Jay Johnson

You all seem to be missing the point here, so I'll break it down: Let's first define occupational....what does this mean??? It means WORK, EMPLOYMNET, JOB, ETC. Now, let's define social.....what does this mean??? Your social life...how you interact with others, your family life, etc. Ok, but what does total mean?..... Ok, so one must be completely, utterly and wholly occupationally disabled to be 100% (let's remember now, occupational = work) AND one must ALSO be completely, utterly and wholly socially disabled to be 100% (what does social mean again boys and girls?...ding ding ding...your social life). So, in all seriousness, one CANNOT work while having a mental disorder rated at 100% and it is quite difficult to work with a mental disorder at 70% because the requirement for that is "severe" occupational disability (if one is severely occupationally disabled they really shouldn't be working). Now, you can argue that this standard is wrong and bias (and it certainly is), but that doesn't change the FACT that this *IS* VA law and one cannot work, at 100%, with a severe mental disability.

It could be anything from cancer to PTSD (repressed) to simple stress. I would keep getting him tested until they find a cause. The CBC (blood test) should help though...

The wife takes seroquel in fairly high doses and does ok....her's is 25mg x4 day + 400mg at night (2x200mg). This effectively puts her on 500 mg/day and I believe the max allowed for seroquel per day is 800mg. She took trazedone at one point, but it gave her nightmares and she tried to kill herself one night in her sleep. I'm sure that's not a typical reaction, but something to keep in mind regardless.

The psych will give you all sorts of different diagnoses, but the VA will lump them under one category, which essentially boils down to "mental illness". MDD is not even in the same category of disorders as "anxiety", but, to the VA, it's all the same. So, no, you cannot file separate claims for each mental affliction....they will just lump them together and assess your overall level of functioning as it pertains to your ability to work. It's a horrible and prejudice system, but it's all we got for the time being.

I would compare your symptoms to the chart provided by Carlie, but, generally speaking, I wouldn't be happy with any rating under 70% unless your supporting documentation is VERY weak.

Pete is right; it really depends on WHAT your condition is. If you're missing appendages, it's fairly safe to work, but if your physical disability is rated higher due, in large part, to your inability to work, it is more risky. In other words, if you are 100% for back pain/issues and you are able to be gainfully employed, that would certainly reflect on your next rating. If you have a mental disorder at 100% (or even 70% in many cases) you are expected not to work...if you do, they will hold it against you.

The bigger problem is that the military has, perhaps, the worst mental health program on the planet and I'm afraid this kid will only get worse and have no where to turn if he runs into rough times. This is further compounded by the fact that he chose the marines, which is probably one of the worst branches for "mental" issues. He'll be labeled with all sorts of stigmas if any of those symptoms manifest themselves. I hate to say this, but unless the marines have a very positive impact on this kid, he'll probably be dead before too long:-( As for the VA - My guess is that the military will bury any prior record of mental issues and ignore his problems...otherwise, they couldn't justify accepting him for liability purposes. I would get some sort of record that the recruiter KNOWS that he has recently had mental issues (record him if necessary), in order to bring a lawsuit down the road if they play stupid. The military has no business accepting a kid with known suicidal ideology, plan and intent.

Depression and anxiety will be linked to your PTSD regardless (they really need to change mental disorder classifications). The high BP can be linked to PTSD, but the science on mental disorders causing physiological symptoms is limited at best. I'm not sure how serious the VA takes such claims, but I know it's merely guess work in the civilian world. Good luck.

Aye, that certainly was not my intent:-) I was refering more to schools like the "University of Phoenix online", which tend to give degrees that one can utilize, but whose degrees do not typically meet college level standards and most of the credits earned will not transfer if someone decides to take a more specialized field after the 4 year degree (which means, essentially, you've wasted your money in that example). Military schools tend to offer a lot of online courses because, obviously, military people cannot regularly attend fixed classes, so they are the exception to the rule in most cases. It's best, if possible, to attend a normal college that *offers* online classes, but doesn't *specialize* in them. All of the schools I've attended were regular schools, although I've gotten the majority of my degree(s) online and I haven't had an issue with credits transferring (other than the typical, "well, we don't give credit for that because that school isn't as good as this one" BS, you run into with every new college). Anywho, I wasn't implying that Berta, or any other online school specifically, is a bad school; rather, I was simply pointing out that online schools are very hit or miss and that just because one wants to do distance learning does not mean that one needs to attend a "distance learning" college. Most colleges offer tons of online courses/degrees.

The wife has been on seroquel for quite some time now and it not only aids in the anti-psychotic stuff, but it also helps her sleep at night. She takes 25 mgx4/day and 2x200mg at night to help her sleep. Her's is a fairly high dose though given her PTSD and pention for psychosis. Also, she is VERY sensitive to side effects and highly allergic to several medications and she has done fine with seroquel for about 2 years now. Everyone is different, but I would say it is fairly safe given the wife's history with meds.

