Navy4life

I suppose that the wording of the denial might have a real impact for or against the veteran. In any case, the past practice has been to file an NOD, in order to get the denial details. (SOC-SSOC) If they ignored positive evidence (nothing new) and or tried to say no evidence is negative, then there is a possibility of an appeal being successful.
In any event, don't let any of the deadlines slip by.  I've seen denials that were obviously wrong, and clearly not in compliance with the laws and regs.

Well I was wondering through my ebennies and stumbled on to this!  Thinking this is pretty interesting!

I am!  She followed my footsteps and Okay I'll give her dad credit (Ex) LOL - she is currently deployed and she is in Dubai!  So proud of her!

OMG I looked hideous in the picture LOL and the moo-moo was just adorable right? I will take it and see.  Like everyone says including you, it can't hurt...

flores97;
Nope no date stamp! UGH - I just can't win for lose but my daughter I am holding in that picture is the daughter who is 20 years old and in the Navy now LOL and my oldest who is 24 is the one who wrote the layman statement to back me up for this injury. Still hoping my missing records turn up!

I am going to revoke my POA ASAP but not worried about it.  I know they say that representing yourself you are your own fool, but to be honest, I have represented myself in so many situations and I have prevailed.  I think I will go with representing myself again regarding this upcoming hearing....I am my own best advocate!

Navy4
I think were all older now, for me its been about 46 years ago from my service in Nam
I don't look I  anything Like my hadit -profile pic..I was 18 in that pic  I am 63 now and my hair is silver as a silver dollar.
My oldest grandson just went off to combat medic school in San Antonio or close to.
I wish your Daughter well while  serving in the US Navy...bet your a proud Mom.
Buck

yes they allow Pictures for evidence as long as its legit ( Pictures don't lie)
I sent in a picture of a unit award I received from my unit in Nam  Because I never had any records of it and St Louis would not send it to me?(may be classified material B/C special operations?
anywayz   I took a close up pic of it  with my name  rank and unit on it and mention this was my unit award in my claim as part of my evidence.
 
btw  why did you black out the rest of the pic   ...chicken  LOL
take care
 
.........Buck

Navy, is the picture date stamped? For instance, if its taken with a digital camera it usually has the date in corner. Even if its not, i would still take it along with a recent picture of your daughter, it definitely  can't hurt!

How was your DRO hearing outcome?  Did you go informal or formal?
I agree about the DAV rep being there.  He can be there and talk to me but I am going to make sure my voice is heard!

I am so glad I started this thread! Wealth of information for not only myself but I believe other Vets'.  I have no idea what is in my C&P exam from the L ankle increase but I will find out in the next week or two. I have very good "friend" that works for the VA and she is going to be able to see the C&P exams and let me know.  I am sure they are favorable BUT not getting my hopes up b/c even if they are favorable and have other contentions to S/C, you know how the rater's are and I don't count on anything until I see the BBE!
Fingers crossed!

No, it went back to preparation for decision last week.

Actually the C & P Dr said he couldn't opine on the VA Raters requested DBQ about anything other than what was requested on the 2014 FDC. On that DBQ he stated there was no evidence that my claimed secondary issue was related to the stated SC.
It wasn't until I told him that I agreed with him regarding his findings and had actually filed another FDC with the SA as the causative SC. At that point we had a "GOOD" discussion and he completed the DBQ.
The Award of the 2015 FDC listed his DBQ as Evidence considered in making the award. I received (2) separate VA Letters Denying the 14 FDC and Awarding the 15 FDC. arrived within a week of each other.
Keep in mind, I already had a recent 2014 DX of the Secondary issue, I was just wrong regarding which of my SC's it should have been attributed in the nexus. I believe the (2) FDC's were reviewed by the same Rater, even though I received the (2) Award/Denial Letters. The award of the Secondary issue was listed as SC Secondary to SA at 0%. I was in the process of NODing this award when I received (01/03/16) E-Ben notification that my SA had been bumped from 50 to 100%, due to the Secondary SC as of 07/15. Still haven't received the actual Award Letter. Retro's been banked and New Comp including SMC S (1) started 02/16.
Semper Fi

Navy,
I don't know who is supposed to fill out the VA 21-6796.
Regarding "recognize, develop, clarify, and/or decide all issues and claims", I personally feel many RSVRs are so conditioned to look at for certain fields in C&P/DBQ results that they often overlook potential additional or secondary disabilities.
Personally, I do believe the RSVR was bound to explore potential additional or secondary disabilities.

