payment of the benefits the taxpayer filed, on December 15, 1976, a waiver, pursuant to section 1005 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957, 38 U.S.C. 3105, for reduction of the taxpayer's retirement pay in an amount equal to the disability compensation benefits. Effective from the date of the waiver the taxpayer began receiving disability compensation from the Veterans' Administration and reduced retirement pay from the Army.
Section 61(a) of the Code provides that unless otherwise excluded by law, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services.
Section 104(a)(4) of the Code and the regulations thereunder provide, with certain exceptions not pertinent to this case, that gross income does not include amounts received as a pension, annuity, or similar allowance for personal injuries or sickness resulting from active service in the armed forces of any country.
Section 3010(a) of title 38 U.S.C. provides, in part, that payments due or to become due under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration shall be exempt from taxation.
Rev. Rul. 62-14, 1962-1 C.B. 11, holds, in part that, when a taxpayer is awarded disability compensation by the Veterans' Administration, no portion of the regular Army retirement pay based on years of service previously received is excludable from gross income even though the effective date of the award is made retroactive.
In Strickland v. Commissioner, 540 F.2d 1196 (4th Cir. 1976), the taxpayer retired from the Army for length of service and began receiving retirement pay. Subsequently, the taxpayer applied to the Veterans' Administration for service connected disability benefits and was awarded a 10 percent disability rating. In order to receive actual payment of the benefits the taxpayer filed the required Veterans' Administration form on March 10, 1965, waiving that portion of Army retirement pay equal to the amount of the Veterans' Administration disability benefits. In March 1966 the taxpayer filed a second claim with the Veterans' Administration requesting an increase in disability benefits. On January 17, 1967, the Veterans' Administration notified the taxpayer that the taxpayer was awarded a 100 percent disability rating, as of March 28, 1966, entitling the taxpayer to an additional $208 per month disability benefits. The Veterans' Administration commenced this benefit on February 1, 1967, after the Army notified the Veterans' Administration that it would correspondingly reduce the taxpayer's retirement pay. The court held that the Veterans' Administration's retroactive determination that the taxpayer was eligible for increased disability benefits was controlling. Thus, the taxpayer was entitled to exclude from gross income under section 104(a)(4) of the Code, part of the payments previously received as retirement pay based on rank and length of service.
The Internal Revenue Service will follow the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Strickland as precedent in the disposition of similar cases involving section 104(a)(4) of the Code.
Accordingly, in the instant case, the taxpayer may exclude from gross income under section 104(a)(4) of the Code, that portion of the taxpayer's Army retirement pay received between March 1, 1976 and December 15, 1976, that corresponds to the amount attributable to the Veterans' Administration disability rating.
Rev. Rul. 62-14 is revoked.
[fn1] Also released as News Release IR-1979, dated March 31, 1978.
-
I sent my state reps. my thoughts on the "Pay Hike Urged for Disabled Vets"..as stated
"The first comprehensive review of veterans’ disability benefits in 51 years recommends that Congress and the Bush administration support an immediate increase in compensation levels – of up to 25 percent for the most severely disabled – to recognize monetarily their reduced quality of life.
The Veterans Disability Benefits Commission’s report also wants all disabled veterans made eligible for “concurrent receipt” of both disability pay and an annuity based on years spent in service.
It might take Congress years to implement the bulk of the commission’s proposals but it should view some as priorities including:
Concurrent Receipt
End SBP-DIC offset
Raise VA Compensation
PTSD: A Holistic Approach
Update Rating Schedule
IU Status
To learn more, read the following articles at Military.com
Vet Commission Backs Hefty Pay Gains
Immediate Pay Hike Urged for Disabled Vets
Related Proposal:
Lifetime TRICARE Sought for 'Unfit' Vets
How do you feel about this action? Let your public officials know how you feel!
So if you would like to email your senator or congressman just go to this link through Military.com and let them know what you think.
http://capwiz.com/military/issues/alert/?a...1&type=CO#1
at this site you can even email your friends!!!!!
