broncovet

Wyn Many of us have prevailed without an attorney. I, for one prevailed, tho I, too, was denied SC for knee arthritis even tho I suffered a fracture in the military that often leads to arthritis later. I did not prevail on the arthritis, but on other unrelated conditions. IMHO, you dont need an attorney at the BVA level or below. Only, IMHO, if denied at the BVA level would I recommend an attorney. While I will agree that MEB is quite different than a RO decision, I would still recommend that an attorney is unnecessary until you are denied by the BVA. At the CAVC level, and above, I think you are a fool to represent yourself. Even tho I have suggested an attorney is unnecessary at this point for you, I adamantly beleive that a Veteran is entitled to attorney representation at ANY level he sees fit. Neither my self, nor a VSO, nor a senator or congressmen is best qualified to determine whether it is in YOUR best interest to hire an attorney. It is highly likely you know things about your case than none of the rest of us are aware of. For example there may be circumstances that warrant attorney representation at an earlier level such as when the Veteran is placed endlessly on the RO decision BVA remand hampster wheel, which is sometimes nearly impossible to get off. The Ro denies, the BVA remands, the RO denies, The BVA remands etc. This may take a writ of mandamus at the CAvc level to get off this hampster wheel, probably best accomplished by an attorney. In order to prevail yourself, you need to take heed of the deadlines you must comply with. They are 1 year for the NOD, and 60 days to send in the I9 after the RO issues the SOC. You must meet BOTH these deadlines. To successfully represent yourself, you are in the right place, but, remember this: If you give general information about your issues, then you can expect a general answer at best. If you want specific advice on your case, then you have to be willing to reveal specific details about your case, as we can not give a specific answer when you only give general information. I see this happen time and again...where people expect us to provide specifc answers while they provide little relevant information. Its like asking "How far is it to grand mothers house?" Well we need to know where you are at, and where Grandma lives to answer that, but we cant tell you how far unless we have both of those pieces of information. If you wont tell us where your grandma lives, then we can only say, "How long did it take you LAST TIME to get to Grandmas?'' "6 hours?"..."Ok, then it must be about 6 hours to grandmas." If you do post specifics, be sure to redact your name, address, ssn for your protection.

RYd You probably dont want to "refile this again". Instead, you file a NOD disputing the percentage unless your condition got worse since the effective date of the decision. The reason you file a NOD and not "refile again" is because it can cost you money on the effective date, as they will probably say you are asking for an "increase" in rating. I agree with Berta, of course, that you can get additional compensation for PTSD. What Berta was suggesting is that if Social Security rated you disabled for conditions you are service connected for, then you should and could use that to get a higher rating, as it will be hard for the VA to say you only have 10 percent if social security says its 100 percent. With social security they use the word "severe". The condition has to be "severe" to warrant disability. While the VA does NOT have to do what SSD does, you can still use that to your advantage as evidence.

I dont know if "insomnia" is the same thing as "sleep impairment"...maybe they are the same, and rated under mental health disorders as Baker suggested. It would be worth looking into. Big Red There are lots of posts on getting sleep Apnea, with the use of a CPAP rated. If you use a CPAP and IF it is service connected, its at 50 % disabling. Mostly, you need a nexus statement from a doc if you are using a CPAP, or, I think some people get OSA secondary to other conditions. I have found it to be very tough to get service connection for OSA, especially for VN Vets, because we did not know what OSA was back in the 70s. Newer Vets sometimes get diagnosed with OSA in service, tho.

John I sent you an email to the addy in the PM. I like the idea of "lowering the standard of review". That is, you may not have to file a CUE even if it has been over a year...there are a couple instances when you do not. 1. If the claim is still pending. If they did not adjuticate the claim, then it would still be pending unless they can call it "deemed denied". It is getting tougher and tougher for them to deemed deny it, because now the Veteran has to have a reason why he would reasonably think his claiim was denied. I dont think they can get away with just not mentioning it anymore. 2. If there are Service medical records. These are treated differently than just ordinary evidence. You see, if you reopen a claim due to N and M evidence, then the earliest effective date you can get is the date you reopened, which probably wont help you. This is not the case with SMR's..you can get the effective date all the way back to when you filed. If the VA did a "denial of process" error, then it may not be necessary for you to file a Cue or meet its standards, because the Va can not deny you due process. In my case, they denied me due process by failing to file a SOC, which renders the claim pending. The same thing occurs if the RO fails to file a SSOC when you submit more evidence. An error of SOC or SSOC amounts to a denial of due process keeping the claim pending. There are other process errors, too. One, I think, is if the VA failed to give you notice that you can appeal. Thats a no/no.