You filed a FDC, but this might be interesting. In the late 90's, the BVA remanded my appeal and gave very specific instructions. You'll notice this sound an awful lot like the info in the slides.
DO A GENERAL MEDICAL TO DETERMINE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALL OTHER ALLEGED DISABILITIES. THE EXAMINATION SHOULD INCLUDE AN EVALUATION OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE ABOVE MENTIONED DISABILITIES. ALL APPROPRIATE TESTS AND STUDIES SHOULD BE PERFORMED. THE EXAMINER SHOULD BE REQUESTED TO ASSESS ANY AND ALL DISABILITIES PRESENT AND RENDER AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE ETIOLOGY RELATED TO SERVICE. A COMPLETE RATIONALE FOR ANY OPINIONS EXPRESSED SHOULD BE PROVIDED. THE CLAIMS FOLDER SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE EXAMINER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXAM. PROVIDE ROM STUDIES, X-RAY REPORTS AND STATEMENT OF FUNCTIONAL LOSS DUE TO PAIN FOR ALL AFFECTED JOINTS.
Looking back at those C&P exams, sure enough, the examiners diagnosed additional disabilities, but they were never developed by either the examiner, the RSVR, or the BVA.
This is a slightly different situation covered by Stegall v. West, 11 Vet.App. 268 (1998) which involved failure to fully follow remand instructions.
This is just more proof that these kind of violations have been happening for a really long time.
 

Harris v. Shinseki, docket no. 2012-7111 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2013) overturned the VA's long practice of deeming "No evidence is negative evidence" per the slideshow I linked earlier, which ties back to your original question.
Here is a synopsis:
This case affirms the Federal Circuit’s case law regarding VA’s duty to fully develop and generously construe a pro se veteran’s filings to determine all possible claims raised by the evidence. In this case, the veteran had applied for and was awarded service-connection benefits in 2002. He appealed, arguing for an earlier effective date based a 1985 VA medical examination that included an Agent Orange Registry Code Sheet and an application for medical benefits. The Board held that the 1985 exam was neither a formal nor informal claim for benefits, and denied the appeal. The CAVC affirmed the Board’s decision, finding no clear error in the determination that the 1985 documents did not constitute a claim.
The Federal Circuit found that the CAVC did not apply the proper legal standard in reviewing the Board’s decision because there was no indication that the court “acknowledged its obligation to require that the Board generously construe the evidence in this case.” The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the Board “‘considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine,’” but noted that the duty to fully and sympathetically develop a veteran’s claim is separate from that doctrine. The duty to fully and sympathetically develop a veteran’s claim to its optimum is placed on VA prior to adjudicating the claim on the merits, whereas “the benefit-of-the-doubt rule assists the VA in deciding a veteran’s claim on the merits after the claim has been fully developed.”
 
But add this in...
The CAVC has stated that an informal claim for VA benefits requires:
1. An intent to apply for benefits,
2. An identification of the benefits sought, and
3. A communication in writing.
- Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009);
- See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (stating that an informal claim must “identify the benefit sought”).
- CAVC, quoting its decision in Brokowski, went on to state that “[A] claimant's identification of the benefit sought does not require any technical precision.”
- CAVC stated that a claimant sufficiently identifies the benefit sought “by referring to a body part or system that is disabled or by describing symptoms of the disability.”
A claimant is not required in filing a claim for benefits to identify a precise medical diagnosis or the medical cause of his condition; rather, he sufficiently files a claim for benefits "by referring to a body part or system that is disabled or by describing symptoms of the disability." Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 86 (2009). However,  #3 "a communication in writing" completely contradicts § 3.155 Informal claims "(a) Any communication or action..."

