Jump to content

SubicBay0311

Seaman
  • Content Count

    16
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About SubicBay0311

  • Rank
    E-3 Seaman
  • Birthday 01/02/1965

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    70
  • Branch of Service
    Marines

Recent Profile Visitors

554 profile views
  1. Thank you Berta, Broncovet, Pete.
  2. Is it correct to assume that if granted 100% scheduler for mental health conditions, the veterans children would still not be eligible for DEA until possibly 5 years later, when (and if) the condition is determined to be static and he is granted P&T? But if granted TDIU while at 70%, the dependence would immediately be eligible for DEA?
  3. Asknod, thank you sir. Very Very Much. Ok, enough said.
  4. Free spirit: Are you suggesting NOD and appeal forces them to make a decision based upon the totality of the evidence, but by reopening, I giving them yet another chance to develop more evidence against the claim?
  5. Berta, Im sorry. I was just trying to demonstrate how ridiculous this is. Thank you very much for your advice!
  6. FreeSpirit: I was medically discharged due to the weakness in my legs. I had documented "sustained clonus" at my ankles.. This is basically diagnostic of nervous system pathology, and they discharged me calling it psychosomatic. The neurologist are beside themselves when that read the STR. Thank you EVERYONE!!!
  7. The IMEs are perfect. They have blatantly and intentionally blown me off. Along with their very own VA C&P psychiatrist that has told them THREE FN TIMES that I was misdiagnosed while in the service. But the way, these IMEs doctors opinions are not wishy washy "more likely that not.." crap. These are emphatic, well rationaled, certain opinions that would bring pause to anyone reading them. By the way, the request they sent to the examiner that opined negatively, tells the doctor to review ALL the evidence, and and they LIST the 7 (SEVEN) Doctors that have stated i had this condition while in service. The RO had basically already conceded service connection. (In fact, the psychiatrist they had me see five days earlier told me this issue has been resolved.) This doctor never looked me in the eye. He was pissed at the world and intent on giving the RO a gift. He concludes his reports with the following: "Should the veteran require any further evaluation about this issue, me recommendation is for him to be seen by another compensation and pension provider." Honestly, have you ever heard such a statement made?
  8. Okay this is what it says verbatim: Service connection for multiple sclerosis is denied. Service connection may be granted for disability which began in military service or was caused by some event or experience in service. Service connection for multiple sclerosis is denied since this condition neither occurred in nor was caused by service. We received the disability benefits questionnaire on May 21, 2014 signed by Dr. Smith. However, our decision remains the same. The records indicate you serve until November 14, 1989 and were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2006, or about 16 years after military service. You are not diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in service, although you were seen by a neurologist and psychiatrist in the service. Your private Dr. opines in the urinary tract disability benefits questionnaire state for multiple sclerosis started in 1989. There is no evidence of this diagnosis in active military service. Preponderance of the evidence shows multiple sclerosis is less likely as not to have been incurred in, caused or aggravated by service The medical opinion we received from the VA medical center was more persuasive than your private physicians opinions because it was based on a more thorough review of your relevant military and/or personal history and contain more convincing rationale. The VA medical opinion found no link between your diagnosed medical condition and military service. The evidence does not show your multiple sclerosis is related to service, therefore service connection for multiple sclerosis remains denied. Heres the problems: the diagnosis in 2006 was not “being made” in 2006, but rather stating that my current MS began in 1989 the VA review was conducted by a PEDIATRICIAN with no formal training in neurology. And, by the letter in my c file, the RO had not even requested my Service Medical Records prior to his exam. And, he failed to discuss ANY of the “neurological findings” that the private neurologist discussed in their review of my service records. And, a week prior, at a Mental Health C&P, the psychiatrist stated in his report that he was correcting my in service diagnosis of “psychosomatic illness” to be generalized anxiety, and then refers to my anxiety and depression as being worse as a result of my “in service multiple sclerosis”. I don’t think they even read that report, it was not listed as evidence in the denial. How can they possibly rely on this single report when it is so inconsistent with numerous other reports by SPECIALIST in the field, and even in conflict with another C&P examiner? I'm sorry, but I think there is some Intellectual dishonestly going on here. In summary, its so many errors that its mind boggling and hard to know where to start with addressing them to these people…