Jan, Have you taken any out of state classes? Do you have to pay the out of state tuition fees when you are doinf internet/distant learning classes? No, I haven't taken any out-of-state classes, but I would imagine out of state charges would apply even if you're taking distance learning (depending on where your place of residence is...I know a military person can live in, say, Texas, but claim residency in Florida and, therefore, get in-state fees for schools in Florida). Also, how does the Pell Grant work? Is that based on finanacial need? Pell grant is based on your family income and varies depending on what said income is. If you qualify, based on finances, you take your award to the school finance office and they deduct the pell grant award from your fees (books included) and whatever is left over is given to you in a form of a check (if there is any left over). Pell also stacks with the VA, so if your pell grant covers your entire tuition, you get to keep your Ch 35 payments as free cash:-) The downside to Pell is that it *is* based on YOUR finances being that your son lives with you. So, he will only get the pell if you and your husband fall below a certain income level (which is fairly high mind you). Are you paying 50% tuition because your state gives you a break on the fees? 50% tuition is a state law in Washington, just as many veterans get property tax breaks in other states based on 100% status. Each individual college can set their own policies also, so it may vary by state and college. I'm in Texas and they don't give any breaks on tuition as far as I have been able to tell. I've been searching for information on that but havn't found any yet. Maybe someone on Hadit knows for sure. Best thing to do is call around to the colleges and see if they have a veteran's office....I'm sure they'll know more about tuitions breaks than anyone else.

Honestly, I wouldn't go to an "internet school". A lot of them are shady at best and the overwhelming majority of regular schools offer 99% of their course work online. I'm going to Washington State University, at the moment, and 100% of my psych degree is online and I still get the 50% tuition savings due to the wife being a 100% disabled veteran (as per state law here). So, find a "good" local (or distant) college and see what they offer in terms of online classes. Some schools offer more than others, but I've been to 4 different schools in various parts of the country and most of them had a LOT of online classes. Thus far, I haven't had to take a single class at the campus. As for cost - Since I'm paying 50% tuition, I end up banking about 60-70% of the Ch 35 money. If I had a pell grant I would be making 10K or so a year, EXTRA, to go to school. It's really a benefit that you can't beat. However, that is for a bach, but when I hit the masters+ level the cost per credit hour increases a ton and the Ch 35 benefits will likely not cover the full cost (even with the 50% reduction).

A personality disorder is VERY rare and somewhat difficult to pinpoint. To say it's suspicious that the military, and VA, are finding SO MANY people with the disorder is putting it mildly in my opinion. To me, it's intentional and it's meant to keep people out of military retirement and/or the VA system. Also, it seems to stand in stark contrast to VA regulations on the subject...people are presumed to be "sound" when they enter the armed forces and a personality disorder is congenital. So, how can one go into the army perfectly healthy, go to war and come out of it with a personality disorder? It goes against medical facts and VA doctrine.

Do one of two things: 1) Tell your civilian doctor that your are filing a PTSD claim with the VA and that they tend to low ball claims. So, let him know that he cannot do the typical good day/bad day stuff...he MUST focus ONLY on your low points and give a new GAF that best reflects how bad you can be. In fact, ask him for s thorough evaluation that says how occupationally and socially impaired you currently are (at your low points). 2) Hire a new doctor if #1 doesn't work:-)

Herein lies the problem. You are using local rules because you are at the local stage (which really isn't an FTCA; it's a VA thing). If you do not get the award you want it becomes an FTCA that is handled under FTCA rules in federal court and you no longer fall under state guidelines. Now, perhaps Illinois has a different set of laws at the local level and perhaps they were not offered a reasonable sum at that level, but once in federal court one cannot sue for pain/suffering; it's clearly written in the FTCA regulations. So, I think we're both right here....you may get some money based on local laws, but that sum will likely change when you reach the federal level. But, then again, what incentive do the local folks have knowing your case changes once it reaches the federal level? My guess is that 1.25 million is a reasonable sum with or without any pain/suffering factored in, but had you asked for a rather large sum (like 5 mil+), they would have just passed you right to the federal system. Either way, I wish you luck....in the end, people *deserve* the money whether the VA will pay it or not.

