broncovet

IMHO I would humbly suggest you check with a local physican, with a specialty in the IMO that you are seeking. Altho Dr. Bash has helped a lot of Veterans, I think he has written so many IMO's that RO's do not regard his IMO's as credible. I contacted Dr. Bash and I thought his fee for an IMO was rather pricey..if I recall it was $3000. Dr. Bash did tell me that his fee could be paid out of retro, so $3000 would not hurt so bad then. Hiring Dr. Bash may well be more effective at winning your claim than a lawyer. That being said, I think a local physicain in your area would work better, and maybe cheaper. You would need to explain to the physicain that you feel your condition is related to military service and give him your reasons. If the doctor agrees with you, then you need to have him state, in his report in nearly these words: "I have examined the patient, and have extensively reviewed his medical records. In my opinion, this Veterans condition is most likely due to an injury he suffered while in military service" Further, the physician should probably cite scientific references such as medical journals as to why he thinks your arthritis in your foot, for example, is related to the foot fracture you suffered while in the military.

I would add that congress is not helping Veterans. Recent legislation gives civilains a $400 economic stimulus, while Veterans get $250. It does not pay to be a Veteran.

Yes..and if this information is erroneous, then someone should be able to supply a link as to why or what regulation makes it erroneous. They should not just "shoot from the hip" and say the information is erroneous, when they have no idea whether it is or not. In Carlies hypothetical example, one could cite the the regulations showing her example to be inaccurate. C&P man: I think what they are saying here, with the word chronic is that your condition needs to be ONGOING. It is not enough for you to break your ankle in service..you broke your ankle, they put a cast on it and fixed it. Done. To be compensated, you have to show that the ankle continues to give you pain, that you have been to the doctor multiple times since your military service ended. You have chronic pain that continues since your injury. If you did NOT go to the doctor about your broken ankle pain since 1973, then the VA is going to say your claim lacks chronicity and will be denied, even if it starts hurting again in 2009, because that pain could be from skiing last winter, not your broken ankle in 1973.

I agree with much of what has been said. I do think congress can do something. Maybe something like the credit report. If you protest your credit report and they cant prove it to be true, they have to remove that negative item in 30 days period. If a Veteran files for benefits, the VA should have a time limit to process. Congress could impose a time limit. An example would be that if the VA can not offer a decision (and thus a reason to deny) in 6 months, the claim should be approved. The "six month time clock" for older claims could start on the same date. If the VA cant offer a decision in 6 months, the claim should be automatically approved. Then, they should shorten the six months time to five months next year, and four months the year after. We need them to "just say no" to claims taking years. We have time limits, they should have them also. JMHO

Iraqx2 That is the $64,000 question: "Will we get a 5,8% raise or not, or will we get something else." According to watchdog.org we are on track for a zero percent cola: http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfjun09/nf061809-1.htm According to at least one poster, the legislation says that if the cola is zero%, then we get what we got last year, which was about 5.8%. I will go out on a limb and venture this guess: I beleive Barack Obama will sign this legislation, and I also beleive that the cola will be zero or negative at the end of the year. Bottom Line: YES, I predict we will get the 5.8% raise in December. I further predict we wont get the 25% quality of life raise talked about this year, at least.

Its up to you, but a DRO review is usually much faster than a DRO HEARING. Reason: Hearing officers are booked up for several years, while DRO reviews can be done at the regional office, so scheduling a hearing takes a long time. You wont get to speak to a DRO officer with a DRO review, but you can tell your side of the story on a "STatement in support of claim" You can carefully plan out exactly what you want to write down, but you could get tripped up in a hearing, where they ask you questions. IMHO, you best bet is a DRO review and skip the hearing.

I dont like to be the bearer of bad news, but "being rated" may not always mean you are gettting any money. Of course, it could mean that, but you could also be "rated" at 0% in which case you get nothing. I know this because it happened to me, but I overturned it upon appeal. YOu can call back, use your charm, and ask them what your disabilty rating is. Maybe they will tell you, then you can figure out how much, if any, you will get, altho you may well not know the effective date, even then. You may also be able to find out your disability rating at your Va hospital, or your VSO if you have one. My time guesstimate: one to two weeks, and that is purely a guess. If you sent them "automatic deposit to your checking account" forms, then keep watching your account, online, as the money sometimes arrives before the decision.

I agree with John, Pete, and Basser Veterans earn and deserve what they get..most of the time they deserve more, and they deserve it sooner rather than later. It really should be no suprise when a Veteran waits for 5 years or more to get his benefits, that he is "disgruntled" about it. While we were in the military we were expected to carry out orders "now" and we certainly did not wait 5 years. I think VBA employees should get their pay relative to how fast they get Veterans theirs. Those who get bonuses for delaying Veterans claims deserve to have their checks delayed. http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfmay09/nf052309-1.htm

Carlie Very good. If you are posting that C &P examiners make less than $500 per exam, then I am sure you dont mind posting the link to back it up. s.

