Jay Johnson

I'm a nurse by profession, so please don't talk down to me about cancer. Cancer is not CAUSED by the military and to insinuate otherwise is lunacy. There are cases where pathogens from military service can cause cancer, but 99% of cancers are unexplained, genetic problems...please do some research on the topic before you berate me again! Again, I am NOT reading the regulation the way you are. I always took SC to mean that there must be some sort of nexus between service and the disability. Now, if you have some information that shows that one merely needs to get a disability while in the military, then so be it, but don't belittle yet another of my posts. This is the second time in several days that you have personally attacked one of my posts and the first of which was a gross misunderstanding on your part and NOT my mistake...if you feel the need to continue to berate my posts I will leave the vet help to you. I have better ways to spend my time then getting a face full of shit every time I try to help a veteran. P.S. – For christ’s sake, I said from the beginning that If my interpretation was wrong then so be it, but show me why rather then call me a misguided child.

I think the studies help prove my theory that PTSD IS a brain injury and not merely a psychological one. If a physical brain injury can produce very similar symptoms to PTSD then why can't they draw the lines between the two? In my opinion, one's brain damages itself in order to better cope with a traumatic event, but that "rewrite" of the brain has negative side effects which are expressed via PTSD symptoms. I don't think the VA wants to make that connection because it will mean that most PTSD cases would be permanent in nature and the psychiatric community won't admit it because they would be out of a job as far as the value of therapy is concerned......I think trying to talk someone into recovering from PTSD is like trying to talk someone into recovering a lost arm (it's not gonna happen).

Requesting it is as simple as a written letter, but getting it approved is another matter:-) Basically, if you can get a doctor to say soemthing to the effect of "patient ABC's disability of XYZ is static and will not improve in his/her lifetime" then you have a good case for P&T. If you can't get a doctor to admit that your condition is static then there is no reason to poke a sleeping bear IMO:-) My advice would be to get something in writing from your doctor to submit with your letter, OR, if you already have something in your records saying soemthing to that effect, then photocopy that portion of your medical file and send it in with your claim. P.S. - It's not unheard of for the VA to approve P&T without any new evidence submitted (based solely on your existing medical file), so don't take my opinion as a "must"...I just like to do things on the safe side:-)

I still don't understand what you mean? You need to establish a "nexus" to receive compensation and nexus, by definition, is a "link"...so, how then can one establish compensation without a link to the military? Accept for in extreme cases like AO and other chemical/biological agents, cancer is not th direct cause of military duty, so how can one establish a nexus for compensation for a disease the military, obviously, didn't cause? Obviously, I'm missing something:-)

My wife is the veteran, so it's not really relevant to me, but I wouldn't worry too much about it to be honest. I don't know of any regulation where the VA will order you to give your tax records and/or prove your financial situation. What I'm saying is more of a cautionary tale to protect yourself in that "just in case" situation. The VA CAN order field examinations to determine income and just about anything else they want to find (there's even a provision for field examinations in M21-1 to determine a veteran's role in a family owned company). Again, if you make less then the poverty line then it's a non-issue....if you make over that line then it may be in your best interest to put the investments in your spouse's name or another close family member "just in case".

I posted a topic in the "medication" section awhile back on a similar topic - Propanolol ....It has been shown that disrupting the memory BEFORE PTSD sets in can reduce PTSD symptoms. This doesn't mean there's a cure, nor does it mean that it is guaranteed to work, but having the VA focus on helping future vets to have lesser symptomology is better then having them focus on "curing" PTSD after the fact (IE - lowering existing ratings). Honestly, I think the VA should embrace the study I linked because it refutes the fact that amnesia can stop PTSD AND can help future vets by decreasing symptoms on the battle field before it becomes a life-long problem.

I must be misunderstanding the law then.....I was under the impression that one had to link a cause to the military and that simply being ill wasn't enough?

To a degree....I would be willing to bet that if the VA got wind of an "investor" making 50K/yr+ in consecutive years, that they would at least attempt to remove TDIU at the RO level. I do agree, however, that one is fairly safe with typical investing for retirement purposes, but I'm sure there's a limit and the regulations seems to encompass any income and not just wages.