I'm not saying it is impossible; rather, it's just highly improbable. The way the system is set up, they are only supposed to award for lost wages and/or medical expenses. If the VA awards 100% than they are not losing wages (unless the VA's amount is less than their normal yearly income) and medical expenses are nil because the VA covers them (though, again, lost private insurance could mean lost medical expenses for the rest of the family). In essence, a tort claim against the US is an occupational issue, as opposed to a civilian tort claim, which is both occupational AND social. Also, one does not get a jury trial with a FTCA, so you lose the sympathy of the public. So, this example says that the individual was paid 2.5 million (which sounds like a lot), but why was he given 2.5 mil? Could it be that they figured 20 years of employment at around 90K a year with 35K in yearly medical expenses? Probably. In civilian tort claims one can win on pain and suffering, which is where the big payouts come and what most people think of as real malpractice suites. My uncle lost his case because 1) The VA had already compensated him at a level above his current income level. 2) My uncle had some tax issues and owed a lot of money to the government, so he wouldn't likely be making much money for his family in the near future. 3) He had NO dependents at the time of the incident (all grown + he was divorced) 4) The VA had offered to cover his future medical expenses via his 100% rating. So, what could an FTCA do for him? The answer is nothing.....there was no lost wages and no lost medical expenses and his family was already compensated via a DIC claim. Tha's my basic point here - You can file a tort claim and you may win, but don't go into thinking you're getting some large sum of money above and beyond your earning potential. In order to do that you need to prove that the malpractice was a matter of VA policy (IE - they instructed their doctors, VA wide, to use inferior equipment, which led to your death). In cases like this, tort may not apply and bigger money can be won. At least that's my understanding of the law pertaining to tort....

I'll have to dig it up, but I'm almost positive that the VA is *supposed* to use the lower GAF as they are assessing your low points and not your high points with mental disorders. However, the reverse almost always seems to be the case, as they routinely ignore low GAFs in favor of the highest reported GAF. I'll look around and get back to you....

And/or can mean "in addition to" or "in the place of". So, baseball, basketball and/or football would mean any combination of those 3 or any single one alone. It's supposed to be a flexible phrase, but I can see your point how the VA could abuse it (I've seen it done with PTSD).

GuaymasJim, All good points and I wasn't aware that VA doctors had the same malpractice exemption as military doctors. However, we're still talking about something well outside of what people typically think of as malpractice suites that can end in rewards over 1 million dollars. In my uncles case, there was absolutely NO dispute over fault...the doctor had admitted to my uncle, and other medical personnel, that he made the mistake. My uncle was awarded 100% compensation for the injury because the VA admitted that they caused it, but getting some small compensation from the VA and winning a lawsuite against the government are two totally different matters. I'm curious, what do you expect to win out of this lawsuite you have? My uncle is dead and he doesn't get a dime outside of normal VA compensation....I just find it hard to believe that anyone is going to win any real amount of money in a system designed to stop people from winning money. In essence, you're fighting for lost wages and if the VA awards 100% for your claim then what wages are you losing? Medical expenses are 0 because you have free VA health care at that point, so what, exactly, can someone win in a tort claim against the VA outside of VA compensation? Here's some stuff on federal tort claims - The Federal Tort Claims Act, however, prohibits award of punitive damages. 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The punitive damages prohibition has been construed to mean that income taxes must be subtracted from gross income and future economic losses must be reduced to present value. Trevino v. United States, 804 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1986); Shaw v. United States, 741 F.2d 1202 (9th Cir. 1984). A discount factor must be applied in FTCA litigation as a matter of federal law. See, e.g., Colleen v. United States, 843 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1987); Hollinger v. United States, 651 F.2d 636, 641 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. English, 521 F.2d 63, 70 (9th Cir. 1975); O'Connor v. United States, 269 F.2d 578, 585 (2d Cir. 1959). But see, Barnes v. United States, 685 F.2d 66 (3d Cir. 1982) ("total offset" method not punitive); DeLucca v. United States, 670 F.2d 843 (9th Cir. 1982) (addition to award to compensate for taxes on income that would be earned by investing the award). Failure to deduct income taxes from the income calculation permits an excessive, punitive recovery in some cases. Felder v. United States, 543 F.2d 657, 670 (9th Cir. 1976); Cf., Kalavity v. United States, 584 F.2d 809 (6th Cir. 1978) (income tax need not be taken into account for persons whose incomes are in the lower range); Harden v. United States, 688 F.2d 1025 (5th Cir. 1982); Kalavity-style limitation of income tax deduction rejected). Contra, Manko v. United States, 830 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1987). The FTCA bars punitive damages from being awarded against the government. 28 U.S.C.§ 2674 At one time, this bar was interpreted expansively in favor of the government and was held to bar any form of damages that was not truly compensatory in nature. See, e.g. D'Ambra v. United States, 481 F.2d 14 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1075 (1973); (Rhode Island Wrongful Death Statute); Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. United States, 352 U.S. 128 (1956); (plaintiff obtained compensatory damages notwithstanding whether state wrongful-death statute utilized punitive standard). Flannery by Flannery v. United States, 718 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984). In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S.Ct. 711 (1992), the Supreme Court liberalized FTCA damage law relating to punitive damages. In Molzof the Supreme Court took a narrower view of punitive damages and held that punitive damages should be interpreted according to the traditional, common law meaning and not to mean damages that were not purely compensatory. In Molzof the question was whether or not damages for future medical expenses could be awarded when the injured party was receiving medical care from the Veteran's Administration and whether or not the court could award damages for "loss of enjoyment of life." The District Court and the Court of Appeals held that damages for future medical expenses, when the plaintiff was not paying future medical expenses, and for "loss of enjoyment of life" were not compensatory in nature and, therefore, punitive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The Supreme Court did not agree with this interpretation and held that the punitive damages prohibition of Section 2674 barred only damages that are punitive in nature and intended to punish the defendant and not damages that were not, strictly speaking, not compensatory.