John... Wow...I did not know our claims were that similar, as that is exactly what the VA did to me..they shredded the part of my claim where I told them that I was "unable to get a job". We probably should compare notes, it sounds like this is a VA "favorite thing". If you PM me, I can let you know, in detail, what I have found about this. Bronco

Rev I sent you a PM as per your suggestion. Bronco

The following cases and interpretations may be helpful on CUE: In a nutshell, the VA's requirement to sypmathetically read and interpret the Veterans filings is applied first, then the "undebatablilty" of the Cue standard is applied. he following are examples of types of error that the Federal Circuit and CAVC have found to be CUE in the past. The Federal Circuit has held that it may be CUE for the VA to fail to �give a sympathetic reading to the veteran�s filings by �determining all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations.�� In Moody v. Principi,74 the Federal Circuit considered a case in which the veteran had submitted several applications for benefits.75 In June 1994, the veteran submitted a claim for depression secondary to his service-connected prostatitis.76 The RO granted service connection, as well as total disability based upon individual unemployability (TDIU), and assigned an effective date in June 1994, reasoning that this was the first time the veteran had claimed that his psychiatric disorder was secondary to his service connected prostatitis.77 The veteran filed a CUE claim, arguing for an earlier effective date for TDIU, on the ground that his prior benefit claims, combined with the evidence in the record at that time, were sufficient to raise an informal claim for secondary service connection for a psychiatric disorder.78 After the RO rejected the claim, the veteran appealed to the CAVC, citing a recent case in which the CAVC had held that the VA has a duty to �fully and sympathetically develop a veteran�s claim to its optimum.�79 The CAVC affirmed, reasoning that the new CAVC case set up a narrow factual scenario that gives rise to an informal TDIU claim and was distinct from the instant case.80 On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the CAVC had missed the broader point, namely, that the VA must give a sympathetic reading to a veteran�s filings.81 The CAVC held that whether the veteran�s filings merited an earlier effective date was a factual question and remanded for readjudication.82 As such, the Federal Circuit confirmed that it may be CUE for the VA to fail to liberally construe filings. Notably, in a precedent opinion of the General Counsel of the VA, the General Counsel agrees that this error can potentially qualify as CUE, but states that in order to grant a CUE claim of this type, the VA must conclude that (1) it is obvious or undebatable that, when prior filings are construed in the claimant�s favor, the pleadings constitute an earlier claim for a benefit that was subsequently awarded by the VA; and (2) the VA�s failure to recognize that claim manifestly affected the subsequent award of benefits.83 This policy appears to be at odds with the Federal Circuit decision on the matter, which did not indicate that it must be �obvious or undebatable� that prior filings, when liberally construed, show that a claim for benefits was previously filed. Indeed, the Federal Circuit held that �the veteran is not required to show . . . that the �evidence undebatably established that an informal claim for secondary service connection was filed prior to 1994�� and that any ��ambiguity� . . . in [the veteran�s] earlier pleadings should be resolved in favor of the veteran.�84 Accordingly, even though it is a CUE claim, all that the VA must determine in order to satisfy the first question is that when prior filings are liberally construed in the claimant�s favor, the pleadings constitute an earlier claim for a benefit that was subsequently awarded.

Try this Regional Office locator. It should help. http://www2.va.gov/directory/guide/home.asp?isflash=1

I dont know that insomnia is ratable. I think I read that there are something like 100 sleep disorders, but I just doubt that not being able to sleep at night is ratable. If you have Sleep Apnea, and use a CPAP, this is rated at 50% if service connected. Sleep Apnea is probably a much more serious disorder than insomnia. I think it was Reggie White, the Green Bay Packer, who died of sleep Apnea. I do think insomnia could lead to other disorders...and could even be a symptom of sleep apnea, tho I am not sure. I have sleep apnea and use a CPAP, but it is not service connected.

I wonder if this is an "unpublished" CAVC case. I have had mixed results doing CAVC searches. Sometimes, I can seem to find a lot, while I also tried to find this case and agree with Wings that I could not get it to come up. According to the VBM, there are unpublished CAVC cases. I dont know why they are not published, and I dont know who decides whether to publish a CAVC case or not. So much for "open government"...they open up when they want us to have access to.

I think I may have forgotten one possibility. If applicable, you can file a complaint with the VAOIG. (VA Office of Inspector General). This would generally be for the VA failure to follow regulations. I filed a VAOIG complaint because, I beleive, my evidence was shredded by the RO.

