Snake Eyes

Re: MyHealthEvet.... I have no problem with planned and announced outages -- even as frequently as MyHealthEvet seems to go down. It's the obviously out of control nature of outages and service limitation on both sites. It ticks me off that the media make a big deal out of healthcare.gov only because of the ACA's association with the president. The VA has been inefficient and scandal plagued for as long as there has been a VA (regardless of politics). Denying vets access to their information conduit and their ability to track and file claims is nothing like putting them on endless stealth waiting lists waiting for them to die. But scandal is scandal :-)

Hi folks... I'm not well connected, so maybe someone with more experience and an inside track to the VA's public affairs angle could give some balance to my rant below. Sometimes not having all the facts can cloud one's understanding :-) If you've been using eBenefits regularly the past few years, you know what an important tool it can be for veterans to file claims, follow their progress and access key resources. Unfortunately, we all know it has not been very reliable over the past several months. I personally love the new features and re-design, but I'd gladly welcome the return of the old site IF they could make it reliable. EBENEFITS IS DOWN AGAIN! The problems that have plagued it over the past few weeks have been a real bear... and to their credit, they've tried to keep parts of the site up and running while they do their behind the scenes work. That's what the orange "Under Construction" banner has been about. The question is: Are we dealing with yet another VA scandal? Has someone way out of their depth been contracted to do the work on the site and now it's just falling apart? I've given an overview of my own experience to the "tip line" at FoxNews.com (foxnewstips@foxnews.com) and some other places. If you've had similar problems -- and feel they're enough of a concern, please let some news outlets know (I know the FoxNews one, like most national news outlets will keep their sources confidential). All I could find by way of who is behind the re-design (and possibly some of the problems) is a CV posted on the Web by a person or company claiming to be instrumental in the site since 2011 and most recently involved in the portal re-design. http://contentinsomnia.net/experience/#comment-9is the link to "Eddie's" resume.

One possible reason for this is that it takes time in the new system for them to "review" and then "accept" whatever you submitted. I didn't know this and ended up re-submitting things I had submitted before January 25th just in case :-) Now eBennies says everything I know I submitted has been reviewed and accepted.

Sound advice... I'm reminded of the LOTR character who says he's never late because he decides when he wants to be somewhere. :-) I went to "Prep for Notification" earlier this week and I have a question I'll post at the end of the thread.

I've only used it once -- to let the PTB know I planned to donate to the site. Agree with those who said it's better on the side (and I may use it more with it there).

Thanks for all the input, folks. The claim is in "preparation for notification" now.... So I can submit a new statement once it clears (or in an appeal since I won't reach the one year mark for a few months). The info probably wouldn't affect my claim decision, according to the doc. The fact that I have other documents saying I don't drive when sleepy (one of the DBQs in the file), the other one could be chalked up to how attentively doctors listen. I wouldn't want a TDIU claim decided based on "veteran does not drive", and I doubt that would be a major consideration. BUT... wouldn't want that to come back to bite me later.

That seems to be the case with mine. Faxed a request to wait three weeks for additional medical evidence, as I said. That's what they did. Now it's in "Preparation for Notification". It's almost like they know what they're going to do and just need the C&Ps as a formality :-)

BTW: "Development letter sent" may just be an automatic thing. I never got a development letter (and that isn't the first time).

Thanks all... My Dr. Said VA wouldn't accept corrections in any case, and the errors may not be something that could hurt me down range. Maybe I'm just a little OCD when it comes to MY information :-)

Both C&P exams for my TDIU claim had inaccurate info. One said I do not drive due to my SC conditions. I am licensed but do not drive long distances or when I am sleepy. The other describes an incident of MST inaccurately. However, the MST does not factor in either condition. Should future treatment reveal otherwise, I don't want that to be a problem. Is it wise to submit statements correcting these before a claim is decided? Seems to me that leaving the driving one uncontested could lead to fraud charges if it impacts the TDIU outcome.

Gadzooks! Guess I'll have to wa I t for the development letter. C&P was for a TDIU claim.

My claim skipped "Reviewing Evidence" and went straight to "Preparation for Decision" today. A note says the status changed and development letter was sent. If it was a proposed reduction wouldn't eBennies say so? Reason for concern: shrink on C&P used language in 50% range and I'm in the 70% range currently. They changed expected completion date from May of 2015 to December of 2015. Why would they need that long to "prepare for decision ?"

The new eBennies format looks promising but may have a built-in problem in my case. Since they don't show items uploaded before the 25th of January (2015), I have no way of knowing whether a response I sent to a dev letter was received. The ones still open that said "Needed" in the description, I uploaded and already have a "Reviewed" notation (meaning VA received it). The one I replied to remains open and I tried to re-upload my response but get an error message ("unknown upload error"). I'm almost certain I uploaded prior to the Jan 25th cutover, but eBennies doesn't know that. Should I tell VA to decide my claim or mail the reply and wait... and wait? :-)

Come to think of it, there was a FOIA I submitted a few weeks before calling to open my informal. They're listed in eBennies as two separate claims, though. I think they may be beefing over submitting a TDIU and regular contentions together as an FDC. C&Ps next week. For now, I guess I'll just lay here and enjoy it.