MT
-
All pain medication does is mask the real problem...it doesn't help resolve the underlying condition...and like most medication...after awhile your body will build up a resistance to the effectivenss of the dosage you are taking...hence the doctor will perscribe a higher dosage or a stronger pain medication regime...A person has a choice to take the medication to relieve the pain that is a result of the real physical condition or bear with it...so if one so choose not to take there medication a day or so beforhand..(this is pain medication only) then that is there choice THERE IS NO FRAUD intended...there are many many people out there that choose not to take medication for the sole purpose to releive the pain...most pain medication I have taken in my life causes me to want to sleep...some people may feel dizzy all the time...other's will develope stomach ulcers ect...there are secondary conditons that will emerge for long term use of certain pain medications...LarryJ...you are an honorable man...my prayers are with you that your issure is resolved swiftly with the VA
MT
-
oneshot wrote:
"I don't think veterans should worry about anything that the these idiots try to do to reduce our benefits,..."
Well I don't think a truely disabled vet has anything to worry about...but after reading the report there are some good points brought out. Esp. re-evaluation UI I think there should be a set guildline in est. the critera for reval...that after UI is granted that a re-eval is done one year later...if no change...then one final re-val in 3 years end of it. The reason for a re-eval has merit...depending on the disablility and I am not talking about conditions that are terminal or blantly will not improve with time but those conditions that if a vet was able to go through physical rehab to improve there quaility of life then maybe they will beable to be gainfully employed...no veteran or non veteran wants to be disalbed...many disabled vets would give anything to be able to be whole again...
Now I going to type something that some of you may not appricate but I will type it anyways...I would say that most of you know at least one person who is UI or P/T and you have thought to yourself...how can that guy be collecting P/T or UI...as he whistles his way to work! or lets say the guy was granted P/T or U/I for a back issue...and there he is in his workshop overhauling a pet muscle car project...hell I wish I could lift that engin part and I have a good back (that is just an example to make a point)...I am not saying that if you are UI or P/T that you should not be able to enjoy hobbies...but keep in mind if you are UI for a disabiity regarding a condition why would you do something that would further injury your pre-existing condition...and If I thought that who else is thinking that...
If you are UI or PT then you should not be working a full time job...and believe me there are vets out there that do...if the VA deems you to be UI or P/T there was a reson for it...those are the one's that have something to be concerned about not the disabled veterans that have been granted UI or P/T and struggle everyday to just get though that day.
Life is what it is...there are some bad apples that will disrupt the apple cart for the rest of us...but my Dad once said..."why does a person lock there car door? to keep an honest person honest! a crook will get in regardless if you lock the door or not.
something to think about
MT
-
I finished reading that 500+ report...What I didn't see was the mention of P/T anywhere so I would say if you have been granted P/T that there is a slim chance that you will be brought in for a re-evaluation... what the VA will concentrate on are the claims that are just UI even Social Sercurity will do re-evals unitl you have been on SSDI for I believe 10 years (please don't quote me on that)...so it would make sence that yes, you may be Unemplyable now...but your condition may improve enough within 2-3 years that with voc rehab you would be able to go back into the workforce...as the report mentioned that the plan is to gradually bring the disabled vet back into the workforce...not just cut off the UI benifit, kinda like the SSA ticket to work...they were hitting hard on revamping the criteria for UI there is mention that prior to awarding UI (which I think they will faze out..either you are 100% schedual or P/T)that the vet will need to be evaluated by voc rehab and if the vet's disability prohibits them from working then P/T will be assigned...by the gist of the report I sence they will be adapting some of the established Social Secruity screening procedure's....I don't see that an offset between SSDI and VA comp...SSDI is based on quarters that we have paid into...whereas VA, is the workman compensation company (more or less) for the U.S. department of defense. And if the U.S. department of Defense...decided to create an offset that would open up a can of worms better left closed.
another reason I came to that conclusion regarding the offset is because there is mention in the report that some of the young hero's coming home have not put in enough quarters to qualify of SSDI...so what the report recommends that SSA bypasses that requirement for wounded veterans that do not meet the quarters requirement.
anyways I am going to re-read the report...there is quite a bit to absorb...many of the 113 recommandations will not be voted in...some of the area's need work...esp. the recommendations regarding PTSD...as far as I see...what is being proposed borders on discrimination to be so focused on one disability...yes there need to be reform ...esp. in the way claims are reviewed there is no consistancy among VARO...there is no set criteria...there needs to be one set of criteria for everyone...as how they review and determine disability ratio's...
well enough said...these are just my thoughts...