The House Commitee on Veterans Affairs is apparently having a hearing June 2. http://veterans.house.gov/ and here http://veterans.house.gov/hearing/examination-poorly-performing-us-department-veterans-affairs-regional-offices I wonder if its too late to tell them about some "poorly performing RO's"

Wac Vet.. That is an interesting scenario..dont know the answer, but my first impression would be that they could use their preferred insurance, but not combine them. If I were eligible for Champva, I would use it instead of the VA. I think the VA has figured that out...and they dont want a mass exodus to to Champva..that is why Vets are told, "Take the VA health care or leave it". If VA health care were truly, like the politicians boast, "world class", there would be no problem with Vets leaving for the private sector, and Vets would not be "forced" to use VA medical care or do without. Government employees are often offered a choice of several health care plans...I wonder why they dont do that with Vets?

One of the things you are trying to find out is if they lost your file. If they did, then you need to find out ASAP, and, rest assured, they will keep this information from you as long as they can. You may be able to resubmit it and get it back on track. They may even be emabarrassed and "hurry it up", but, they wont even notice until you "stir the pot".

It think maybe its time to "stir the pot". First, I would start out with an IRIS email, asking for the status of your claim. Make sure you dont let them get away with giving you a "generic" status. How do you do this? Ask a question about a specific document, in a specific part of your claim, something like this: "During my medical exam on 03/23/11, the physician stated the cause was at least as likely as not due to military service"...my question is do you have this exam document, from the VAMC on that date, and do you have the examiners qualifications to make this statment? Something like that. You see, they will have to inquire at the RO to get the answer. If they try to give you a generic "Whatever you included will be in your file", then dont let them get away with it. Say, good, I would like a copy of that document.

Personally, I like it when the VA "adds to the claim". While I dont see it very often, it usually means someone READ your claim, and saw some sort of evidence of an "inferred" or informal claim. The ultimate result should be more conditions and a higher combined rating. All too often I see the reverse, where the VA overlooks half the claims and the VEteran winds up spending decades in appeals. My opinion is that this is good news for you, as you may wind up with a higher rating. The other thing is, too, are they gonna "add other things" to your claim only to deny you? That does not make sense. I mean think about it. You send in a claim for something. They say..oh, you forgot this and this...and we are denying those too. No, if they say, gee..you forgot this claim, then that means THEY think it is a valid claim. I mean do you think they are going to recommend you file a bogus claim?

PR is spot on. Nobody knows when it will happen. If the same thing happened to another Vet, you have no assurance that the same thing will happen to you.

I may humbly suggest you try this: I call it "the kids method". When one person in the VA says no, you talk to another, because we understand well the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing at the VA. This includes, of course, Champva. You can call at a different time, go to a different part of the hospital, go to a different hospital, etc. Just do something different and you will get a different result if you dont like the result the first time. You might try a different pharmacy. Teenagers figured this out first..if Mom says no then ask Dad. It makes me proud of the younger generation. Its one way we can take advantage of the lack of quality managment at the VA. If management was very good, then there would be good training and you would get the same result from each person you spoke to. We all know that does not happen.

