Berta

Alex- in the decades I have known you-(20 years I think) and due to all the advocacy and legal work you have done for veterans-for years and years ------ in my mind and heart you DO have a MOH! !!!!!!!! Lets meet someday in Washington DC and beat up some of these phonies - Nothing gets me more than wannabees- and the wannabee widows? I could write a book on the few I know of--but they are few and far between- and the VA never gives them a dime. What a disgrace they are. A STAR is sure something to be very proud of! Berta

VERY interesting- I am posting this as copied from Military.com- hope they do not mind- they have a good take on what this Dingess/Hartmann thing is all about: Home Benefits News Travel Shop Finance Careers Education Join the Military Community Check These Out: PhotoCenter | My Friend Network | Discounts | News Military.com Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Good information for veterans, veterans families involved in the claims process and v Moderators: Sekar, strobelvets, WASASA Go New Find Notify Tools Reply Admin New PM! My Space » Military.com Forums » Profile Buddies Groups Permissions Private Messaging Notifications Karma Preferences Favorites More... Discussion Poll Private Message Photo Album Keyword Search Search current forum only Advanced Search New Since your Last Visit Today's Active Topics in this Category Add to My Favorites Printer Friendly Format Email a Friend Help Manage Topic Manage Content in This Topic Manage Members Online Now Control Panel Login/JoinWelcome, [Logout] CapMarine50 Experienced Member Posted Fri 17 March 2006 20:17 Good information for veterans, veterans families involved in the claims process and veterans services officers. Dingess and Hartman v. Nicholson Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims March 3, 2006 Issue What notice and development is VA required to provide in a compensation claim? What did the Court hold? Historically, in order to establish service connection for a disability, three things must be decided: Whether the claimant is a veteran; Does the veteran have a present disability; and, Is that disability related to service? Until now, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) requires that once a veteran has submitted a substantially complete application, VA must notify the claimant of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, not previously provided that is necessary to substantiate the claim. In addition, VA must tell the claimant what evidence it will obtain, what evidence the claimant must provide and what evidence VA will help the claimant obtain if the claimant tells VA where to look. In Dingess, the Court held that two additional decision points exist, and that VA is required by law to provide notice and assistance to claimants at the beginning of the claim process. Those two additional decisions are: What is the proper evaluation to be assigned; and, What is the correct effective date? Here, the Court held that VA must tell the claimant how it intends to evaluate a service connected disability and how the correct effective date is to be determined. What action is VA taking? · VA has written a letter to claimants which describes the Dingess decision and contains general paragraphs: o outlining the criteria used for assigning evaluations; and, o how effective dates are selected. · These letters will be mailed during the weekends of March 18-19, 2006 and March 25-26, 2006. · Copies of these letters will be provided to Service Organizations during the first two weeks in April, 2006. · VA has determined that these letters will be sent to every person who has a current claim for compensation benefits pending. This includes cases in an appeal status. These two groups total more than 500,000 claims. There are over 624,000 additional cases completed in the last 12 months. Since these decisions are not final they, too, are affected by the Dingess decision. Unfortunately, VA cannot identify these cases. Consequently, they will not receive letters from VA. · VA will develop future claims in accordance with the Dingess decision. · VA will continue processing claims while it cures these notice and development deficiencies. What this means to claimants · In the short run, these letters will further confuse many claimants about what it is they need to do. o Many claimants will call either VA or Service Organizations for an explanation. o Service Officers should expect that these calls will be significant in number over the next month or two. o After that calls should recede but the Dingess notice requirement will continue to be a subject of interest to claimants for the foreseeable future. · · While the Dingess decision ensures that claimants receive legally adequate notice of what evidence is necessary at each decision point in the claims process, it is likely that this change will have little impact on most veterans. What should Service Officers do? In the near term: · The entire staff of each VSO office should be ready to respond to inquiries from claimants and be prepared to explain what the letters mean. Copies of the letters to be sent by VA will be provided to DSO's as soon as they become available. · The DSO may wish to re-record the message on the office answering machine to provide information to those who call after hours and keep it running for the next 4-6 weeks. This may satisfy some veterans and reduce the number of calls you receive. In addition to your regular message, you may want to say: "If you have questions about a letter sent you by