UPDATE... I read the development letter more carefully... apparently, submitting my FDC after opening it informally is considered a "second claim" -- when I did the phone informal, apparently, the guy opened it as a TDIU and left out the other contentions. So it's now a standard claim, though when I uploaded the documentation I reminded them the FDC was just the final claim from the informal opened by phone. MAYBE they'll grant mercy one time :-)

I've noticed a pattern in Dr. Bash's IMOs (the examples provided on his site and the one he did for me) in that they state the condition in the context that there was no doctor-diagnosed condition prior to service (entered service fit for duty, etc.) and relates each contention to a service connected event or as secondary to a service connected (already rated) condition. He doesn't leave wiggle room and the rater or the C&P docs have to prove his medical reasoning wrong in order to disallow it, which I'm sure happens often (and just as often the rater is overturned on appeal). The key is that the IMO (whether one, two or whatever) must stick to the contested issues and show service-connection directly or through other already service-connected conditions.... and not have a lot of philosophy thrown in :-) One aspect of the IMO Dr. Bash did that would concern me is saying to a 90% certainty, condition X is related to the patient's XXXX condition or his YYYY condition. He gave a solid (to my layman's eyes) explanation for either possibility while emphasizing the likelihood of one over the other. Hopefully, the rater will take him at his word, so to speak :-)

Any of those downloadable letters should indicate the percentage. I'd download the summary letter first, as that is most likely what will include "magic words" about whether it is permanent. Some clues include, "No future exams are scheduled" or "Entitlement to Chapter 35 is confirmed" or words to that effect. Thanks for the encouragement re: not checking daily. Based on experience from my last FDC claim, it was "completed" before the C&P exams took place. That doesn't appear to be happening this time. Last time, the claim was decided within a month or so of the last C&P exam (which was done by a contractor). The C&P next week is being done at the VA Medical Center. Slower or faster than contractor? I don't know, but I'd think faster since they're entering it directly into their system rather than waiting for a report from an outside source.

Hi Berta, Dr. Bash's IMO raised the diabetes and complications issues, the hypertension and the alleged CUE. These were all submitted with the Fully Developed Claim. It turns out the doctor in question was here in town and I have the file. I can upload all relevant documents to the appropriate eBennies development letter, or take them with me to the C&P exam, or both. Unfortunately, if replying to a development letter reverts an FDC to a traditional claim, I already replied to one stating that the information requested was in my FDC claim and stating that my "net" earnings and "gross" earnings are the same unless I have enough tax deductions in 2014 to make a difference -- both were in the marginal income category in any case. Thanks for your reply.

So when the VA sent me a letter stating they need a record from a doctor named in my claim, and I provide it, I'm automatically disqualified from FDC? I suspect the item they're requesting was already filed with the claim but may not have had the practice's name and address as doc offices do nowadays. This may be moot. The form requests gross pay for last twelve months and I already replied to the letter asking for net pay. Is this some kind of trick? :-)

So when the VA sent me a letter stating they need a record from a doctor named in my claim, and I provide it, I'm automatically disqualified from FDC? I suspect the item they're requesting was already filed with the claim but may not have had the practice's name and address as doc offices do nowadays. This may be moot. The form requests gross pay for last twelve months and I already replied to the letter asking for net pay. Is this some kind of trick? :-)

I checked eBennies yesterday and found there was a new development letter for my claim which included TDIU application and new contentions for diabetes and complications. 1. The contentions listed the TDIU, diabetese and complications.... AND "increase" for the three issues I listed on the TDIU application. Are these requests for "increase" routine (as in do they consider listing those as reasons for the unemployability as requests for increase)? 2. A new development letter has been sent requesting medical records from a doctor named in the claim. I sent records from all doctors named in the claim, however one of them was from back in the 90s when they used vendor forms and the name of the practice is not on those forms. The file from which those were taken has since been archived and it takes months for them to get a document from their archive. Would the VA accept a letter from the practice stating that the forms were from their practice at the time the now deceased doctor practiced there? If that is the doctor they're referring to (I haven't received the paper letter yet), his entries only show that I continued to have hypertension after I left the service. Since Dr. Bash did a good job of documenting that I had it in service and more recent doctor records (with doc name and practice included) show hypertension, is this doctor from "way back then" really necessary to my case? 3. This was a fully developed claim. If they request additional documentation, does that revert it back to being a traditional claim?

How often is eBennies updated? I opened a claim informally by phone on June 30, 2014. My VSO submitted the fully-developed claim November 17, 2014 and as yet the VA is still in evidence gathering mode (where it was before we submitted the claim). The VSO said it takes about 23 days for a contractor to scan in the claim and submit it to the VA. Does it make sense to check twice daily.... or do they update once a day... once a month? Thanks for any insight into this mystery.

DM has been approved at the appellate level for causes other than Agent Orange. I doubt we'll see a lot of rated examples on initial applications, though. Hypertension is only 10% in most cases, but I'd be happy just to have it SC at this point.

CUE regulations shouldn't be a big issue as Dr. Bash did go through the case law and. "Three pronged approach" as part of his medical basis. As far as number of issues beside the CUE, there was only hypertension, diabetes and diabetes complications (with DBQs for the diabetes stuff and medical documentation for all) and the TDIU application. That's fewer issues than with the original claim. I wonder why they have so much trouble with multiple issues when they're carefully laid out with documentation for each along with DBQs and an IME. The whole idea behind FDC claims is that the vet does all the work so all the VA has to do is decide. :-)

I listened to the podcast and now I get what the controversy is -- the assumption that I did not file a CUE claim and was hoping the VA would CUE itself based on the IMO. I requested CUE on the claim application and included a lay letter explaining why I thought the TDIU should have been inferred. Dr. Bash went beyond simply saying there was a CUE but connected medical conditions that were rated and a financial statement I included in support of the original claim.