I have filed a Writ. First, you should send a letter to the RO "Intent to file a Writ". ...and then explain exactly why you are intending to file a Writ. My "intent" letter was similar to the Writ. Writs are filed with the CAVC. There is a $50 filing fee, but that is regurarly waived, basically if you ask for a waiver and cant afford the $50. The REason Writs seems to work so well is that the judge usually asks the VSCM, or his or her designee, to respond to the Writ. This is very embarrasing to the VSCM as it is the equivilant of "calling them on the carpet". When the judge asks them to respond, that means a lot more than when you or I do. Do not be suprised if the attorney representing the VA asks for an extension of 30 days to respond to the Writ. Then you should wait for their response 60 days. The reason is the CAVC likes to know that you have tried everything else...A Writ of Mandamus is only applicable when you have tried everything else. The CAVC clearly has the power to issue extraordinary writs to VA officials under the All Writs Act.156 However, because the purpose of the AWA is to aid a court in protecting its jurisdiction, the first question to be resolved whenever a party seeks a writ from a court is whether the subject of the writ is within the court�s jurisdiction. Under 38 U.S.C.S � 7252, the CAVC�s jurisdiction is limited to review of final Board decisions. Accordingly, the CAVC does not have the power to issue an extraordinary writ unless the writ pertains to actions or inactions by VA officials that will lead to a final BVA decision over which the CAVC would eventually have jurisdiction.157 Yi v. Principi158 illustrates this principle. In that case, the veteran complained that officials at a VA medical center had not redacted certain information from his medical records. The CAVC concluded that �the petitioner�s complaint is with actions by VA�s G[eneral] C[ounsel] surrounding an agreement apparently not related to any pending claim or Board decision thereon.�159 The Court held that it could not grant the veteran�s request for an extraordinary writ because the actions the veteran was challenging would not later become the subject of a final Board decision.160 Accordingly, a writ under these circumstances would not be in aid of the Court�s �prospective jurisdiction.�161 The Court issued a writ requiring the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a statement of the case in both Bates v. Nicholson162 and Woznick v. Nicholson.163 The Court was compelled by the Federal Circuit to issue the writ it issued in Bates.164 The writ issued by the Court in Woznick was the sole product of the CAVC.165 The Court has ruled that even when it has the power to issue a writ, �the circumstances that would justify the issuance of . . . a writ must be compelling.�166 The Court will issue a writ if three conditions are satisfied: (1) the petitioner has shown that his or her right to the writ is �clear and indisputable�167 (because, for example, the VA has plainly violated or is threatening to violate rights of the petitioner protected by law); (2) the petitioner has shown that he or she lacks adequate alternative means to obtain the relief the CAVC is asked to provide168; and (3) the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, is satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.169 For example, in Ribaudo v. Nicholson,170 the Court granted a petition for a writ after the Chairman of the Board of Veterans� Appeals unilaterally imposed a stay upon all pending BVA cases affected by a CAVC decision pending the outcome of the Secretary�s appeal of the CAVC decision to the Federal Circuit, effectively nullifying the legal effect of the judicial decision. The CAVC granted the writ rescinding the BVA Chairman�s stay directive and holding that the Chairman�s action, without first obtaining judicial approval for the act, would leave claimants without means to challenge the action.171 Unreasonable delays by the VA in handling an individual claim may be grounds for petitioning the CAVC for a writ under the All Writs Act. The Court has held that the VA is obligated to issue a decision on a claim within a reasonable period of time.172 In one case, the Court ruled that the VARO had unreasonably delayed by failing to comply, by the beginning of 1990, with the BVA�s instructions in remanding a case in both 1984 and 1987 for development of additional evidence.173 In another case, Vargas-Gonzalez v. Principi,174 the Court held that it could issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary to provide expeditious treatment as required by the Veterans� Benefits Improvements Act (VBIA)175 to a case that had been remanded by the CAVC to the BVA for further adjudication on a claim for pension benefits.176 However, the Court has shown extraordinary reluctance to issue extraordinary writs even when there has been substantial delay by the VA in adjudicating an individual�s claim.177 It has held that in delay cases, �a clear and indisputable right to the writ does not exist unless the petitioner demonstrates that the alleged delay is so extraordinary, given the demand on the resources of the Secretary, that it is equivalent to an arbitrary refusal by the Secretary to act.�178 Nonetheless, when the VA unduly delays in processing a claim, the advocate should seriously consider filing in the CAVC a petition for an extraordinary writ. The mere filing of the petition often causes the VA to take the action it has been delaying in order to avoid defending the delay in court. For example, in one case, a great deal of time had passed after the filing of a NOD without the VARO having prepared a Statement of the Case. The claimant petitioned the Court for an extraordinary writ requiring the VARO to issue an SOC expeditiously. Before the Court even had time to address the petition, the petitioner had achieved the goal: the VARO issued an SOC.179 Delay is not the only occasion for considering whether to request the CAVC to issue an extraordinary writ. Whenever the VA has violated or threatens to violate a claimant�s rights during the course of processing a claim, an extraordinary writ is a possible alternative. For example, the Court has held that it could issue a writ to prohibit the VA from retaliating against a veteran who had filed an appeal to CAVC by scheduling the veteran for a medical examination to determine whether his or her disability rating should be reduced.180 The key question the Court is likely to ask in a non-delay case, however, is why should the Court not wait until the BVA has issued a final decision in the case and then address whether the VA violated the veteran�s rights in the course of deciding the appeal of the BVA decision to the CAVC. In other words, the Court may deny the petition on the ground that the claimant failed to exhaust his or her administrative remedies (that is, appealing the case to the BVA).181 The advocate may be able to avoid this result by documenting the severity of the injury to the claimant that would be caused by waiting until the BVA decides the case and by showing that an appeal to the BVA would probably be futile. In this type of situation the Court requires a showing that the delay in waiting for a BVA decision would result in irreparable injury.182 The appellant filed a writ of mandamus with the CAVC seeking, inter alia, an order from the CAVC directing the Secretary to handle his claim in an expeditious manner. The CAVC held that the veteran had satisfied both requirements for a writ. Id. at 232. He satisfied the first element by establishing that he had a clear right to the writ. The CAVC held that � 302 of the VBIA extends to �the subsequent adjudication of all elements of a claim when any element of that claim is remanded by the Court or the Board.