Thank you all for your responses!
I emailed my complaint to my MH doctor this morning.  I emailed my Congressman's office last night.  I filed a complaint with QTC.  I plan to do as you indicated Guaymas and email the above people as well.  I am a strong woman and yesterday tore me up and I mean really bad.  I was at a very low point but with all your guys/gal support and my therapist talking to me and my boyfriend who might I say is a prior Marine, talking to me helped a lot.  He wanted to choke the SOB out!
Buck, I agree maybe you should do the same and file a complaint.  It sounds like they just don't give a shit there.  At least the front office doesn't.  The doctor's on the other hand were WONDERFUL!
I don't drink but last night I had one to take the edge off.  I also have my wonderful ESA doggie to comfort me!  
You all rock!

With due respect, no such thing as a former marine, once a Marine, Always a Marine. OOorah.
I am so glad that you got some vindication and a real response from your predicament. I am just interjecting, if I may, never give up, never back down from fights when core values are on your side.  I know you will not have that problem though.  Good Win.  Just what I needed to read this morning.  
 
 

Thank you all for your responses!
I emailed my complaint to my MH doctor this morning.  I emailed my Congressman's office last night.  I filed a complaint with QTC.  I plan to do as you indicated Guaymas and email the above people as well.  I am a strong woman and yesterday tore me up and I mean really bad.  I was at a very low point but with all your guys/gal support and my therapist talking to me and my boyfriend who might I say is a prior Marine, talking to me helped a lot.  He wanted to choke the SOB out!
Buck, I agree maybe you should do the same and file a complaint.  It sounds like they just don't give a shit there.  At least the front office doesn't.  The doctor's on the other hand were WONDERFUL!
I don't drink but last night I had one to take the edge off.  I also have my wonderful ESA doggie to comfort me!  
You all rock!

Broncovet;
I couldn't agree more with you.  Your wife is correct!  I filed a HIPPA violation this morning with the QTC headquarters.  They took an incident report from me and it is going up the chain of command.  I will not allow this to consume me nor take me back to "bad space".  I've worked really hard in therapy and I am so afraid of falling back to my old ways.  I have a call into my therapist and I am sure she will call me.  I want this guy and gal to understand it is NOT okay to discuss ANYONE's claim amongst each other.

Flores;
Totally agree with you and remember you saying that now...I have been in so many conversations LOL but I just wonder how many Vet's get screwed b/c of contentions found during an exam that should be rated but aren't you know what I mean???  Boggles my mind...

Vync;
Yes this is exactly what I am talking about the M21-1 Duty To Consider.  The VA is bound to consider the contentions that arise during an examination, with the exception of the four items listed.  Does the Rater/VA complete the VA21-6796?  Are they bound to do so?  In this slide presentation, it specifically states the RVSR must recognize, develop, clarify and/or decide all issues and claims.  So if for example, on my C&P exam if it shows XYZ should also be rated, then the RVSR is bound to do so correct? That is what it sounds like to me.
I wonder how many Veterans have missed out b/c of something like this?  How many Vet's went in for a C&P for what they thought was for the contention they filed a claim on and actually there where other contentions they should be compensated for yet they weren't b/c of an oversight????? mind blowing!  

N4L, yes i did click the "decide my claim now" button, it made no difference.  I figure at this point it will be done when it's done, I can be patient (well kind of) for a couple more months, if it isn't resolved by that point I'll look at my options.

I agree with Navy, Shuman, contacting your congressman is definitely your best chance, it worked for me as well. Good Luck!!

Email your local congressman, that is what I did and I got in touch with my local military and veteran affairs liaison who is currently helping me.  I have my DRO review hearing at the end of the month and I am missing two years worth of medical records that I need for the hearing...

Navy, you are absolutely right, there are thousands of vets I am certain that don't realize they have legitimate secondary claims caused by their sc disabilities. They also don't know that if the examiner points out the secondaries during the exam, the RO should then rate those conditions as well, especially if the examiner states that they are caused or aggravated by the sc condition.