MT
-
ok ok I know this is off the subject....
but Liz...you are a hoot and I just loved your reply!! humor is infectious...and sometimes that is the right medicine to get your through the day...God Bless
MT
-
I found this on VA Watchdog...I found it very informative and hopes it can help others...it did me.
MT
"Training Letter 07-01
Total Disability Ratings Based on Individual Unemployability (IU)
Benefits granted under the VA rating schedule are intended to compensate veterans for the average impairment in earning capacity that results from service-connected disease or injury. IU is a special additional benefit to address the truly unique disability picture of a veteran who is unemployable due to service-connected disability, but for whom the application of the rating schedule does not fully reflect the veteran’s level of impairment. An award of IU allows the veteran to receive compensation at a rate equivalent to that of a 100 percent schedular award. However, this benefit is not intended, by regulation or policy, to be a quasi-automatic benefit granted whenever a veteran has met a qualifying schedular evaluation or reached an advanced age.
When raised as an issue, IU is appropriate only in exceptional cases. First determine if the veteran’s disability(ies) warrant a 100 percent schedular evaluation before considering whether to assign a total disability rating under either 38 CFR 4.16 or 3.321.
1. General Requirements for Entitlement to IU
Entitlement to IU requires that the veteran meet certain initial criteria listed at 38 CFR 4.16 as well as continuing criteria as explained below. The IU benefit continues only as long as the veteran remains unemployable. VA monitors the employment status of IU beneficiaries and requires that they submit an annual certification of unemployability.
Consideration for IU requires that:
The veteran has service-connected disability(ies) as described in 38 CFR 4.16(a) or 4.16(B), and
The evidence shows unemployability due to a service-connected disability.
1.a. Schedular Requirements
The qualifying schedular evaluations are provided at § 4.16(a). The veteran must be service connected for a single disability evaluated at least 60 percent disabling or service connected for multiple disabilities evaluated at least 70 percent disabling, with one of the multiple disabilities rated at least 40 percent disabling. This section also provides a list of circumstances where the requirement for a single 60 or 40 percent disability may be met by a combination of disabilities that can be considered a single disability (such as those arising from common etiology or a single accident, or those affecting a single body system, etc.).
Careful consideration must also be given to the cause of the veteran’s unemployability. Unemployability must result from one or more service-connected disabilities. Disabilities for which service connection has not been granted do not qualify for consideration as a source of unemployability.
If the veteran does not meet the requirements of 38 CFR 4.16(a) but there is evidence of unemployability due to a service-connected disability, then the case should be submitted to the Director of Compensation and Pension Service for a determination of eligibility, as provided at 38 CFR 3.321(B) and 4.16(B).
1.b. Unemployability
Unemployability means the inability of a veteran to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. A finding of unemployability cannot be made if the evidence shows that the veteran is engaged in, or is capable of being engaged in, a substantially gainful occupation. However, a finding could be made if the evidence shows marginal employment. Marginal employment is defined in terms of a veteran’s earned annual income. This income should generally not exceed the government’s established poverty threshold for one person. Exceeding this threshold may indicate a substantially gainful occupation, as noted by the Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims (CAVC) in Faust v. West, 13 Vet.App. 342 (2000), where a substantially gainful occupation was defined as "one that provides annual income that exceeds the poverty threshold for one person."
In addition to the income criterion, evidence showing that employment is marginal rather than substantially gainful may also exist on a "facts found" basis. Examples of this marginal status include employment in the protected environment of a family business or sheltered workshop. Such fact-based marginal employment is consistent with a finding of unemployability.
1.c. Age Factor
It is clear from 38 CFR 4.19 that consideration of a veteran’s age is appropriate when evaluating disabilities for pension claims, but not for awarding IU benefits. The regulation states that unemployability associated with advancing age may not be used as a basis for a total disability rating in service-connected claims. This provision is echoed at 38 CFR 3.341, which states that the service-connected disability must be sufficient to produce unemployability without regard to advancing age.