� Id. at 228. Accordingly, the VBIA � 302 requirement for expeditious treatment included not only the issue of entitlement to pension, but also extended to the issue of the effective date of the pension clam. Id. at 232. Because the Court found that the veteran had exhausted all available administrative remedies he satisfied the second requirement for a writ. The Court held that having written to the Board requesting that it expedite his case, �[w]e are unaware of any additional action that the petitioner could have taken that might realistically have advanced consideration of his appeal to the Board.� Id. The Court did not grant the veteran a writ because while the petition for a writ was pending before the Court, the Board issued a decision remanding the effective date issue back to the VARO for further adjudication. The Board�s remand decision expressly required that VBIA � 302 treatment be applied to the remanded claim. Accordingly, the CAVC held that since �the petitioner is now receiving from VA the VBIA � 302 treatment to which he was already entitled by virtue of this Court�s April 1999 remand opinion. . . . The request for the issuance of a writ of mandamus by this Court, then, is moot.� Id.In Dailey v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 61 (2003), the CAVC rejected the veteran�s argument that he had an indisputable right to a writ in a case in which the petitioner argued that in order to provide him with �expeditious treatment� of his remanded claim under the VBIA, the BVA should advance his case on their docket. The Court held that �expeditious treatment� under the VBIA and advancement on the BVA docket were separate and distinct concepts, and that the veteran had not demonstrated that he was entitled to advancement on the BVA docket under the statutory criteria that governed advancement on the BVA docket. Id. at 67. Additionally, the CAVC held that the veteran had not shown that the BVA had not handled his case expeditiously under the VBIA. Id. To the contrary, the Court noted that the BVA had acted quickly in processing the petitioner�s claim. Id. 177.. See Nash v. Brown, 11 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1998) (per curiam order) (CAVC denied writ in case involving four remands by the Board to the VARO, remarking that �the delay involved, although frustrating to the petitioner, must be unreasonable under all circumstances before the Court will inject itself into the administrative agency�s adjudicative process�); Chandler v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 175, 177-178 (1997) (per curiam order) (delay of two and one-half years was not unreasonable); Bullock v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 69, 69 (1994) (per curiam order) (�mere passage of time in reviewing a matter does not necessarily constitute extraordinary circumstances requiring this Court to invoke its mandamus power�). Not only has the Court been reluctant to grant extraordinary petitions, it has also been extremely reluctant to set deadlines by which the VA must satisfy Court remand orders. Dambach v. Principi, 14 Vet. App. 307 (2001) illustrates the CAVC�s extreme reluctance. In Dambach, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the CAVC. Dambach v. Gober 223 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Federal Circuit noted that the case had been on appeal for more than seven years, in part due to the VA�s reliance upon an inaccurate medical expert opinion. Id. at 1381. Further, the Federal Circuit noted that the case had to be remanded yet again, in part, to determine if another medical opinion solicited by the VA complied with 38 U.S.C.S � 7109. The Federal Circuit stated, �we believe it is time for this case to be concluded, especially given the veteran�s poor health.� Id. Therefore, the Court stated that �it would be appropriate for the Veterans Court to set a deadline by which this veteran�s case will be concluded.� Id. On remand, the CAVC nonetheless refused to set a deadline. The Court stated:This Court is not part of the Department of Veterans Affairs and its administrative machinery. We are not privy to the caseloads, the number of remands taking precedence over this case, and the relative priorities established at the BVA or the regional offices. Nor do we know whether such an order might well displace other, perhaps even more deserving, cases. . . . To impose an arbitrary date without the slightest clue as to whether such a date was either reasonable or appropriate would be wrong. Dambach v. Principi, 14 Vet. App. 307, 308 (2001). The most that the Court was willing to do was �to urge the Secretary to move this case with all the energy and dispatch he can. . . .� Id.178. Stratford v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 313, 314 (2008) (citing Costanza v. West, 12 Vet. App. 133, 134 (1999) (per curiam order)). 179. See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 12, 14 (1990). See also Chandler v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 175, 177 (1997); Ebert v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 434, 437 (1993); Grant v. Nicholson, Vet. App. No. 07-0527 (Aug. 24, 2007) (unpublished order denying a petition for a writ filed to compel the VARO to issue a SOC where the SOC was finally issued two days prior to the date oral argument was scheduled in the case before CAVC). 180. See Snyder, 14 Vet. App. at 165; Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 83 (1990). 181. See In the Matter of a Letter from Michael Quigley, 1 Vet. App. 1 (1990) (dismissing a petition for an extraordinary writ to prohibit the VA from revoking the veteran�s fee basis card entitling him to specific medical benefits on the ground that he had failed, among other things, to seek review of the matter at the BVA). See also Matter of Cox, 10 Vet. App. 361, 373-74 (1997); Steffens v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 142, 144 (1995). 182. See Kaplan v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 425, 428 (1995) (per curiam order). 15.2.6.1 How to File a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ Rule 21 of the rules of the CAVC183 discusses the procedure to be followed in filing a petition for an extraordinary writ. Among the documents that must be filed are copies of those parts of the claims file �necessary to understand the petition.�184 The petitioner should keep in mind that the CAVC does not have access to the VA�s claims file. The only way the Court will know about these documents is if the petitioner includes copies of them with the petition. Often, copies of relevant documents in the claims file will not be enough to make a proper showing to the Court. For example, all of the important facts may not be adequately reflected in these documents. Accordingly, the advocate should consider filing affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge about events that are not adequately reflected in the claims file. In addition, in an effort to show that the petitioner will suffer irreparable, or at least very serious, harm if the petition is denied allowing the case to proceed to a final BVA decision, affidavits should be filed attesting to the harm that is likely to occur. ** Advocacy Tip ** Before you can file a writ, you must create a record of good faith efforts to resolve the matter with the agency. You will want to create a paper trail to append to the writ to demonstrate your efforts to exhaust your administrative remedies.

