rhoe

I'm not seeking to demean either of you - I'm trying to stop you from making an already complicated case worse with your conspiracy theories of the VA as an adversarial entity. Buck, the DRO was correct that you can send a request for the appropriate form and it will be sent to you, but in the 20 years that have passed, the process has changed - this communication will no longer be acceptable as an informal claim for benefits as of March 24, 2015, when standardized procedures go into effect. Berta, I'm terribly sorry that I haven't bothered to fill out disabilities in my profile or upload a 214 for you, but since neither of those has anything to do with an understanding of the regulations, I don't particularly see the point. I've also reviewed a fair number of your posts, and your need to project your own poor experience with the VA onto every piece of advice you give is redundant and unhelpful. I am extremely familiar with the programs, regulations, and court case you mentioned, and I have no personal beef with any of them to cloud my advice. This case has a simple misunderstanding at its core that is easy to fix. I'd bet the farm that the demand letter for $7500 has absolutely nothing to do with the reduced rating, unless somehow fraud is involved (entirely unlikely, and due process still would not have passed by now). Filing useless additional forms on top or sending correspondence to departments or congressmen at this point needlessly overcomplicates the process.

I can see what you're saying, but undiagnosed illness/MUCMI presumptive service-connection is different than environmental hazard SC - environmental hazard is basically just like direct SC: 1. In-service event = environmental hazard exposure. 2. Current diagnosis (you have one of these) 3. Link between the two (nexus) is the last thing you need, so if you supply the VA with testimony that the one is linked with the other, you should get an exam.

Not a problem; in non regulation-speak, the same symptom cannot be used more than once to support a compensation evaluation. So, even if you had both PTSD and an insomnia disorder, since both of these are psychiatric disorders evaluated based on the level of occupational and social impairment, they would be evaluated together under one evaluation. Here's the reg from 38 CFR Part 4: §4.14 Avoidance of pyramiding. The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses is to be avoided. Disability from injuries to the muscles, nerves, and joints of an extremity may overlap to a great extent, so that special rules are included in the appropriate bodily system for their evaluation. Dyspnea, tachycardia, nervousness, fatigability, etc., may result from many causes; some may be service connected, others, not. Both the use of manifestations not resulting from service-connected disease or injury in establishing the service-connected evaluation, and the evaluation of the same manifestation under different diagnoses are to be avoided.

In addition to the above, if you had in-service treatment for anxiety and/or depression, this can serve as your in-service event to establish SC for your current condition(s). PTSD is not the only psychiatric disorder that can be service-connected. As a clarifying point - the VA not using private diagnoses of PTSD has nothing to do with trust, it has everything to do with how 38 CFR 3.304(f)(3) is written - if a stressor is based on fear of hostile military activity, the regulation specifies that the substantiated diagnosis must be made by a VA examiner or an examiner with which the VA has contracted (likely because a PTSD diagnosis has very specific criteria, all of which must be met for a grant of SC, and private providers generally do not list each criterion individually and indicate that it is met, resulting in the requirement for a VA examination anyway, which is why non fear-based stressors also often require a VA examination). I would also suggest that you attempt to get a copy of both the examination and any medical opinion attached to it, so you know what's coming.

...actually most of the restrictions on your claims folder are to prevent you from seeking out and retaliating against the people processing your claims, as their names appear on decision awards and ratings (not that this information doesn't get accidentally leaked all the time in FOIA requests). Most of the time your VSO will get the letter before you do because, as broncovet mentioned, they have access and are notified when decisions are made and have a timeframe to review the decision and notify the VA of any obvious errors they see in it. VSOs also often exist within the same building as the regional office and have direct emails to claims adjudicators, so communication often happens faster between them and the VA. If you don't receive your decision notice, make sure the VA knows your current address (VBA does not always receive updates you give the hospital, and vice versa).

What theater of operations were you deployed to? If it's anywhere in SWA (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the neutral zone between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, and the airspace above these locations, 38 CFR 3.317), some exposures will be presumed based on the location of service (burning trash pits, sand, particulate matter etc.), and if you claim a restrictive airway disease as the result of environmental hazard exposure, a VA examiner will provide a nexus opinion for you (positive or negative, depending on the medical evidence). You could also follow broncovet's advice and try to get the opinion yourself beforehand, but if you claim this as a result of a conceded exposure, you will get an exam/opinion (one way or the other) without taking this step as well.

I mean, you can show up if you want to, but like I mentioned in my previous post, if they already have the medical records showing you have a CPAP for this, your presence is largely unnecessary and it's just a waste of your time. If you're SC for sleep apnea at 0% already, the CPAP by itself will get you up to 50%. You don't need to tell the doctor that you use one if it's already in your records, as he/she will review them as part of the exam process. The odds are much more likely that they're trying to save both you and the doctor some time rather than it being a conspiracy to keep you from your exam, as neither the receptionist nor the doctor really benefits either way.

This makes much more sense, thank you - I would ask your surgeon to write you a slightly different statement, indicating whether the apneas shown on your in-service (2007) sleep study were "the first manifestation" of your later diagnosed sleep apnea. I understand that that's basically what he's already said, but "progression" implies an already diagnosed condition that became worse, whereas "first manifestation" indicates a first symptom of a later diagnosed condition. He'll still need to provide some sort of medical rationale to explain this opinion, likely something along the lines of "the obstructive/hypoapneas shown on the 2007 study are consistent with early sleep apnea, which continues to the present day" or something similar.