Well, just because a disease occured while in the military and the military medically retired the individual, does not mean that the disability is service connected. For example, one could come down with cancer while in the military and said cancer could lead to a medical discharge, but that doesn't mean the military "caused" the cancer in the first place. It's not enough to just get injured in the military, one needs to prove that the military had some influence on said injury. If you're refering to a disability that the military acknowledged as being service connected before being medically discharged (IE - the military said it was their fault) then the VA should not even question the validity of that person's SC. Of crouse, we're dealing with a VA that could care less about veterans and looks at them as money-grubbing cry-babies. Issues like these that defy common sense and are direct/obvious attempts to keep veterans from deserved compensation need to be addressed on a national level. The SOs, senators and public in general have failed veterans in this regard.

That really isn't the way the system works, nor how the 5 yr rule is applied. The RO only needs two exams to prove you have "sustained" improvement and to justify lowering you. The 5yr rule only protect you against any ONE exam showing material improvement......if one exam confirms a prior exam then they have established sustained improvement. Of course that ignores the laws behind TDIU and several other factors, but it isn't as simple as 6 in your favor and 5 against you......you can have 15yrs of ratings in your favor and have your compensation revoked in a matter of months (a C&P that shows improvement followed by another a few months later that shows sustained improvement). P.S. - The VA is supposed to schedule future exams at least two years in the future, but, like with reexaminations and P&T, if they can show cause to order one earlier they can and will. (hell, they'll order one without cause)

Actually you can and it happens all the time in the VA and in life in general. A cop cannot beat someone without cause, nor can they shoot someone unless they can prove their life is in danger, but they do all the time and get away with it for the most part. If a law forbids someone from doing something then they CANNOT do it "under the law", but when you deal with people who ignore law and uphold lower decisions in a sort of "good 'ole boys society" then what cannot be done is done anyway. The RO cannot order you to a C&P exam for your P&T PTSD without a reason. Now, either they will make a reason up (like citing evidence from a seperate issue that you provided them) or they will just ignore the regulations and hope they stand up in court. The reason I am so passionate about this issue is that it is a VERY profound one to ALL veterans with P&T. The accepted thought on P&T is once you get, provided you leave the RO alone, you will not be bothered again. The RO's are exceeeding their authority by issuing C&Ps, but they know that you have to attend them even if they break the rules (plus they anticipate that any appeal you make about the C&P will take years)......after you attend them and provide them with new evidence it really doesn't matter if they broke the regulation or not because you're dealing with "new and material evidence". It is a catch 22 that needs to be stopped before it becomes common-place in the VA. Unforetunately, the only way to stop this is to get someone with power on your side to force the VA back into line on this particular subject. We need a SO to step up or a senator to take action. Few extra points: 1) If one assumes that the RO can ignore the regulations regarding P&T and reexaminations then they can also ignore the regulations regarding reasonable doubt and can easily take away your rating regardless of how many favorable opinions you have (not out of the norm for those people). This is why we need to draw a line in the sand. P&T means your disorder is of a PERMANENT nature....it defies all common sense (and regulation) to order periodic exams for something that is static in nature. Either the RO needs to remove your P&T status or honor...they can't have it both ways. 2) You mentioned several other problems you have...what are they and what are the ratings? Are you sure your PTSD is P&T or could another disorder be P&T? Just because you are P&T for say a physical injury does not mean that your PTSD is static as well (nor does it mean that your PTSD could be high enough to be P&T). 3) Have you contacted the Ro and sentors, SO, etc about the exams in particular and cited the regulations behind reexaminations and P&T? If so, what are the responses? Please keep me posted...not only do I care deeply about this topic for veterans in general, but my wife is P&T with an exmanination scheduled for 2007 (I am at the DRO level AND I have a CUE filed on the matter...also have a sentor working on it along with a congressman). I can't use a lawyer yet because I have not exhausted appeals.

Thanks for the tip...I'll definitely do some research on it:-) At the moment, I have most of my money tied up in CREE. I'm in at around $21 and it's currently trading between 25 and 28. I hoping to sell around $35 in the next few months, but may settle on $30 if it doesn't move quickly (have a few others I'm invested in and expect to go up and want as much money in them as I can). CREE is a great stock for short term sells as it fluctuates heavily between $20 and $40+. I also have my eye on JDSU.....it's had a lot of recent trouble in the last few years and is currently trading around $2.50, but was once at $240+. I have some money in the company at $1.65 and have already double my money a few times in the company, but may consider a longer term position as I feel it could have a significant rebound in the near future (though I would like it to dip below $2 again before investing more money to be safe). P.S. - SIRIUS is also a stock I am watching. It's competitor, XM, trades at around $30 I believe and sirius has been trading between $5 and $7 for about a year. Sirius has a lot of room for growth in a relatively new market and is pumping a TON of money into sales and advertisement to be the biggest player.