Advancing age in this context may relate to voluntary retirement or removal from the work force based on tenure or longevity rather than disability. Voluntary retirement does not necessarily show unemployability and should not be used as the only evidence of unemployability. Therefore, when evaluating a claim for IU received from a retired veteran of advanced age, careful consideration must be given to distinguishing a worsened disability that would have caused unemployability from unemployment due to retirement. When an IU claim is received from a veteran of advanced age, the rating should discuss the factor of age and provide an explanation of how the available evidence was evaluated to arrive at the decision to grant or deny IU.
2. Claims for IU
Claims for IU are generally submitted by the veteran but may also be reasonably raised by the evidence of record, including statements or evidence submitted by the veteran indicating unemployability. IU claims filed by the veteran can be considered as claims for an increased evaluation when associated with evidence of a worsened service-connected condition. Claims for an increased evaluation, even without a specific IU claim from the veteran, may give rise to a claim for IU that must be considered.
2.a. Reasonably Raised or Informal Claims
In Norris v. West, 12 Vet.App. 413 (1999), the Court held that where the rating activity is considering a claim for increased evaluation from a veteran who meets the qualifying schedular disability percentage requirements and there is evidence in the claims folder, or under VA control, which shows unemployability due to service-connected disability, then a rating for the claimed increase must also include a rating of a reasonably raised claim for IU. Thus, under the proper circumstances, a claim for IU exists, even though the veteran did not specifically make the claim.
The issue of a reasonably raised claim for IU was also addressed in the Federal Circuit case of Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In that case, the Court held that once a veteran submits evidence of a medical disability, makes a claim for the highest possible rating, and submits evidence of unemployability, the requirement of 38 CFR 3.155(a) that a claimant must "identify the benefit sought" is met. In such cases, VA must consider total disability based upon IU. The Court noted that, under these circumstances, the IU benefit being sought has been identified in conformity with the informal claim requirements of § 3.155(a). (See also, Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 196, 199 (1992) (veteran must provide evidence of entitlement to IU rating by virtue of unemployability)). The Court further stated that VA is obligated to develop a claim "to its optimum," which means considering all potential claims raised by the evidence and applying all relevant laws and regulations, regardless of whether the claim is specifically labeled as a claim for IU. Under circumstances where these conditions apply, but where the veteran does not meet the schedular requirements of § 4.16(a), the case should be referred for extra-schedular consideration as specified at § 4.16(B).
When the veteran has already been awarded a 100 percent total evaluation for one disability, an award of IU for a separate disability or disabilities should not be considered. The VA Office of General Counsel held in VAOPGCPREC 6-99, that when a schedular total disability grant has already been made, no additional monetary benefit would be available to a veteran based on unemployability and any such claim would be moot.
2.b. Claim for IU Defined
A formal claim for IU on VA Form 21-8940.
Any written communication indicating that the veteran is unable to work because of his or her service-connected disability(ies).
To raise an informal IU claim, the veteran must claim an increased evaluation for his or her service-connected disability(ies), submit medical evidence or be shown on VA examination to meet the requirements of § 4.16, and claim the inability to work due to his or her service-connected disability.
Although a claimant who seeks an increased rating is presumed to be seeking the highest rating possible, a claim for IU cannot reasonably be raised unless the veteran claims to be unable to maintain substantially gainful employment due to service-connected disability.
3. IU Claim Development
3.a. VA Forms 21-8940 and 21-4192
Claims for IU require that a VA Form (VAF) 21-8940, Veteran’s Application for Increased Evaluation Based on Unemployability, be completed and submitted to the VA regional office by the veteran. If an IU claim has been reasonably raised by the evidence of record, a VAF 21-8940 must be sent to the veteran for completion and return before an award can be considered. The VAF 21-8940 requires that the veteran list all employment for the five years prior to becoming too disabled to work and provide an accounting of current income. If the VAF 21-8940 is not returned by the veteran within 60 days, a formal rating decision will be made on the basis of the evidence of record, which considers, among other factors, that necessary evidence was not furnished by the claimant. If the VAF 21-8940 is returned after the rating decision is issued, but within one year of the date sent, the claim should be re-rated. See also section 4.d., Effective Dates for Reasonably Raised IU Claims.