VA which refers to the Dingess/Hartman court decision, please listen carefully. That letter was required by a recent court decision that clarifies the things VA must tell you about how your claim may be decided. If you have evidence concerning your claim that you have not yet provided VA, please send it to us immediately and we will submit it to VA for you. If you do not have any further information or evidence for VA at this time you are not required to do anything in response to this letter. Failure to return the "VCAA Notice Response" enclosed with your letter will not delay your case." In the future, DSO's should ensure that VA satisfies the Dingess notice requirements prior to signing off on a rating. Claimants who received a decision in the last year are also entitled to this notice. DSO's should be alert to these cases and ask VA to properly notify these claimants. Finally, in those rare cases where a veteran claims a specific evaluation (e.g., "My PTSD is worse and I believe I should be evaluated 50 percent.") VA is required to give specific notice of the criteria needed to satisfy the evaluation requested. A DSO should alert the proper VA Team Leader of the claim so that proper notice can be provided Posts: 3708 | Registered: Thu 04 April 2002 CapMarine50 Experienced Member Posted Sat 18 March 2006 10:52 I hope the information helps someone. Posts: 3708 | Registered: Thu 04 April 2002 strobelvets LEAD MODERATOR HOT TOPICS Posted Mon 20 March 2006 00:28 Bump Posts: 5250 | Registered: Wed 06 July 2005 9472434 Basic Training Posted Sat 25 March 2006 15:22 quote: Originally posted by CapMarine50: I hope the information helps someone. Thank You for this posting, it helps out! slbarkley veteran ; ) Posts: 1 | Registered: Sat 25 March 2006 Mom2APAJ Member Posted Mon 27 March 2006 02:40 bump Posts: 1420 | Registered: Tue 15 February 2005 deadbears Member Posted Mon 27 March 2006 17:31 thanks for the info Posts: 82 | Registered: Tue 23 March 2004 CapMarine50 Experienced Member Posted Tue 28 March 2006 07:50 GROUP MAP - VETERANS MARCH IN WASHINGTON DC APRIL 2006 http://www.frappr.com/veteransmarchinwashi...dcapril2006/map http://www.Americans-Working-Together.com http://www.capveterans.com/the_duc_duc_res...illage/id7.html Posts: 3708 | Registered: Thu 04 April 2002 marel Basic Training Posted Tue 28 March 2006 08:28 Thanks for the info. on dingess/hartman v nicholson. I hope it has some benefit for us veterans with claim of earlier effective dates on our disability claims. marel Posts: 1 | Registered: Tue 28 March 2006 CapMarine50 Experienced Member Posted Thu 30 March 2006 05:15 ----- Original Message ----- From: dweller@rrbiznet.com To: James T. North gymgemjim@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:17 AM Subject: Re: Operation Firing for Effect - The Veterans March 2006 I'm sorry about this Jim. Your march had enough strength on it's own to become an annual event. We had a difference of opinion when Gene Simes and Operation Firing for Effect TOOK IT ALL OVER. I find not one shread of happiness in this email. I've been there and done it myself. I'm very sorry. I know how you're feeling right now. ----- Original Message ----- From: James T. North gymgemjim@comcast.net To: dweller@rrbiznet.com Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:33 PM Subject: Operation Firing for Effect - The Veterans March 2006 29 March 2006 Welcome, you have entered the ORIGINAL website of the Veterans March 2006. This website and the email address associated with it, no longer supports "Operation Firing for Effect"- The Veterans March 2006. The webmaster of this site, in good conscience, cannot continue to maintain this website due to the withholding of information concerning accountability of received donations and a lack of program, outlining speakers, topics and events from the organizer of this march. The webmaster of this website no longer wishes to be associated with the poor administration and planning of this event. Refer all questions and comments to the current organizers of “Operation Firing for Effect” and the Veterans March 2006. If and when the organizer of "Operation Firing for Effect" delivers the above mentioned information to this webmaster, this website will be reinstated. Thanks, Jim http://www.vetmarch2006.com Posts: 3708 | Registered: Thu 04 April 2002 Johnfrog Basic Training Posted Tue 04 April 2006 13:55 The entire 33-page pdf ruling for Dingess and Hartman is available at http://bluewaternavy.org/claims/DingessHartman.pdf Posts: 1 | Registered: Thu 23 March 2006 DaveBarker Health And Fitness Forums Moderator Posted Wed 05 April 2006 01:29 I have had my whole routine disrupted by a the paper flowing across my desk. Over 100 mailed in and over 100 dropped off. In the first week. Why? By the time the VARO's receives these VCAA Notice Repsonse forms and sorts them the 60 days will be up anyway. It is another ruse to stall. I will cast no stones! Dave Barker Posts: 4836 | Registered: Tue 12 November 2002 strobelvets LEAD MODERATOR HOT TOPICS Posted Thu 06 April 2006 10:05 quote: Originally posted by DaveBarker: I have had my whole routine disrupted by a the paper flowing across my desk. Over 100 mailed in and over 100 dropped off. In the first week. Why? By the time the VARO's receives these VCAA Notice Repsonse forms and sorts them the 60 days will be up anyway. It is another ruse to stall. * Posts: 5250 | Registered: Wed 06 July 2005 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by groupee community Please Wait. Your request is being processed... [