I looked up VA "220 disability" and did not get any hits. However, if you are getting disability compensation at the 60% rate, then this will continue until/unless the VA reduces it. Under current regulations, the VA is required to give you a 60 day notice in the event they are trying to reduce your rating. You have a right to protest the reduction, and give your reasons why you feel the rating should not be reduced. You can also appeal any rating reduction, but you should appeal that reduction within one year of the rating decision. A Regional office decision becomes final after one year, so the VA must demonstrate that you had material improvement, in order to reduce your rating. The VA can require you to go to a c and p examination, and if you fail to go, your rating could be reduced. Further, if your c and p doctor offers the opinion that your condition has improved, then your rating could be reduced.

Carlie No, I dont have a link to the schedule of payment of QTC C and P exams. However, if you have a link contradicting the most recent increase to $500 for a C and P exam, I really would like to see it.

This is what I would do: 1. File a Notice of disagreement with each denied issue, and state why you disagree. Cite evidence supporting your statement..such as "Veteran was treated for ---- in military, and continues to have issues with it and refernce doctors appointments and other medical treatments. 2. Send a note to IRIS, asking when your C and P will be scheduled, and cite your recent deferral decision. Follow up with these, the VA wants you to drop it. JMHO

I am happy for those people who are living better now on Va disability then they were before. However, if these people waited 7 years for the VA to "process" their benefit check while watching their home be foreclosed, and vehicle repossesed, maybe they would not have such a great attidude either. It wasnt just about the money..the wife of 20 years left about the same time my home was foreclosed, too. My "hardship request" was shredded. I am going to try to get a better attitude, but I am still smarting from loosing my home, car, and family.

I did not recieve any notice that I should send one check back if I get two. I am going to back off on this and stand corrected: I am probably wrong..others are right on this: Go ahead and send the second check back. It sounds like, yes, at least one of the people that ARE POLICY makers said you only get one check. And it sounds like our legislators, did, in fact, intend to pay civilians a $400 stimulus payment and SHAFT VETERANS out of $150, by paying them ONLY $250. Civilian stimulus payment =$400 Veteran stimulus payment =$250 This is not a good deal for Veterans. I guess I just could not beleive that legislators would penalize Veterans like this.. It is not really the amount..$150..it is just the idea that Vets get less..I suppose they want Veterans to get used to this idea that we deserve less than civilians. I will remember this at election time.

My guess is that it "means" that you probably got stuck with a QTC C&P examiner who basically gets paid to get you denied. Heres how it works: C&P exams are now very lucrative as they get $500 for usually less than an hours work. QTC does not require you are a doctor, but only a PA or nurse practicioner. PA's and nurse practioners making more than $500 per hour is very lucrative. The catch is, that if you DONT offer evidence to deny, the VA wont hire you next time, so you are forced to say things that cause a denial, or loose this lucrative $500 per hour job. It is very easy for the QTC quack to deny you if your medical records do not show ongoing treatment. They assume there is no such thing as "sucking up the pain" and that everyone will go to the doctor once every month or so to get pain meds. However, the average Veteran probably "sucks up" the pain, and doesnt go to the doc except once every couple years, when something else happens. Try to get a c and P exam from your Va doctor..and if you have been sucking up the pain, then tell your doc so, and explain you cant suck it up anymore. Others can correct me, if this is not right, but you are trying to prove chronicity of SYMPTOMS and not necessarily chronicity of medical treatment. You may have to get an IMO, but dont give up, although this quacks c and p exam is a setback. It is possible to work in your favor in this plausable senario: The QTC PA or Nurse practitioner offers the medical opinion that you did not have chronicity of treatment so it was not likely related to military service. However, your VA DOCTOR, who has more training that the physicans assistant, says that you have been experienceing chronic pain, but that you self treated the pain, so, your condition is at least as likely as not related to military service, because you had chronicity of SYMPTOMS.

I agree with Grunt...that huge increase that the VA gets will probably go to performance bonuses for the VA doing a good job. After all the VA has done to Veterans recently...infecting more than 50 of them with serious and life threatinging illnesses...increasing the backlog from 400,000 to almost one million Veterans waiting for the VA to "process" their paperwork, shredding Veterans claims and evidence, etc, etc, its a wonder that Veterans dont start world war 3 against the VA.

Has it occurred to anyone that the Department of Veterans Affairs has already gotten a substantial increase and maybe a part of this is being returned to the Veteran, so that no taxes need to be raised, that is, the increase is already in the budget. I mean, if they are not passing these huge DVA budget increases to the Veterans, who is getting the extra money? More employees? More hospitals? More administrative expense for more red tape? Of the huge increases for department of Veterans Affairs, would it not make sense that Veterans get at least some of this money, instead of giving it to the VA to create still more red tape for us.

Test...yes, I have heard, also, that they are talking about a zero percent Cola. The very puzzling thing is Why would there be legislation to keep VA and social security Cola's the same, when they are already the same, are they not?