Again, I completely understand just how much power these idiots have and what lengths they will go to to deny claims (even if it means ignoring their own regulations), but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out that what the RO's are doing is wrong, nor should it preclude members of hadit from telling others to fight it. I stand by what I said 100%...the RO CANNOT order reexaminations for P&T cases without sufficient cause. This doesn't mean they don't or won't order said examinations, but it is clearly against both the current regulations and, more importantly, congress' intent. As I have suggested all along, if a veteran is P&T and the RO schedules an examination for NO REASON, then said vet should fight it all the way (even before the scheduled exam)...this doesn't mean the RO will change its mind, nor does it guarantee victory upon appeal, but to suggest that a vet should throw their hands up because it's "just the RO doing what it always does" just doesn't sound right with me. With that said - The reason the RO's are the way they are is due to two factors: 1) There is no oversight of the secretary of the VA. Even the CoVA is VERY limited in what it can and cannot do to a BVA decision. 2) The regulations are written by the VA for the VA. VA regs need to be far more concrete and binding and the VA should not be able to change any regulations without congressional hearings. My plan for fixing this problem - Congress needs to step in and take control of the VA. Essentially, the VA is part of the executive branch without the normal controls that come with legislative oversight. The president should only have the power to appoint the members of the VA and congress should be in direct control of the regulations (IE - legislation). Congress should also take a few steps to ensure fair treatment of veterans: 1) Congress should rewrite the regulations in a manor which is most beneficial to the veteran and not the veteran's association. 2) The regulations should be written in stone. The secretary will have no ability to change any regulations without congressional consent and can only propose changes ONE regulation at a time (so that the secretary, or any one congressman, cannot sneak in changes in large rewrite bills). Any changes proposed should be given proper hearings and public oversight (the legislative branch was the only true democratic branch of our government for a reason). 3) Judicial oversight should focus on congress' intent rather then the "secretary's" interpretation. 4) The discretion of the secretary should be limited to matters which "benefit" the veteran and not the VA (to use this thread, the secretary should not be able to use discretion in an attempt to "lower" a veteran...only to "raise" the level of compensation). Also, discretion should be very limited in benefit's issues in general. Being that the VA is an executive organization, the secretary should have broad discretion pertaining to administrative issues like budget, employees, infrastructure, etc, but should not be able to use discretion in a means that supersedes the intent of congress (IE - regulations pertaining to benefits). Until the system is overhauled to provide better oversight/management, as I have suggested, the VA will continue to treat veterans as lying criminals out to steal government money. My two cents......

There isn't a specific regulation that deals with the exact types of income one can earn for TDIU with SC...there are many references for pension cases, but the compensation regulations are very vague. Honestly, it's more complicated then what some on here have mentioned. It isn't as simple as just "earned wages" as there are provisions in m21-1 that state that ",substantially gainful employment is defined as that which is ordinarily followed by the nondisabled to earn their livelihood with earnings common to the particular occupation in the community where the veteran resides." In other words, if you can make money above the poverty threshold on a yearly basis from investments (just as an investor would) then the VA, in theory, could revoke your TDIU (would be real difficult in my opinion though). Basically, if you earn less then the poverty threshold for a single person, then I wouldn't even worry about it, nor would I worry about any one-time large net sales of stocks; however, I might be concerned if you were "day trading" and earning a steady income well above the poverty threshold. P.S. - It is REAL easy to get around any of these situations if you are married. Your wife can earn a billion dollars a year and it won't impact your compensation, so you can simply invest under her name and/or claim the capital gains as "her" income.

It's sounds like you're still doing a lot of work on your claim, which gives the RO more lattitude to order C&Ps:-( The RO shouldn't order a C&P for a P&T case without having some reason to review your file....this doesn't mean they have the right to order you to a C&P exam, but I'm sure they will try to justify it by something you have sent them or the appeals you are trying to get through. I wish there was more I could suggest other then the typical, "call your senator/lawyer/VA secretary/etc", but I'm sure you have and it's gotten you nowhere. I guess you could try a real civilian lawyer because your case is, from the same of it, beyond the BVA stage, but lawyers tend to be just as useless as SOs when it comes to vet issues. P.S. - If you give more specifics about what exactly the BVA is denying and why, one of us may be able to suggest a course of action like CUE, but I don't really know enough at this point to recommend one.

There is a statute dealing with this in title 38 I believe, but, in general, stocks are not considered "earned income". I make a decent amount of money from stocks and it goes under "capital gains" on my tax forms. Don't take this as a guarantee though, as my wife is the veteran, so I haven't had to look into the issue from a VA standpoint.

The first quote, if that's what you're refering to, is from M-21. As for cynicism, I am as cynical as anyone else and I have said many, many times that the VARO often does not follow regulations. My first response to this thread was "As you can tell, there is some wiggle room in pension cases, but there is NO wiggle room in compensation cases...if you're P&T and they schedule you for an exam fight it all the way " . I made it clear from the beginning that one should expect this to be a long fight...I did not imply that if the veteran quotes the regulations I posted that they would automatically win their claim (in fact I'm sure the VARO will ignore it). My basic point in this thread is that P&T means NO FUTURE EXAMS and I have heard several incodents where the VARO's have tried to issue reexaminations for people with P&T without cause (including a CUE I have in at the moment for my wife). The RO is clearly exceeding its authority in these cases and the vets that are affected SHOULD fight it every step of the way.

It sounds more like a CUE situation then that of new and material evidence for reopening a claim, but it doesn't hurt to try.

1.11 SCHEDULING REVIEW EXAMINATIONS Base the dates of review examinations on the facts and circumstances in each case; however, schedule the examination as far in the future as possible, preferably five years from the date of the last (or initial) VA examination. Consider whether the veteran's current condition is an acute exacerbation or whether the veteran is still recuperating following hospitalization. Consider whether improvement or recovery can be anticipated. If not, do not schedule a future review examination. Medical evidence from any of the sources listed in 38 CFR 3.326© may satisfy the need for reexamination. a. Compensation Cases. Exercise prudent judgment and refer to 38 CFR 3.327(B) in determining the need for reexamination. For information on scheduling review examinations following periods of convalescence, see chapter 10. I am not directing anyone to "not show up" for an examination; rather, I am trying to inform this veteran of his/her rights under the law. The assertion that the secratary has the authority to ask for an examination at any time for no reason is flatly false and you are reading to much into one line of one regulation that deals with a multitude of issues. Going by your thoughts no regulation has any concrete value because the secretary is afforded discretion over ANY regulation on the book and can rewrite said regulations at his/her discretion...obviously this isn't the case. The secretary must justify any discretionary act by showing just cause and the CoVA has the right to supersede the secretary's actions if it can find cause that the secretary was going against other laws (VA or otherwise) or against the assumed will of congress. This is evident in many cases in many different governmental organizations....just because the secretary has 10 billion in discretionary funding doesn't mean he/she can by a 100 million dollar boat. The secretary must show proper justification, under the law, for any discretionary spending. In this particular case, a RO must find cause to use discretion in order to reopen a claim. A rater cannot simply open a claim that is P&T because he/she feels the need to review it. One of several points must be established in order to justify reopening a P&T claim: 1) The prior decision was made in error...... This is quite difficult as it conlficts with CUE regulations and regulations pertaining to difference of opinion. 2) New material evidence....There is more discretion involved in this because of the ambiguos nature surrouning "new evidence". In other words, if a vet asks for a review of a seperate issues(not the one rated for P&T) and that evidence even hints to a possible change in the prior P&T evaluation the rater can reopen a claim (this is where discretion is justified). 3) A claim filed by the veteran dealing with the P&T disability....this one is self-explanitory. I have spent countless hours trying to find an actual definition as to what exactly discretion means on the secretary's behalf, but was not able to find anything that specific. What I was able to find is many court cases dealing with discretion in general and that discretion is far from absolute. Basically, discretion, by law, must be backed up by something that causes discretion to be used. Example - A cop cannot search your car for no reason, but is given broad discretion to do so if just cause can be found (IE - he sees you hide something under the seat, or he sees what looks like drugs on the floor, etc). The secretary of the VA cannot excersize discretion without just cause....in order to find just cause there must be SOMETHING to trigger it (in this case, one of the 3 things mentioned above). In a P&T claim, one cannot be reduced without new, material evidence which shows improvement under normal life conditions. 3.343 is a very tough regulation to get around and an examination, ordered by the RO, must show that the veteran no longer meets the requirement of P&T, or, at the very least, shows some just cause for assuming a condition may no longer be "static". Anything short of this would be a misuse of discretion on the RO's part and I would take steps to fight the RO for ordering the reexamination. What this comes down to is whether or not veterans are going to continue to allow the VA (RO in particular) to misuse its authority. There is no reason why a veteran who has been determined permanently disabled should undergo routine examinations and/or any examination unless there is just cause for doing so. If the RO believes that veteran's condition is no longer static then a reexamination to determine permanence should be done, otherwise, the veteran's claim should not be touched. This is both a matter of common sense and, I believe, a case in which congress' intent is not being followed. Either the VARO's need to be more judicious in their finding for permanence or the designation of permanent should be changed or taken off the books. This "(B) Permanent total disability. Permanence of total disability will be taken to exist when such impairment is reasonably certain to continue throughout the life of the disabled person." , is in direct conflict with the discretionary powers you are quoting in 3.327. The secretary cannot ignore his/her own regulations and one cannot justify examinations for a condition that is supposed to last for the remainder of the veterans lifetime.

My wife first got her A&A and P&T through delaware (well it's the philadelphia RO that does DE's claims). Delaware is pretty terrible for dealing with PTSD...they don't have any specialization programs that I know of and their mental health clinic in wilmington is horrible. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the VA has one of their better mental health facilities about an hour NE of the Delaware maryland border in maryland...the hospital is called Perry point and is in perry point maryland I believe. It's in a great location on the water and they have a good program for PTSD and/or mental health in general. It may be in your best interest to sign up at that hospital and inquire about any programs they may have...the wife stayed there for a month due to suicidal ideation and, despite her having a profound dislike for the VA, she rather enjoyed the stay. They even brought in a sexual trauma psychologist from balitmore just for her once a week (though part of the reason they treated her so well is that I, somehow, got in contact with the head of psychiatry for the entire VA mental health department of maryland via email and told her (the psychiatrist) that the health care was horrible in delaware and she personally sent an ambulance for my wife and had her brought to perry point....I believe this psychaitrist also told the hospital administrator to "take care" of my wife). Even if perry point doesn't have any programs that you can utilize, you should keep them in mind if you feel you need an accute stay...they are lightyears ahead of the VA hospital in elkton, DE. P.S. - I spent most of my life in DE, so if ya have any questions feel free to shoot me an email at jay_1699@hotmail.com.

Few points: First, in order to qualify for P&T you must be considered to be chronically ill (IE - "( B) Permanent total disability. Permanence of total disability will be taken to exist when such impairment is reasonably certain to continue throughout the life of the disabled person." ) and your condition must be static, so both are met with a P&T rating. Secondly, the exemption portion you highlighted seems to refer to the VA's ability to order an examination, not to order periodic reexaminations. There are stipulations within title 38 that allow the VA to reopen a P&T claim and order a C&P, but these reasons are also fairly concrete. If this individual has not provided the VA with any new information and/or the VA has no reason to assume this individual may have gotten better then they cannot order an examination. With that said, discretion can always be used by the VA to supersede a lot of otherwise concrete regulations, but the VA must give cause for such use of discretion beyond the fact that they want to reduce a veteran. If nothing else this veteran should seek an answer as to why the RO is ordering a C&P exam and, if no reason is given, then there is basis to argue that 3.327 was violated.

Are you rated for pension or compensation? If it's compensation then the VA cannot order you to a C&P exam unless you ask for something related to your PTSD or present new evidence to them to suggest that you are better. Here's the reg. that deals with reexaminations - § 3.327 Reexaminations. (a) General. Reexaminations, including periods of hospital observation, will be requested whenever VA determines there is a need to verify either the continued existence or the current severity of a disability. Generally, reexaminations will be required if it is likely that a disability has improved, or if evidence indicates there has been a material change in a disability or that the current rating may be incorrect. Individuals for whom reexaminations have been authorized and scheduled are required to report for such reexaminations. Paragraphs (B) and © of this section provide general guidelines for requesting reexaminations, but shall not be construed as limiting VA's authority to request reexaminations, or periods of hospital observation, at any time in order to ensure that a disability is accurately rated. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) (B) Compensation cases—(1) Scheduling reexaminations. Assignment of a prestabilization rating requires reexamination within the second 6 months period following separation from service. Following initial Department of Veterans Affairs examination, or any scheduled future or other examination, reexamination, if in order, will be scheduled within not less than 2 years nor more than 5 years within the judgment of the rating board, unless another time period is elsewhere specified. (2) No periodic future examinations will be requested. In service-connected cases, no periodic reexamination will be scheduled: (i) When the disability is established as static; (ii) When the findings and symptoms are shown by examinations scheduled in paragraph (B)(2)(i) of this section or other examinations and hospital reports to have persisted without material improvement for a period of 5 years or more; (iii) Where the disability from disease is permanent in character and of such nature that there is no likelihood of improvement; (iv) In cases of veterans over 55 years of age, except under unusual circumstances; (v) When the rating is a prescribed scheduled minimum rating; or (vi) Where a combined disability evaluation would not be affected if the future examination should result in reduced evaluation for one or more conditions. © Pension cases. In nonservice-connected cases in which the permanent total disability has been confirmed by reexamination or by the history of the case, or with obviously static disabilities, further reexaminations will not generally be requested. In other cases further examination will not be requested routinely and will be accomplished only if considered necessary based upon the particular facts of the individual case. In the cases of veterans over 55 years of age, reexamination will be requested only under unusual circumstances. As you can tell, there is some wiggle room in pension cases, but there is NO wiggle room in compensation cases...if you're P&T and they schedule you for an exam fight it all the way P.S. - I believe there is a erg that states you have 1 year to attend a C&P exam once one is requested, so you have a lot of room to argue if need be (I'll have to look this one up later:-).

Larry, Some PTSD drugs require routine blood tests to monitor effective levels (like depakote), while others need constant testing for the effects they have on your liver. This isn't to say that the VA isn't needlessly testing you, but I'm sure some of them are valid:-)

This new review needs to be stopped before it's started. Essentially, what the VA is saying is that they don't like the current accepted medical opinion of the world's psychiatric professionals and that they want to find a way around the current standards to justify less payments. Honestly, can anyone remember the VA ever starting a study because they felt they weren't paying enough? For those that claim this isn't a veiled attempt at compensation reductions just look at the VA's history of "studies"...they always error on the side of less compensation. PTSD is a brain disorder and it is not curable. Just as with a missing hand, you can use devices, pills, prosthetics, etc to compensate for the injury, but the injury will never improve. This is the generally accepted view of the psychiatric community and one that the VA wants to change. If they can find even a hint that PTSD can improve they will start a man-hunt for every PTSD vet on the planet and if a lot vets kill themselves then they will save even more money (I guess you can call that win-win for the VA). As for fraud - I have been over this before....I have no doubt that fraud exists in the VA system, but I highly doubt that there is a lot, if any, fraud in the 70%-100% range. One can fool a psychiatrist by claiming nightmares, sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, etc (general signs of PTSD below 50%), but one would be HARD pressed to prove psychosis, severe anxiety, severe depression, suicidal/homicidal ideation, OCD, severe panic attacks, etc. Severe symptoms have easily observable, physical side-effects.....for instance - A person with severe anxiety tends to act very agitated and said agitation increases when they are put in more stressful situations. One also exhibits shakes, rapid eye movement and is generally easily startled. One with severe depression tends to make NO eye contact, slopes in his or her seat, is easily emotional (typically crying or anger) and has a general lack of interest in the world that can be heard through the person's voice (inflection) and their behavior during an evaluation. All of the symptoms of severe PTSD are easy for a trained doctor to PHYSICALLY see; whereas, a doctor evaluating a less severe person has to make a lot more judgment calls and get a lot more information surrounding the claims (IE - if someone claims to be terrified of loud noises, due to gun fire, yet slips and says they have no problem at a fireworks show, then perhaps that person is being less then honest). As you can see, any potential fraud in the VA would be in the 50% and less level, but the VA is going after the top end, not because there is fraud or misdiagnosis, but because they can save more money and, hopefully, some vets will commit suicide and not be on their payroll any longer (harsh but true). There are lots of ways to trim the VA budget, but the VA has chosen to prey on the weakest amongst us.....but, unfortunately, there are many vets who support the VA no matter what they do and I have no doubt that a large number of vets believe that PTSD is a joke and no PTSD vet should receive a penny. It's this mixed support that the VA uses to prey on PTSD vets...they know that if they were to start going after phsycailly unjured vets they would be plastered by the media and the SOs. Who was it that said "the path of least resistance"?

My pleasure:-) Honestly, I would love to help vets on a more one to one basis and learn even more about the process myself, but my wife is very dependent on me to be home with her and she is agoraphobic, so leaving the house is quite difficult (she usually stays in the car when we go to the store and I leave one of the kids in the car with her so she doesn't have a panic attack). Perhaps in time she will grow more comfortable, at least at home, and I'll be able to do more, but, for now, I'm kinda stuck in the house:-(