(Bill-I found you in Success-this is the forum where you need to be- Claims Research) I copied it all to this topic: Bill- Glad you made it here- The hypertension- Do you have your complete SMRs (service Medical Records) I think you mentioned in the past you did- so- no HBP readings there--- boy -you would think they would take BP readings for any meds or hospitalization- wouldn't you? But they often didnt in the mil-I guess- Is it possible that a doctor would state that your HBP us more than likely due to -or as likely as not due to the MDD? or PTSD? That would make it secondary SC. OR- is it possible that any of your SC meds- cause ones BP to raise? That is another possible way to go- what is your overall rating? are you employed? when is last time you had a good hearing test? "0" SC is better than NSC. If you feel comfortable telling us what mes you are on for the MDD maybe we could search them to see if they are causing your BP problems- If a SC condition "aggravates" a NSC condition than the "aggravation" can be claimed as secondary- This claim shows what I mean: http://www.va.gov/vetapp01/files01/0105415.txt Full Edit Quick Edit Billyboy Today, 11:57 AM Post #2 New To This Board Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 16-December 05 Member No.: 619 I am rated for tinnitus 10%, loss of hearing 0% and MDD at 50%, (claimed as post traumatic stress disorder, sleep disorder and night sweats). My question is on the high blood pressure. First a little history; in 1962 while in the service I had the pleasure of spending some time in the Trippler mental hospital with some very serious problems. When I got out of the service I ran like hell away from the service just as fast as I could. Not knowing I could receive any help from the VA. In my service files there is no B/P checks of any kind. While in the hospital the service gave me Librium without knowing what my B/P was. My point is I want to file a claim for hypertension and I want to be sure not to screw it up. Since I have gotten out of the service, 1962 my first two doctors are dead. The first report I have is 8-9-91 B/P was 142/92. The highest reading BEFORE I was enrolled in the VA system was 174/96. After enrolling in the VA Hospital Fresno I have readings from 198/105 and now getting under control 139/80. How would you go about handling the claim? Full Edit Quick Edit « Next Oldest · Success Stories · Next Newest » 1 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) 1 Members: Berta Fast Reply Enable email notification of replies | Enable Smilies | Enable Signature Forum Home Search Help VA Claims Research |-- Veterans Affairs Claims and Benefits Research |-- Success Stories |-- Frequently Asked Questions |-- Medication – Health Issues |-- Veterans/Advocacy News Member Announcements |-- Social Security Disability Questions |-- FAQ's Veterans Affairs Claims/Benefits HadIt.com Members Issues |-- HadIt.com Member's Issues Social Chat |-- Social Chat |-- Ask The Geeks Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum IPB 2.1 Default Larger Text Element-Free (Import) English Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th April 2006 - 02:49 PM Invision Power Board v2.1.1 © 2006 IPS, Inc.

I have pes planus and sort of the same back disorder this vet seems to have: http://www.va.gov/vetapp01/files01/0105415.txt We often overlook "aggravation" of a NSC disability from a SC one- it is sort of as secondary but this claim shows that 'aggravation' can be a good basis for a claim- I posted this for Billy boy but I liked it so much I didnt want anyone to miss it.