Wow..Good question! I think you should try sending an IRIS email, and stating what you posted. It might "shake them up" and get your claim going. I dont think it should hurt. How can they ignore that?

One Senator told the VA to cut the suicide rate. The VA does not have a clue, do they really think their "suicide program" will help, with a million men waiting for benefits? Have they not figured out that men who are not able to support their families eventually "give up" on the VA and their red tape? My thanks to Tbird who is doing more to help Vets get their benefits. http://www.azdailysun.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_b788a874-acb4-585c-8884-25c2d171c3b1.html

I will add this: I have a copy of the Veterans Benefit Manual. While I can not cite where, there is something that says, to the effect, that a Veterans testimony can not be discredited "just because he is an interested party". Further, they have said that a Veteran is competent to report certain symptoms (I would guess that a rape would be included in this), but he is not qualified to give a diagnosis. A rape is not a diagnosis, but it certainly could be a "stressor event". The VA has (supposedly) relaxed the rules on a stressor event for PTSD. And, I will hypothesize that MST would be somewhat similar to PTSD in that both have a "stressor event". I think mental disorders are all rated the same..whether they are PTSD, depression, MST, etc. I think it is very good news for you that a lawyer is handling your case. It indicates HE thinks you will win, and is betting his own money on it, since he will have to invest his time and money into your case and may not get a dime if he loses. JMHO

No, lawyers dont get paid, regardless of the outcome. This is largely a fallacy perpetuated by VSO's when they were trying to keep lawyers out of the VA. While it is possible that a lawyer, if he gets a minimum of a remand, can get fees paid by EAJA. However, the last I heard is that with the cutbacks they are not awarding lawyer fees through EAJA, since these have to be approved by the courts. So, right now, it is highly unlikely that he would take the case unless he feels he can win you benefits.

I agree with Bonzai...they dont call and ask for your bank account and kids ssn. They should have your kids ssn on file, and if they dont you will have to submit birth certificates by mail. The VA has NEVER called and asked for either of those for me. I would notify your bank. If you have caller id, call the number back and see if it is the VA. If not, then you better get back with your bank, pronto.

I agree with Pete. Why does the VA take 3 years to write a SOC? Because they can. Let em know that wont fly by filing a Writ. We need to remember the VA will spin you around the hampster wheel for as long as they can get away with. Most of us did time on the hampster wheel. I think it was Alex Humphrey that said 18 months was long enough and time for a Writ.