You asked for help. Your personal opinion that you can give medically competent evidence does not mean that it will be legally sufficient to grant the benefit level you want. If you want to waste less of your time on reconsiderations and appeals and get your benefits faster, spend less of it calling me a snowflake and assuming things about my life and ask your rheumatologist for a statement indicating your symptoms are refractory to therapy. This is not a situation where whining about how you shouldn't need to provide easy to acquire evidence will help you.

You very clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Proposed reductions can also receive hearings, but again, it is not a final decision, it is a proposal. Your inability to understand the difference between the two (or, indeed how any aspect of a 38 CFR 3.105(e) reduction works) does not make attempting the pointless a better idea. The more likely scenario in your case from "years ago" is that your regional office ignored the NOD part of your filings and scheduled the hearing as a predetermination hearing (which all due process recipients have a right to, as described in the proposal letter), and likely sent you a letter indicating that you cannot appeal a decision that has not happened, which you've likely forgotten all about in the intervening 15 years. You can literally get a hearing at any time in the claims process as enumerated in 38 CFR 3.103(c) Further, determinations of whether evidence is new and material are only relevant in claims to re-open finally denied decisions (i.e. when no continuous prosecution of a claim has taken place and one year has passed following the notification letter informing the veteran of a decision). Each case is different, but they are all processed under the same laws. Your continued demonstration of ignorance of those laws and procedures is not helping this case, and your personal anecdotes are entirely irrelevant. Throwing random terms from the CFR in there without understanding their meaning just makes you look foolish.

...you do realize that these regulations are written by congress, and not the VA, right? The VA can only work within the bounds of the law. If you think SC is being denied unfairly, then the law needs to be changed by congress. Complaining to VA personnel that are bound to uphold the regulations that congress enacts is about as useful as spitting into the wind.

This does not remotely add up. If your review examination was scheduled in January, there is no possible way that the 60 days for a proposed reduction could have elapsed already, as that isn't the way time works. Filing an NOD as Buck suggests is entirely pointless, as you cannot disagree with a decision that has not happened yet (proposed reductions are not appealable, as a final decision has not been made). Do not waste your time or anyone else's with this. I have no idea how you have a letter indicating an overpayment, as overpayments are not generated as a result of proposed reductions (or finalized ones). What does the letter say you owe the money for? Finally, even though it was apparently the doctor's fault for poorly communicating, it doesn't matter now. Call the hotline and request that your examination be rescheduled and state that you are willing to report. Do not tell the operator that you missed the appointment because you didn't know you had to attend or didn't recieve a notice to attend, as this does not legally demonstrate "good cause" for a missed appointment. Feel free to tell them that the doctor called you and indicated she needed the imaging results before the exam and stated she would schedule it for a different date - the imaging results in your VAMC records will support this statement.

You have a few things going on here, so we'll go point by point from easiest to not so easy - 1. Your VSO does not work for the VA. They are a separate organization that represents you. If you have authorized them to have access to your electronic file, then they have access. This requires a properly executed VAF 21-22 (older forms are not compatible and a newer version is required to give computerized access). Here is the forms site if you need to give them a new form. 2. The VA has no preference as to whether you have a copy of your claims folder or not. The claims process is not an adversarial procedure (i.e. they are not a court trying to prove you guilty of something). If you send in a letter or a VAF 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim) requesting a copy of your claims folder, they will send it to you under FOIA. It may not come as quickly as you want it to, as there are many requests and only so many employees to process them. This does not mean they are trying to "keep" things from you. Please do not send your file (or portions of your file to "prove" things) back to the VA, as, well, they're the people that just printed off what you have in your hands (i.e. they already have it, and duplicate evidence just make things more annoying, not better). 3. If you were awarded service connection in 2010, then more than five years have passed since your last evaluation (unless you claimed an increase in there somewhere or for some other reason caused them to examine you). This means your disability % for whatever they're reviewing is "static," and they are entirely unlikely to reduce it based on the results of one review examination. Proposing to reduce an evaluation is much more work than continuing the evaluation - no one wants to do that unless the evidence on exam and in treatment records overwhelmingly shows that you're actually better. 4. If you're not better, don't act like you're better at your exam. Be honest with the examiner about your worst days and symptoms. Bring any pertinent private treatment records with you (the examiner will already have access to your VA records if you're going to a VAMC). I am telling you three times - the rater that reviews your case does not want to reduce your evaluation. It is a worse outcome for you, more work for them, and extra work down the line to finalize the proposal. It's fine if you want to worry about conspiracy and clandestine actions, but these thoughts have no basis in reality, so only bother with them if it actually helps you deal with life. It's certainly not going to do anything for your review exam for good or for ill.

The locations nearer to you may not have the capacity or the doctors required to complete your examinations. The scheduled facility is determined by an algorithm that picks the closest facility to you (VA or contractor) that has the capacity to conduct all of your exams (so you don't end up traveling twice). Calling to request a closer facility is an option, but if they don't have capacity, they can't create more doctors from thin air for your convenience. If you don't want to travel to your free exam (and be reimbursed for your mileage), you're more than welcome to print the necessary examinations yourself from the forms site and have your own doctor(s) complete them and provide medical opinions, if necessary, assuming the exams you need are available to the general public. Without knowing what your exam(s) are for, it's impossible to advise you further.