I think you're missing the point of what "tort" means. Basically, in order to get any real money out of the VA (for pain/suffering) you need to prove that the VA, not the doctor, is responsible for the injury, which is nearly impossible. In most cases, it is doctor error, which means you can sue the doctor and NOT the VA...this is the essence of tort law. Of course the doctor can simply write off any law suite by claiming bankruptcy, so most lawyers won't even take a case against an individual doctor because, even if you win, they, nor you, will ever see a dime of the award. However, if you can prove the injury was due to VA policy then, and only then, can you sue the VA for real money that you'll actually see (they have deep pockets). As I said in another thread...my uncle had his bowels nicked in a VA surgery which caused the inside of his body to, essentially, rot...he lived a life of hell and died 3 years later. The doctors readily admitted it was their fault..there was a ton of paperwork showing that the doctor did indeed cut the intestine...there was NO question as to the fact that the doctor screwed up. His family lost his case hands down andhe didn't have some small-town wanna-be lawyer either...this was the top tort claims lawyer in chicago.

Tort claims against the VA are difficult if not impossible. However, you shouldn't have too much issue with getting compensation. Of course this isn't to say you don't hire a lawyer and try, but don't hold your breath either.....sueing the government is anything but easy:-(

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I think the VA should weigh GAFs FAR more heavily than they do. As it stands now, they ignore a GAF when it's in the veteran's favor and they use ONLY the GAF when it's high and goes against the veteran. In my wife's case, she had an admitting GAF of 10 and a current GAF of 15, yet they ignored those in favor of the discharge GAF (42) and tried to rate her at 70%. Now, if the VA applied their own laws (which they never do) they should be taking the LOWEST GAF, then assessing how often that low-point occurs. With this, they make a rating for compensation. GAF *IS* an overall disability picture and does indicate the level of one's social and occupational impairment and, in most cases I've seen, most veterans have GAFs that would warrant at least 70% + IU (under a 50 GAF is "serious" occupational impairment). Anything 30 or less should automatically fall into TDIU and anything under 30 should automatically warrant a 100% rating based on GAF criteria. The problem is that the VA does not want their hands tied, so they came up with this god-awful system that gives raters complete discretion when rating mental disorders and they use laws that are vague, at best, that the raters can easily ignore. Forcing them to use those GAFs would take the guess work out of the rating's process. The only downside to a GAF is that NO doctor can properly assess one's overall disability picture in a single C&P exam, so those GAFs are meaningless. Also, the VA could simply instruct their psychs to give higher GAFs to keep claims down. However, both of those issues could easily be circumvented if vets would just quit using VA mental health care services and, instead, hire a private doctor. Of course, I strongly recommend using a private doc for mental health regardless of GAF issues.....

It's the least I can do, Jan:-) Good luck with the process and please check back in if something goes bad...it's a state by state thing, so I'm guessing some states are smoother/quicker than others.

I'm not sure about how 18+ year old dependents works for the VA. I *thought* you would continue to claim them as long as they went to school, but I'm not sure how that conflicts with Ch 35 benefits. Anyway, to answer your question, I haven't done aynthing since signing up for my benefits (I'm the spouse by the way, not the veteran). My wife wasn't even needed to sign up or aynthing. All that is required of the veteran is to send off the award letter and the 214 (which the spouse can do). The only thing required of me is to check in with the school VA office every other semester to make sure I'm still going to school full-time, but I did that via email this past semester, so it really wasn't a hassle at all.

Jangrin, The school counselor will only send him to the school's VA office. Honestly, the school's VA office can do everything for you, but it greatly speeds things up if you ge that letter as you're planning to do. The 3-4 week period is simply a processing thing that takes place when you initially sign up. After you get signed up and the checks start coming, all you have to do is check in with the school's VA office (every few terms) to make sure that you are still attending full-time classes. The most difficult part is getting the letter from the VA...when you've done that it's just a matter of time before the checks start coming..... - Jason