Vync

Congratulations on winning your claim! I also have a 'temporary' rating, but it is not for MH. It said I would be evaluated at a future date, but they didn't list the date! Doh! I put in an IRIS request to find out. Later in the week they responded and said I would be re-examined for the condition approximately 12 months after the effective date on my claim. I don't know if you will be re-examined at the same interval, but you can find out.

One of my VA docs documented a strong nexus ("is due to") for one of my conditions. I think I was really lucky because the doc had the bedside manner unlike any other VA doc. I thought I was actually seeing a civilian doc. I might need to change my VA primary care provider. My current doc provides good treatment, but what he says to me and what he writes down are usually not the same. I'm sorry, I meant VBA, not BVA. I was thinking about VA Directive 2008-071 (d)(1 and 2) (http://www1.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=1790). My fault there. Sorry, I am fighting a migraine this afternoon. Just took some meds to make it go away.

Carlie, That makes sense. I recall reading one of the CFR's (not sure which one) and it said that if the Veteran's disability could not be rated accurately by the rating definitions, that they could perform an extraschedular rating. I haven't tried to look this up again, but might try to see what I can find when I get some time.

This might explain what happened to you. When I got my recent SC increase, one of the effective dates was Sep 2, but they did not pay me at all for Sep. Instead, they said my effective date of payment was Oct 1 and I was paid starting from that date forward. It seems they can rip us off like that. The same may have occurred in your case, IMHO...

Carlie, If someone got a 60% rating for MH, would that constitute it being assigned as extraschedular?

bronchovet, I wish the VA would take the "benefit of the doubt" and "liberally interpret" parts more seriously. It seems that they try to go way out of their way to find any reason to deny, even if the reason is rediculous. Barrett v. Nicholson sounds like they ordered the VA to make every effort to tilt the scales toward the VA, but in reality the opposite still happens. The "assisting them in developing claims they may have" part is misleading. Because they attempt to restrict the regular VA docs from writing nexus statements "because that is the job of the BVA C&P examiners", the developing part amounts to record requests and diagnostic exams. This is a "let's work on a team but only one person is allowed to offer an opinion" approach. Sorry to be pessimistic, but I have been having some frustration about my claim seemingly going nowhere.

Still waiting on final word from my appeal: 2008 - Present At least I had a C&P exam in March! ;)

I'm glad the Vet won. I really feel bad for the Vet. Dealing with broken legs, staph infection (probably MRSA), and osteomyelitis is bad enough, but then having the BVA shaft them like this for so long just makes it worse. Victory through persistance!

Carlie, Regarding each of the conditions, look up the values from your relatively hopefully recent C&P exam(s) or treatment records. After reading a bunch of BVA decisions, I noticed that unless you ask for a specific or maximum possible rating, they tend merely dictate granted/remanded/denied. I have seen a lot which a person requests 60% for something, but the BVA only grants 40% and they go wayyyy out of their way to even include the rating percentages for whatever condition code was in question. The same can go for effective dates too. PR's advice matches my experience. When I won most of my BVA claim in the late 1990's, my C&P exams were almost a year old and they gave me new ones (with a more competent doctor, not a bluthering idiot). Also, my BVA ruling said that my claim must be treated expeditiously. Sounds like a pipe dream, but they really did turn it around very quickly, and that was in 1999. I hope they afford you the same luxury.

Carlie, That's great news. I wonder what happened to the post-decision review? I thought they were supposed to double-check for errors like this?

At my last doctor's visit, my BP was 139/98 and stayed there most of the day, despite being on continuous BP meds... Systolic = First number Diastolic = Second number Here's what the numbers mean: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=2112

I had a C&P examination in March of this year. My examiner had quite a few degree/diploma/certification's mounted in picture frames all over the office. It helped take out some of the guesswork.

Comfortingly scary...

Does anyone have any tips on finding the C&P Exam instructions for a back examination during 1997? My C&P exam has a bunch of numbers and letters containing just the answers. I have no clue what the questions are and they do not match up at all with today's C&P back exam instructions.Does anyone have any tips on finding the C&P Exam instructions for a back examination during 1997?

Carlie, I'm sorry that the VA would hose up things for you like that. I would ask the VA to exercise "benefit of the doubt" in favor of the Veteran per the balance for and against, but in this situation make it in regards to their boneheaded decision. Don't know if that applies here, but might be worth a shot... I agree with Wings, per the 'as likely as not'...

Maybe broncho is onto something. Maybe we could have a topic to post good Vet-friendly IMO doc contact info for various areas without having to sift through a bunch of other types of posts...

I wish a mobile DAV van would visit my area. It takes way too long to be seen by the DAV rep in my city and even longer to get called back from the DAV at the RO. Regarding filing claims, Bergie and Bonzai advised to go ahead and file, regardless of the fact that a current claim may be in the system. Would it not be better to file an informal claim just to secure the EED and then send in evidence after the current claims are decided, but before the evidence submission period for the informal claim expires?

Carlie, I understand, but there is a LOT of things in my C-file that I never received. I'm going to do some checking to find out how the VA confirms that they sent us something. It sounds like a dual standard here. If you submit something, you have to have a way to prove that it was received by the VA (like having it date stamped). But if the VA says they sent you something, they get full benefit of the doubt unless we can prove otherwise. I wonder if relative equipoise also applies to the mail system... Chuck, I know what you mean. I found two items in my C-file that do not belong to me. That means it probably disappeared from someone else's file and magically appeared in mine.... Scary....

While looking through my C-file, I see a number of different letters and correspondence from the RO and the BVA. I don't recognize some of the letters. How do we verify/confirm what the VA says they sent me?

Agree completely! The VA has been billing my insurance for SC treatment. I went to the business office last week and they said that they are NOT billing my insurance for SC treatment. Yesterday, I get an insurance statement in the mail about them billing the insurance. I'm taking it with me next time...

You can call the 1-800 number or get with your VSO and check something. While going through my C-file, one of the header pages contained a lot of boxes with a variety of information. In one of them (can't recall the name of it), it shows your scheduled future C&P exams and may also explain why. Mine indicates that I am due to have another exam in January for one of my SC conditions. That may be the reason why they wanted to do a C&P for HTN. Regarding it being an increase, that might be possible. If you have a VSO with a POA, they have access to your records and can submit claims for you. I went to the DAV and requested a claim for a number of issues, but when I got a letter from the VA, they added two additional things of which were opined 'as least as likely' in the C&P exam. I don't know if your claim is being handled like mine, but it is a possiblity.

That's how I am doing it. Lifting all those papers is not good for the back...

Rockhound, Proving the C&P examiner was not thorough is worth a shot. However, if you can get a specialist doctor to opine in your favor, it would likely crush the C&P examiner's statement. I remember an E-6 administering my allergy shots and tending to me when I would have bad reactions. Like you, I would assume you have at least a certain level of expertise in this field.

Congratulations! I know that has to be a real relief!

Berta, That's good info. I'll pass it along. I tend to get bored of my images after a while. My previous "Their happy because they eat lard" image was funny, but I wanted something striking. Those statues have always been fascinating.