According to what I have read this ACT 407, "The Veterans Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment Act of 2009" which has been passed by congress but not yet signed by the president, will give us a raise. If you read the link, those changes, if the president signs it, would mean about a 5.7% increase, or about a $150 more for a 100% disabled Vet effective December 1, 2009. I dont know..maybe I dont get it, but it looks like we are getting a nice raise unless Obama vetoes it. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...:s407es.txt.pdf More is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-407 Considering that vawatchdog.org says that our normal COLA would be about 0% this year, I would say 5.7% is a much improvement from that. http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfjun09/nf061809-1.htm

Allan is no doubt right. I call it the "weasel" clause. The VA wants to weasel out of paying as much as it can possibly get away with. So, they give "lip service" to the regulations, and then delay and deny anyway.

I am not so sure that 2 checks is a mistake. You see, civilians get a $400 stimulus payment but that $400 comes in the form in a tax deduction, so they get about $7.70 per week more in their paycheck (less taxes deducted = higher paycheck). Many Social Security recipients dont pay taxes, however, so they get a check for $250 instead. Veterans should not get less than civilians, so, if a Vet is on social security and Va disability, it would make sense that Vets got both. Otherwise, there would be a net $150 penalty for being a Veteran. I dont think congress intended that disabled Vets get less than civilians with that legislation, tho it is unclear. I know many others have said nobody gets 2 checks, however, I am not sure all of them who said that were policy makers. My suggestion is that you hang on to the extra $250, collect interest on it, and be prepared to return it, but you should be able to enjoy at least a few dollars of interest until it is sorted out. Running out and spending it may not be too good of an idea, tho. I do think that WORKING Veterans would probably NOT get $650 total..$400 tax deduction in their paycheck AND an additional $250 check. Neither would Social Security recipients who are also working get BOTH the tax break and the $250 check. But disabled Vets, who are also on Social security, MAY get both, but please, I am not an expert..this is just my guess. As I said, I dont think congress intended that disabled Vets get less, rather, I think that disabled Vets should get more. JMHO, and no, dont wait on your second check just because of me, I just dont know.

Roberson vs Principii, Federal Court 2001 states: "Roberson alleges that Norris v. West, 12 Vet. App. 413 (1999), is applicable and holds that the VA’s requirement that TDIU be specifically requested “loses sight of the Congressional mandate that the VA is to ‘fully and sympathetically develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before decision on its merits.’” Norris, 12 Vet. App. at 420 (citing Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Although Norris does not bind this court as precedent, it is both on-point and informative. The facts of Norris are similar to the present case. Norris was rated 70 percent disabled from a mental disorder. Id. at 415. His rating was increased to 100 percent based on 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (i.e., the same basis for increasing Roberson’s rating to 100 percent). Id. at 416. Before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Norris alleged CUE in not giving him an earlier effective date for his 100 percent rating. Id. The government alleged that an informal claim for TDIU was not raised under the specific facts of Norris’s case because entitlement to TDIU requires a showing of at least an informal claim specifically alleging TDIU. Id. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rejected the government’s argument because such a position “loses sight of VA’s congressional mandate that VA is to ‘fully and sympathetically develop the veterans’ claim to its optimum before deciding it on its merits.’” Id. at 420 (citing Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). In addition, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims stated that developing a claim “to its optimum” must include determining all potential claims raised by the evidence and applying all relevant law and regulation raised by that evidence regardless of how the claim is identified." I read the above to mean that the VA cant ignore evidence, and must consider all evidence. JMHO

Rock...Read it again carefully to make sure. If it says, "Veterans condition is AT Least as LIKELY AS NOT" related to military service," then this is good..very good. However, if it says that it is Less likely than not, then that is not so good for you.

I would like to run this by hadit memebers before I do something stupid (again!): In March, 09, I recieved a rating decision which increased my depression rating from 30% to 100% effective in 2007. (This decision was a DRO REVIEW) However, I applied for these benefits in 2002, and feel entitled to an earlier effective date (2002). I filed a NOD disputing the effective date. Today, I received a notice that they had recieved my NOD, along with an election of either DRO or traditional appeal process. Question 1 Can a DRO review be DRO reviewed again? The letter said"This local VA office will try to resolve your disagreement through the Post-Decision Review Process" More importantly question 2:, should I "let sleeping dogs lie" and not muddy up the water? That is, has anyone filed a NOD and wound up with LESS than what they had before? I have a tendency to think I "have them on the run" because I nailed them for shredding my evidence. (I filed a Special Handling REquest for shredded documents AND filed a complaint with the VAOIG.) However, there is a fear component to this: What if I file an appeal for an earlier effective date and wind up loosing my 100%? I beleive that the medical evidence supports a 100% rating, but realize this is a judgement call by a rating officer..and that other rating officers may make a different judgement call. Has anyone filed a NOD and, upon review, they decided to reduce your rating rather than grant additional benefits?

VAF Those were very handy court cases, and a very excellent post. Thanks Bronco