Once the regional office receives VAF 21-8940 and former employers are identified, then VAF 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability Benefit, will be forwarded to the former employers listed on the form. The VAF 21-4192 requests that the employer provide information about the veteran’s job duties, on-the-job concessions, date of and reason for job termination, etc. Information given on both VAF 21-8940 and VAF 21-4192 is essential to a fair evaluation of the IU claim. However, IU benefits should not be denied solely because an employer failed to respond to VAF 21-4192.
3.b. Medical Evidence
The available medical evidence must show that a service-connected physical or mental condition is currently so severe and disabling that it prevents the veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation. Any relevant medical evidence must be obtained from both VA and private sources as part of the development and evaluation process. These documents may contain descriptions of physical limitations caused by a service-connected disability or may contain opinions by medical professionals regarding the veteran’s ability or inability to engage in work-related activity. If the evidence obtained is incomplete or inconsistent and does not provide a basis for assessing unemployability, then a VA examination should be scheduled, as provided under 38 CFR 3.326 and 3.159©(4). The medical examiner should be requested to provide an opinion regarding the effect of the service-connected disabilities on the veteran’s ability to engage in substantially gainful employment. Further, because it is preferable to rate a veteran as 100 percent disabled on a schedular basis as opposed to awarding IU, order an examination for each service-connected condition that is not at the maximum schedular evaluation.
3.c. Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service (VR&E) Records
When the veteran’s claims folder indicates that he or she has been seen by VR&E Service, any records related to this contact must be obtained and evaluated. The records may document the veteran’s participation in a training program or may show that training was not feasible or was unsuccessful. The VR&E records provide important evidence for evaluating current unemployability. VA recognizes the importance of fostering a return-to-work attitude among veterans awarded IU and has implemented the use of a "motivational letter" encouraging new IU recipients to contact VR&E for assistance in returning to work.
3.d. Social Security Administration (SSA) Records
When the claims folder indicates that the veteran has been examined or awarded disability benefits by SSA, any relevant records must be obtained and evaluated. The CAVC held in Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 362 (1992), that VA’s duty to assist includes requesting both the SSA decision granting or denying benefits and any supporting medical records. Although VA is not obligated to follow a determination made by SSA, these records may be relevant to the issue of the level of impairment of the veteran’s service-connected disability. However, remember that SSA benefits may be awarded for any disability, whereas IU benefits must be based on service-connected disability. Therefore, careful attention must be paid to determining what disability resulted in a SSA benefit award and whether that disability is one for which service connection has been granted.
4. Rating Considerations
Rating decisions granting or denying entitlement to IU must provide enough explanation so that the claimant and representative can understand the reasons and bases for the decision. As with any decision, the rating must list the evidence considered, a clear explanation of the basis of the decision, and an explanation of the effective date of entitlement.
4.a. Date of Claim
A veteran’s initial claim for IU may be received from any source indicating the benefit being sought, including a VAF 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim. If the veteran files an informal claim, the regional office must send the veteran a VAF 21-8940 with instructions to complete and return it within one year in order to preserve date of receipt of the earlier communication as the date of claim. If the VAF 21-8940 is received after the one-year period has expired, the date of claim will be the date of receipt of the VAF 21-8940 as provided in § 3.159(B)(1).
If the veteran submits a VAF 21-8940 as the initial IU claim, receipt of this form will represent a claim for IU and will establish the date of claim.
4.b. Effective Dates for IU Awards - Application of 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2)
When an IU claim is associated with a veteran’s worsened service-connected disability, it is considered a claim for increase and the effective date of entitlement must be in accordance with § 3.400(o)(2). That section specifies that the effective date for an increase will be the earliest date that it is "factually ascertainable" that an increase occurred, provided this date is within one year preceding receipt of the claim. Otherwise, the effective date is the date of receipt of the claim.