  9. Thanks Berta I will try to scan soon.
  10. Still torn between reconsideration and NOD on this. Can I appeal only the MS, and ask for reconsideration of direct service connection of the leg weakness? Please advise.
  11. Asknod, FreeSpirit, Fat and Berta: thank you all for your advice and thoughts. FreeSpirit, §3.303(d) states “Postservice initial diagnosis of disease. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. I believe this is most likely route. One of my IME/IMO stated in a new, (not submitted) report, that "all the information required to determine that he had M.S. is noted in his military treatment records", referring to this being "classic presentation" of MS. Another specialist actually stated that even senior medical student would have recognized the condition as organic, and not psychosomatic. Berta, thanks for 38 CFR 4.6 . And yes: Something is drastically wrong here. How do I present the evidence? Do I need to actually quote the M21 and CFR regs in my statement in support of claim, or would that just piss them off? What is an appropriate opening statement, being that "can you people even read?" would not likely be helpful... Thank you all for your support. I have depression and get "stuck", and I am struggling with the temptation to just give up. Should my Statement in support of claim begin with a list of all the evidence, or a narrative of the claim and list of errors previously made, then the list of evidence? Perhaps my first words should be, "Something is drastically wrong here."
  12. Suppose a veteran was discharged from the service due to disability. Specifically, ongoing weakness in both legs. The cause at the time was considered psychosomatic illness. Years after discharge, it is determined the veteran has and had MS as the cause of his weakness. The veteran files a claim for multiple sclerosis (MS), and leg weakness “secondary to M.S.” The VA denies the claim for M.S., stating he was not diagnosed with MS while in service. They also deny claims for leg weakness claimed as “secondary to MS”, stating A) did not have diagnosis of MS in service, and B) that did not have symptoms of leg weakness while in service (clearly an erroneous oversight) QUESTIONS: Can the veteran file new claim for direct service connection of leg weakness, based upon showing them the in service complaints of leg weakness (that led to medical discharge)(along with IMO nexus statements), AND at the same time, file NOD/appeal for the underlying etiology, M.S.? Or, would the RO state that they will not reopen the direct service connection for the leg weakness, because the “etiology” (MS) is currently on appeal? Important points: VA psychiatrist has already stated in the C&P notes that veteran did not have psychosomatic illness while in service, and that his service connected depression is worsened due to his “in service Multiple Sclerosis”. Another VA examiner said MS “less likely than not” incurred in service. But that C&P exam was conducted a week before the RO even requested STR from the veteran and National Achieves (proof of that is in c file in form of letter sent to veteran requesting STR the week after the C&P exam) Veteran had submitted FOUR IMOs from neurologist stating they have reviewed STR and its clear it was MS while in service based upon review of neurological exam findings while in service. They basically ignored a mountain of evidence in favor to the single C&P opinion (#2 above). Any advice greatly appreciated.
  13. Thanks everyone! I think I found the root of the problem. Seems like they would tell me that they don't see the records I have referred too. Thanks!
  14. Does anyone know if your C-file is supposed to include your entire service treatment record? I have requested a copy of mine and my c-file does not. At a recent C&P exam the doctor noted only reviewing my C-file, and my claim was denied. I am quite sure this was because he did not see my service treatment records.
  15. Thank you for your thoughtful response ASKNOD. But if my primary goal is to get service connected as soon as possible, even if it means giving up big chunks of retro, would it not be better to continue to submit evidence to the RO until it is rated properly? Is there any assurance that a DRO would actually acknowledge the evidence any more than general rating activity?
×

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines