Jay Johnson

The VA, like most government agencies, is all about detail and format. It is not enough to get an IMO that states you are unemployable or X amount disabled; you need your psych to write up a formal evaluation that uses VA terminology and VA formatting. It should include a GAF (all 5 axis) and terms like "more likely than not" and other VA catch phrases. In the end, it's hard for the VA to argue their own language when it's used against them:-)

PTSD is under the same classification as GAD; they are both anxiety disorders. As for your case specifically, if you feel you deserve a higher rating than file for an increase, but there's no need to change/add a diagnosis simply because a doctor said you have another one. In some cases, it is wise to get additional issues evaluated due to DIC compensation, but PTSD and GAD are the same issue and, coupled with depression, they all fall under the same category, so if you qualify for DIC under GAD/depression it will not change anything if you have PTSD as well. However, if you can prove a stressor and you feel your condition has worsened then, by all means, file for an increase and put a claim in for PTSD. 30% isn't exactly a big deal...now, if you were 100% P&T with your current diagnosis, then I would probably advise against claiming PTSD.

What ever happened to a presumption of health when entering the military? The regs are in the veterans' favor; they're just not being applied correctly. Perhaps with a government push they will clear it up.....PD is a very rare issue and not very well understood. There is NO way that many people have PD from the military...NO WAY.

The VA does not have the right to assume that doctors are being fraudulant. If anything, the VA doctors should be given no weight considering they have a vested interest in the VA and NOT the veteran. Whomever said that needs to be dragged out into the street and...um... talked to??

SOs tend to be very good at procedural matters, but are fairly useless outside of that. Anyone can read through the regs and the prior BVA/CAVC rulings to compile a good case for THEMSELVES; 99% of the time (some cases are trickier than others). Of the 7 or 8 SOs I had contacted for my wife, 4 of them were completely clueless, 2 were A-holes and the first one, though helpful, did nothing more than staple the evidence *I* collected together and ship it off to the right people with the right forms. Just keep in mind that SOs are not legal scholars, nor do they have some inside info into the VA system...most of what they know, outside of experience, can be learned via the internet. So, if you feel your SO's are holding you back, then dump them and do it yourself....I got 100% + A&A for PTSD without their help; it's not impossible. SO's are best for people who are completely new to the system and who don't have the time/ability to learn the ins/outs of the VA (which can take a LONG time). However, the new law concerning the use of lawyers should be helpful to more vets.....it will also likely make SOs obsolete (or for the poor who can't afford lawyers....but that's a class issue and a whole 'nother can of wurms all together).

2905 sounds high...perhaps you did get some SMC after all.

At the very least they need to follow the DSM and seperate the different conditions into their general categories. In other words, PTSD, OCD, panic disorder, GAD are ALL under "anxiety disorders" in the DSM. Bipolar is under "mood disorders" as is MDD. Schizophrenia is another category and you should be under "delerium, dementia, amnestic and other cognitive disorders" (yet another category). At least this way, one would get credit for at least having different forms of mental disorders.

Vike gave the politically correct answer:-), but it's a bit more complicated than that. Some disabilities seem to take social impairment (IE - quality of life) into more consideration than others (IE - mental disorders). In theory, compensation is supposed to ONLY be about lost wages, but their are people who lead relatively normal lives, are 100% disabled and earn good money working. Personally, I think ALL disabilities should be treated equally and ALL of them should factor in social impairments. Being that it is nearly impossible to sue the military for social impairment (IE - civil litigation), the VA should compensate veterans appropriately. As to your last line - Concurrent receipt is supposed to change that disparity between government employees and disabled vets, but it's being phased in slowly and only covers a fraction of the vets at the moment. There has been legislation introduced that should cover most, if not all vets, for both disability and retirement, but who knows whether or not it will pass:-(

Well, the printer/scanner you have acts like the USB cord for the camera, thus eliminating the need for it. Also, most of the newer printer/scanners are very compatible with the newer cameras, thus eliminating the need for the camera software. As for photo shop - You'll learn to love it (or other picture software). Some websites are very picky about how large the pic can be and what format it needs to be in (jpeg, bit, etc), and those software programs allow you to convert things. Also, you can do some really neat things with some of the pic software out there like set your pics to music via slideshows, crop people in and out of photos, change the background, etc. I'm sure you'll get the hang of all that stuff eventually; it's basically a trial and error thing:-)

I hate to say it, but that led me to a sigh of relief:-) It's still wrong on the RO's part, but knowing that they weren't just randomly selecting a 100% P&T PTSD vet for "review" is FAR different than being pricks over a reopened claim with new and material evidence. BTW, I think this is seattle's MO....they seem to completely ignore ALL of the prior evidence in a given PTSD case while focusing ONLY on the newest evidence and, more specifically, ONLY the portions of the new evidence which are against the veteran (IE - a report can give a 20 GAF, say the person is all but bedridden, but if the word "better" is anywhere in the document, they decrease the rating). It's almost word for word what they did to the wife (or tried to do at least).

Breaking congressional law isn't "trickery" in my opinion and it should be taken quite seriously. If you don't, you run the risk of it becoming a standard practice. We don't know the particulars of the case, so it's hard to say exactly what happened here, but if it is a witch hunt (as the OP suggested), then we should all be outraged. I know many folks on here are P&T and if the VA is going to randomly start pulling files for C&Ps we should stop it before it starts.

But in your example here there was "something" the RO could point to for justifying a C&P with P&T. My guess is that the veteran in question (from the original poster) had done "something" to trigger the inquiry. If not, it is a whole 'nother ball game, because it amounts to a witch hunt....I mean, did the RO just randomly select a P&T PTSD case for review? I don't want to pass judgement, but even in my wife's case there was "some" reason for them ordering her to a C&P with P&T.....she *was* in the fiduciary program and when we moved out here the fiduciary folks felt that she didn't need to be in the program anymore. This, of course, was the "improvement" they needed to justify reopening her case. So, as wrong as I think it was, they still covered their butts in ordering her into a new C&P with P&T. To just order a P&T vet into a C&P for absolutely NO reason seems to be against the law in my opinion...the regs clearly state that "new" evidence must be brought to light in order to start their witch hunt. What worries me most about this case is that it *could* be that the RO singled this guy out to test his disability BEFORE the 20 year mark....if that's the case, we need congressional inquiry.

By the way, the VA's regs state that a 100% vets needs to have "material" improvement without the need of aid. In other words, if the vet has "gotten better", but said improvement is due to ongoing meds and not working then that is not basis for reduction. In order to lower him they would need to show that he is not on meds and that he is "choosing" not to work, which seems like a long shot to me. Get senators involved and everyone else you can...hell, call the local press and get the media on your side. One more note, what prompted the C&P? Had he asked for an increase? Does he have another disability? Is he routinely seeing a VA psych and that psych noted improvement in a regular appointment? If the VA did this without ANY cause I think this needs to be fought HARD.

The Seattle RO pulled the same stuff with the wife. They tried to drop her from 100% P&T (found just 8 months prior to moving to this region by Philly RO) to 50%, then to 70% with TDIU and, eventually, back to 100% with P&T again, but it took phone calls to the acting director and a personal phone call from the review officer to the wife to get it done. The way I read the VA regs is that the VA cannot subject a P&T vet to a comp exam unless they have new and material evidence to warrant it. However, a veteran also doesn't have the right to refuse a C&P exam, so it becomes a catch 22.....if you don't go they can immediately drop you to 0%, but in order not to go legally, you need legal intervention which isn't afforded to vets. On top of that, once you've gone to the exam the VA now has "new and material evidence" so they can do whatever they want at that point. I really think this person's case needs to have some money and effort thrown behind it and it needs some public attention. P&T means P&T, not "likely P&T, but we'll check later". Either the VA needs to be less liberal with handing out P&T or they need to do away with it all together, but they can't award it and then ignore the award. Also, a 100% rating means "total occupational impairment", so the VA should not be able to lower him without awarding TDIU unless there is clear evidence of employment or that the VA has strong evidence that the veteran is being fraudulent and not working on purpose (a really hard claim to prove mind you). Unfortunately, this seems to be status quo for the Seattle RO, but despite their fishing expeditions they still need to follow the regs in the end. By the way, I can probably dig up some contact info I used in my wife's case (if I can find it all), so PM me if you want it.

Insurance in this country is quickly becoming a joke. At 30, I cannot qualify for any life insurance because I'm overweight. Despite the fact that I jog 6 miles per day and bench 350 and have very little body fat (non-smoker, rarely drink, etc); I am a risk because I weigh 225 @ 6'1". So, being denied for a preexisting condition like PTSD really doesn't surprise me at all. Now-a-days, if your work doesn't subsidize your insurance, it's not worth getting any. I think they want something like $150/mnth from me for a 30K policy (privately obtained of course). It's madness....... BTW, the wife is a 100% disabled vet and has been since she left the service and she has no life insurance policy and can't get one (of any real value)....thus is life....

The bill of rights does not apply to people in the military, so I can understand the DoD's policies on drug screening. However, you are all civilians now and have full rights under our laws and the VA shouldn't be able to screen someone without permission or a court order. I'm betting this issue needs a lawsuit filed in order to fix it.....it may seem trivial to some, but when you give up one civil liberty you can bet they'll go after another soon enough.

Few observations of why nothing stated here is "off topic": 1) The original question was about working and 100% and that's all that has been covered. 2) Someone stated that people with mental disorders at 100% can work; we know this to be untrue. However, he was trying to put a very specific and wrongly categorized diagnosis into the much broader and common category that includes PTSD. Dementia may fall under the "mental" category, but it is a physical disorder.....a 1st year med student can tell you this. 3) I don't care for vike and I think I've made that clear in other threads. I love opinions and I encourage folks to give their opinions, but I don't care for being brow beaten by someone who takes their "opinion" as fact. I will continue to challenge his notion on this because he is wrong, so boot me from the forum, close it or let us continue...either way, I really don't care, but I haven't said anything derogatory towards him and don't intend to. I am being matter-of-fact, which I feel is right on his level. Fin.

I understand that, but that's not the point. The codes you listed have a physiological basis; whereas, your typical "mental" disorder does not (again, I would argue this, but in current medical terminology this is the case). I'm not going to argue this with you further...I am in this field and you are not; try asking a doctor. But, since you insist only playing semantics, here is the definition of dementia out of my abnormal psychology book: Dementia (and other cognitive disorders) - Problems caused by known damage to the brain, including alzheimer's diseases, strokes and other physical trauma to the brain. In fact, dementia is not even covered in abnormal psychology because it is not a "psychological disorder"; rather, it's a PHYSICAL one. If I know this as a student in psychology, I'm thinking the psychiatrists are well aware of this fact too (as are the raters). They get lumped under "mental disorders" because the VA's ratings system is antiquated and biased. P.S. - That definition is out of the DSM-IV-TR by the way.

Is that legal and under what authority do they have to give such drug screens without permission? Seems like a civil rights violation to me.......

Unless you have some new issue that you feel was caused by the contamination there's not much you can do at the moment. However, I would get signed statements and records indicating that you were there and that there was a contaminant present. Cancer doesn't happen over night and there could be issues down the road (though unlikely mind you), so keep detailed records because we all know how the VA likes to conveniently lose records when said records are in the veteran's favor.

Artistic expression is not something most of us can do, nor would I deem it normal employment. Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and brahms were all "crazy", yet were some of the best composers the planet has ever seen. Robert Schumann was put in a mental ward at the end of his life. In fact, I would say that "good" art comes from pain and suffering and is often linked to people with mental disorders. Tchaikovsky's issues were that he was gay living in a homophobic world (likely molested as a kid), which was more common than you think in those days. Beethoven was believed to be bipolar and brahms had severe OCD. But, does this mean we can write the next fur elise? Probably not:-) So, unless you have some super-genius latent talent that you haven't told us about, I wouldn't hold your breath to be the next Van Gogh........ Unless you're painting homes, "art" is not work.

From a medical standpoint dementia and cognitive impairment are physical in nature 99% of the time and the VA views them as such. Now, there may not be a special category for those ailments to fall into, but it would be assumed that one will not get better with dementia and it would also be assumed that dementia is a disease that almost always gets progressively worse with age. PTSD does not fall into either of those categories (though I would argue that fact). Dementia is most often associated with al zheimers and old age in general. Essentially, it is a deterioration of the brain. Cognitive functions can improve in purely psychological cases, but considering that the cognitive impairment is linked to dementia I would say that this is almost certainly a progressive, "physical" disorder. Raters aren't stupid and they realize the difference (as do the docs), so don't think that they can't/won't make exceptions for cases that do not fit into the typical mold, but we're talking about something well outside of the norm. Most of the mental cases are PTSD related and, as such, ones ability to work is key. PTSD is an anxiety disorder so, by VA terminology, how can one be 100% anxious, yet lead a normal, productive work life? BTW, you'll notice that each of the codes vike linked were of a physical nature; the problem is that the VA just hasn't made a proper category for them yet and there's a general prejudice in the field of medicine towards injuries that can be observed but not seen (IE - brain injuries). This does not mean, however, that raters and doctors are going to treat them the same as PTSD just because they are lumped into that category.

Dementia and cognitive disorders are viewed as physical disorders by the VA and fall under a different ratings criteria. This thread is about PTSD (at least I thought it was) and, as such, you cannot work with that "mental" disorder. Also, schizo is a different beast as well and is deemed as chronic no matter what (whereas many would have us believe PTSD can get better). On top of that, gains in the market are not "gainful employment" no matter how much money you make, because one can earn 5 million one year and lose 6 million the next....it is NOT a fulltime job and is anything but secure employment. I think you're trying to conflate a lot of different things into the typical category that folks with PTSD fall into. When someone gets an award (or denial) for PTSD they cite the ratings criteria word for word....it is followed to the letter.

And none of that applies to mental illness because, as has already been listed, mental illness falls under its own guidelines. When an RO rates someone for PTSD they specifically cite that criteria (word for word) in their reasoning for denying/approving your claim and if you are not TOTALLY occupationally and socially disabled you DO NOT MEET THE 100% CRITERIA. This is a well established precedent in the VA and I'm sure the other 99.9% of folks on hadit agree. If you work with a 100% PTSD rating consider that money gone upon the next evaluation, period. Mental illness has its own ratings criteria and there is nothing in it about "averages", nor are there any exceptions (it does not say occupational *OR* social; it says occupational *AND* social). I'll repost this for you since you seemed to keep missing the point: 100 % Total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name Now, show me another ratings criteria that has such specific guidelines and includes the term "total occupational impairment"? Just one....anything? Please?

How 'bout you find a ratings guideline for a physical disability that requires a "total" occupational disability? And where did you get this nonsense about averages? Heck, the recent independent review that the VA commissioned stated that it is unfair that mental disabilities are rated solely on one's ability to work (as opposed to physical disabilities which take into account quality of life issues). One can be "totally disabled" without being totally "occupationally" disabled. Only mentally disabled vets are held to that standard.