Claims for an increased rating are considered claims for IU if any of the following conditions apply:
The IU claim is submitted on VAF 21-8940, or
In addition to a formal or informal claim for an increased rating, the veteran alleges that he or she is unemployable or VA receives evidence of unemployability, or
In the course of developing a claim for an increased rating, VA obtains evidence of unemployability and VA grants the veteran a rating that makes the veteran eligible for IU.
When a veteran claims entitlement to IU without claiming increased disability, but increased disability is shown on VA examination or other medical evidence, the effective date of both grants is controlled by 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2).
4.c. Application of 38 CFR 3.400(o)
There are cases, however, where a claim for IU is not associated with a claim for increased disability. In these situations, the effective date is governed by § 3.400(o), which provides that the effective date will be the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. A case such as this might occur where a veteran has been unemployable due to service-connected disability meeting the schedular requirements for IU, but has never applied for IU. When the veteran files a claim for IU, and there is no associated worsened disability, it is not a claim for an increased disability. Therefore, the date of claim would generally be the effective date, unless evidence indicated a date of entitlement later than the date of claim.
4.d. Effective Dates for Reasonably Raised IU Claims
Reasonably raised claims for IU may arise in a veteran’s original claim or claim for an increased rating. In original claims, IU must be considered when there is evidence of unemployability due to the claimed service-connected disability or disabilities. In claims for an increased evaluation, the CAVC holding in Norris requires that VA must consider a claim for IU when a veteran:
has submitted a claim for an increased evaluation, and
meets the minimum schedular requirements for IU, and
there is evidence of unemployability resulting from service-connected disability.
In addition, if VA receives, or is in possession of, evidence showing a worsened service-connected disability based on a report of medical examination or hospitalization, that evidence may establish an informal claim for increased evaluation, as provided in 38 CFR 3.157. In that event, if the schedular requirements for IU are met, evaluation of the informal claim for increase must also include an evaluation of a reasonably raised claim for IU.
When a claim for IU is reasonably raised, VAF 21-8940 must be sent to the veteran for completion and return. Because this type of IU claim arises when there is an associated claim for increase, the effective date of a grant of IU is governed by § 3.400(o)(2). This means that evidence of a factually ascertainable date of unemployability within the year preceding the date of claim may establish the effective date. In many cases, this may be the same date as that for the increase.
If the reasonably raised IU claim is received at the same time as other claims from the veteran and a rating decision is issued on the other claims, defer the IU claim and send the veteran VAF 21-8940. When the form is returned, it can be evaluated along with other evidence and a decision can be made regarding IU.
If the form is not returned within 60 days of mailing, issue a formal rating decision based on the evidence of record. If the VAF 21-8940 is returned after the rating decision is promulgated but within one year of the date the VAF 21-8940 was requested, re-rate the claim using the date of mailing of the form to the veteran as the date of claim. If IU is granted, the effective date of the award would be the date of receipt of the informal claim. If the form is not returned within one year of the date sent, benefits cannot be paid prior to date of receipt of the VAF 21-8940.
4.e. Chapter 35 Benefits: Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance
38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and regulations at 38 CFR 3.807 establish that educational benefits are available for dependents of a veteran who has been awarded a permanent and total service-connected disability. Although the disabling conditions that lead to an award of IU are considered to be total based on unemployability, they are not always permanent. Unemployability may be temporary: for example, where the veteran undergoes VR&E training and is subsequently able to engage in a substantially gainful occupation. The VA Office of General Counsel has acknowledged that an IU award may be temporary. In VAOPGPREC 5-05, it was determined that § 4.16(B) "permits the award of a total disability rating based on temporary (i.e., non-permanent) inability to follow a substantially gainful occupation." Because IU is acknowledged as a benefit that is not necessarily permanent, careful consideration must be given to granting the Chapter 35 educational benefit in association with the IU award. Substantial evidence must show that the veteran’s unemployability status is permanent before the Chapter 35 grant is appropriate.