Bill- Glad you made it here- The hypertension- Do you have your complete SMRs (service Medical Records) I think you mentioned in the past you did- so- no HBP readings there--- boy -you would think they would take BP readings for any meds or hospitalization- wouldn't you? But they often didnt in the mil-I guess- Is it possible that a doctor would state that your HBP us more than likely due to -or as likely as not due to the MDD? or PTSD? That would make it secondary SC. OR- is it possible that any of your SC meds- cause ones BP to raise? That is another possible way to go- what is your overall rating? are you employed? when is last time you had a good hearing test? "0" SC is better than NSC. If you feel comfortable telling us what mes you are on for the MDD maybe we could search them to see if they are causing your BP problems- If a SC condition "aggravates" a NSC condition than the "aggravation" can be claimed as secondary- This claim shows what I mean: http://www.va.gov/vetapp01/files01/0105415.txt

Rocky- my neighbor, a WWII vet, developed a terrible limp after taking Simvastin- The VA doc asked him if he was of Mid Eastern descent, he said no- are you Hispanic, he said no- then the doctor asked what his ethnic background was- full bloodied Cherokee on his mother's side- that was the reason for the limp- The VA withdrew this med and prescribed another- certain ethnic groups have reactions to meds and Simvastin is one of the meds that the VA has to be careful of giving out. The VA is supposed to ask your ethnic background before prescribing Vimstatin and maybe other statins too. He is still limping a little but not as bad as before. He needed a cane it was so bad. The VA is supposed to send side affect info with their meds or to out it in the med bag- I think it is good idea to go to a medication site like Merck or the PDR (Physicians Drug Reference) and check out if the meds match the pictures (PDR) and what the side affects are as well as contraindications- some stuff cannot be taken with other meds.

Josh- one thought- can you copy the first page of the appeal and then paste into into the VA Iris query page and put in the RE: that you are electronically filing the appeal? I say first page only with your c file number etc- because I got so mad I sent them a SOC response via the query- They called me and said their PC could only pick up part of it-only one page -the whole thing was mailed anyhow later that day- OR- I have this info for the Houston VARO- this info is about a year old- Director Ursula Henderson 1-713-794-3661 6900 Almeda Rd Houston VARO By fax 1-713-794-3749 You could Fax the appeal copy to her- or query her directly at Iris by putting her name into the Topic part. Josh- their mail room might be behind- it happens here all the time- vet gets a receipt of something they sent but it doesnt get on the PC for a week or more, The SO- he has a boss- if you tell me what org - I will give you his bosses name-

Thanks Bound -I didnt really leave- your question is unusual- I sure never heard of this before-"post group" and never saw this phrase in the m21-1 hope others respond- (sometimes it pays to call the 800# back for a second opinion)

I erased the same post-it came up twice - cant seem to delete it -sorry about that-

My Varo has been asking for date of birth, address, and today they asked me for my SSA # too. Many of them know me but they ask anyhow- The vet rep I got today knows me but still he asked all this- and told me that people have been calling the 800# in this area of NY and trying to get VARO information on vet's claims or by pretending to be the vet,themselves. So dont be alarmed if the 800# people ask you for some identifying info,more than they used too. It is to protect your records and you claim. My Status was 'at rating board'-SMC Cue claim.Nada new info on the other claim.