5. Continuing Requirements for IU Award
5.a. VA Form 21-4140
After the initial IU award has been made, the veteran must submit a VAF 21-4140, Employment Questionnaire, on a yearly basis to certify continuing unemployability. The VAF 21-4140 is required unless the veteran is 70 years of age or older, has been in receipt of IU for a period of 20 or more consecutive years (as provided at 38 CFR 3.951(B)), or has been granted a 100 percent schedular evaluation. The form is sent out annually to the veteran from the Hines Information Technology Center and must be returned to the regional office. It requests that the veteran report any employment for the past 12 months or certify that no employment has occurred during this period. The VAF 21-4140 includes a statement that it must be returned within 60 days or the veteran’s benefits may be reduced. Completion of this form has a major impact on IU benefits in one of three ways, as described below.
VAF 21-4140 returned with no change
If VAF 21-4140 is returned in a timely manner and shows no employment, then IU benefits will continue uninterrupted.
VAF 21-4140 returned showing employment
If VAF 21-4140 is returned in a timely manner and shows that the veteran has engaged in employment, VA must determine if the employment is marginal or substantially gainful employment. If the employment is marginal, then IU benefits will continue uninterrupted. If the employment is substantially gainful, then VA must consider discontinuing the IU benefit. VA regulations at 38 CFR 3.343©(1) and (2) provide that actual employability must be shown by clear and convincing evidence before the benefit is discontinued. Neither vocational rehabilitation activities nor other therapeutic or rehabilitative pursuits will be considered evidence of renewed employability unless the veteran’s medical condition shows marked improvement. Additionally, if the evidence shows that the veteran actually is engaged in a substantially gainful occupation, IU cannot be discontinued unless the veteran maintains the gainful occupation for a period of 12 consecutive months.
Once this period of sustained employment has been maintained, the veteran must be provided with due process before the benefit is actually discontinued, as stated at 38 CFR 3.105(e) and 3.501(e)(2). This consists of providing the veteran with a rating which:
Proposes to discontinue the IU benefit
Explains the reason for the discontinuance
States the effective date of the discontinuance, and
States that the veteran has 60 days to respond with evidence showing why the discontinuance should not take place.
If the veteran responds with evidence, it must be evaluated. If the evidence is insufficient or the veteran does not respond, then the regional office will discontinue the IU benefit and provide the veteran with a final rating decision explaining the decision. The effective date of the discontinuance will be the last day of the month following an additional period of 60 days, which begins from the date the veteran is notified of the final rating decision.
VAF 21-4140 not returned
If VAF 21-4140 is not returned within the 60 days specified on the form, then the regional office must initiate action to discontinue the IU benefit pursuant to 38 CFR 3.652(a). Due process must be provided with a rating decision that proposes to discontinue the IU benefit for failure to return the VAF 21-4140. If a response is not received within 60 days, then the IU benefit will be discontinued and a rating decision will be sent to the veteran providing notice of the discontinuance. The effective date of discontinuance will be the date specified in the rating decision which proposed discontinuance, as described above, or the day following the date of last payment of the IU benefit, as specified at § 3.501(f), whichever is later. The veteran must also be notified that if the form is returned within one year and shows continued unemployability, then the IU benefit may be restored from the date of discontinuance.
5.b. Income Verification Match (IVM) and Field Examinations
The IVM is a method of comparing an IU recipient’s earned income, as reported to VA by other federal agencies, with the earned income limits that define marginal employment. If income reports show significant earned income above the poverty threshold, the regional office must undertake development to determine if the veteran is still unemployable.
Another method of monitoring unemployability status among IU recipients is through the VA Fiduciary Activity. This service conducts field examinations when it has been notified that an IU recipient might be pursuing a substantially gainful occupation. If the field examiner finds evidence of employment or if the veteran is unwilling to cooperate with the examiner, then the examiner will forward this information to the Rating Activity. A decision must then be made as to whether the IU benefit will be discontinued. This determination must take into account the regulatory requirements listed above, including: (1) whether there is actual employability by clear and convincing evidence and (2) whether there has been substantially gainful employment for 12 continuous months. If termination of the IU benefit is appropriate, a rating decision proposing discontinuance must be completed, with notice to the veteran that he or she has 60 days in which to contest the discontinuance. If no evidence or insufficient evidence is received within this period, then a final rating decision must be promulgated with notice to the veteran that the IU benefit will be discontinued on the last day of the month in which the additional 60-day due process period expires. This 60-day period will begin from the date of the notice of the final rating decision, as provided in § 3.105(e). "
---------------
Larry Scott --
-
YOur in my Prayers!!!!
They would not tell me either...so I called the 800 number and asked they what my percent was at the present time...almost dropped the phone...2 weeks later I received my decision in the mail!
MT
-
Hello cowgirl,
you wrote: Ptsd claim denied but issue really was mst. MST can cause PTSD...in order to Prevail with a claim for PTSD due to MST you would have to first have a diagonis (current) for PTSD...then you must link the PTSD to the event of the trauma itself to have it S/C. MST is the cause/event which has to be proved...unfortanally MST is a violent crime and crimes of this nature regardless of gender many times go's unreported for obvious reasons...if the sexual trauma was not reported it sometimes hard to prove but believe me there is always some type of trail to help with the nexus...if you like you can email me...I been down that road.
MT
MST: Military Sexual Trauma
"Sexual Trauma Defined
Personal or sexual assault are events of human design that threaten or inflict harm. We define sexual trauma as any lingering physical, emotional, or psychological symptoms resulting from a physical assault of a sexual nature, or battery of a sexual nature. Examples of this are:
Rape
Physical assault,
Domestic Battering, and
Stalking"
PTSD caused by MST:
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Secondary to Sexual Trauma
PTSD is a recurrent emotional reaction to a terrifying, uncontrollable or life-threatening event. The symptoms may develop immediately after the event or may be delayed for years. They include:
Sleep disturbances and nightmares,
Emotional instability,
Feelings of fear and anxiety,
Impaired concentration,
Flash-backs, and
Problems in intimate and other interpersonal relations
-
entropent,
actully on the high blood pressure...they did do a three day right before he was deployed...and the flight doctor recommended in his record a Low sodium diet and to restrict caffine...but on the other two occassions when he came back from TDY his blood pressue would border line...as everyone know's it is not uncommon to see a differnt doctor everytime you go in...and being that this vet did not know that this could be a serious problem...also to...by looking at his records...I notice that BP was not done that often back in the 70's, 80's but by the 90's it was more common place in his records...so the only conclusion I can gather by what he has said that it wasn't a big issue...blind trust is what I say...
but it is a moot point now...he is on medication to control the BP so it will be up to the VA call to that.
The Gerds I feel will be a given...and when the other items he has 0% become worse I told him he can put in for an increase at that time...
well thank you so much for your insight..on this matter.
I created a timeline for him to bring with him outlining dates on his smr so he can give it to the C/p doctor to make it easier for him along with a copy of the medical record that it pretains to...I know they already have his medical records but it is always nice to have it outlined for easy review...that is what I think
have a great evening
MT
Living The Claim
in VA Disability Claims Research
Posted
rentalguy1
wrote:
"I bet if we were to go back and look in those vets' files, we would find out that they had not made any visits to the VA in a long time. If the VARO starts looking in your file in an attempt to find somewhere to cut costs, and sees that you are continuing your care and that you have established that you aren't getting any better, then it satnds to reason that they would pass you up for an easier target."
********************************************************************************
*
I am not sure if that is true or not about visits to the VA...I have been to a VA facility once and that was for a C/P...when I first was awarded s/c compensation I did call the VAMC to make an appointment for my condition and I was told that due to the increase case loads and lack of doctors that there was a waiting list to even get on a team (wait time appx. 60-90 days). Then once I was placed on a team the waiting time for an appointment was 60-120 days. I decided I would keep going to my family doctor and save the 2hr drive just to hurry up and wait.
I think and I may be wrong on this I am new to this VA stuff...but as long as you are seeking care on a continuous basis and keep all your medical records you should be fine if the VA decides to call you in for a review.
Once I move to another state the closest VA facility is 4.5 hours away so my doctor is going to refer me to a specialist there.
I would hope that would cover the VA critria for continue care.
MT