Terry- even if not a holiday weekend- Both Rod -when he was alive, and I ,this past 2005, got denials on Christmas eve. Many vets have gotten stuff like that- well actually mine said it was NOT a denial but blah blah and no grant of the claim-still Christmas Eve? The letter was dated Dec 6th I believe- and I get it weeks later? Any veteran who gets a lousy VA letter late on a Friday cannot contact the VA and sure cant contact their vet rep until Monday-there may be no connection whatsoever to the VA mailings and weekdays but still- I know many many vets who feel a sense of utter helplessness when these letters come too late to talk to anyone about them and their weekend is miserable- This isnt VA induced paranoia -years ago VA letters caused so much stress to vets due to so much legalize in them that they had to change the way they write them. Even the VCAA letters are supposed to be User friendly- however- they aren't sending these VCAA letters out- even the BVA has noted this in remands-a proper VCAA letter is supposed to help the veteran know what they need as evidence etc.(I think) I have 6 claims , 3 filed in 2003, and never got a single VCAA letter yet so I am guessing on that. Terry we had a US Dept of Labor case under the Vietnam Era Vets Rehabilitation Act in 1991. what a joke the DOL was - the investigator actually started to laugh while he told me of how upset vets get when they lose these cases. They had not supported a single case of discrimination here in NY under the vets laws and the VEVRA, 1974 as amended 38 USC 2012-2014. Rod filed abut 11 cases against a private federal contractor. When we won the case under the ADA (Rod filed and won first ADA vets case in NY) the DOL investigator was astonished-his docs were gotten under FOIA and I used them to help Rod win under EEOC-ADA. My point here is- vets have got to be taken seriously- The Vets Commission , after the PTSD crap went on, has opened the door for avenues of complaint by veterans. They get plenty of complaints from vet orgs , veterans, and many from civiliams like me as a VA claimant- instead of looking at vets I think they are seeing where the real problems lie-at the VAROs.

John is right- the NOD is the first avenue of attack- It should not be long- they wont read it all- get right to the point - I disagree with your (date) decision because- and state what evidence they failed to address etc- use the Denial letter as a reference -because they narrowed the denial down to specific Reasons and Bases- I had one sole reason that VA stated as a reason for a denial in 2005 decision.They cant change that statement. I had already combatted the statement a year prior with medical evidence,(which my vet reo said they have in the c file) which they refused to acknowledge in the denial.I brought this up and I again attached the specific evidence they wanted- which completely supported the claim and satisfied what they wanted in the first place. My point is they will deny based on lack of what they need to award.Also they will deny if they are not addressing your most pertinent evidence. Focus solely on those statements in the denial letter and tell them what evidence they have to give you the proper award.Evidence can be attached to an NOD. End the NOD by stating that "I fully intend to continue my appeal until the benefits I seek have been granted." In the first page of the I-9 (BVA) if your claim gets that far you will have opportunity to state all violations of 38 CFR they made. I posted here advise on an eye catching I-9 statement that all should use. You can state in the NOD specific violations-I did that too-but keep it brief so they read it all. A good NOD can sometimes turn a claim around and generate an award. NODS being worked on in Buffalo VARO are all over a year old.

I will attach it Jim- I think it is 17 pages-if you do a print out- Also it pays to have the blank DMII C & P: http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Benefits/exams/disexm13.htm This is the newest version- take note of the fact that this C & P can lead to others that pertain to any DMII complications- as listed in the C & P and training letter- such as Heart, HBP, skin problems, vision problems, etc- anything else that might be due to diabetes. DMII_VA_Training_Letter.doc

"The VA has no defence in a court of law." They said words almost exactly to that affect when I settled with them-for wrongful death- in a hidden memo-documented. Terry-your post here speaks volumes to the system- Take service disabled men and women, give them an extensive medical and legal criteria they have to fulfill, manipulate, and/or lose their evidence, give them C & Ps by their own VA doctors - a legal conflict concept there-dont let them hire attorneys as in a civil court, stave off proper decisions for years,add to their stress and financial problems-,then have Congress charter vet orgs to represent them, and allow them to hire SOs who dont have a clue, and there you have the VA claims process- Not for ALL but for SOME- We dont hear about the many vets who do get good decisions in a reasonable period of time. I know the VA is quite capable of doing claims right yet it does appear that some are targeted for the VA rigamorale-regardless of how good their evidence is- otherwise- if the evidence was lousy- they could not really fight back. I wonder if they get kicks out of the denial letters which come, late Friday afternoons or Sat- or on the eve of a Holiday and I also believe that some RO employees resent giving out awards of disability comp. The local vets community here used to say in the 1990s that 2 specific vet orgs were "in bed with" the VA. I think that bed sure has gotten even more crowded since.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp01/files03/0120695.txt I was searching for something else and read this- "Accordingly, the Board finds that the veteran knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally presented materially false and fraudulent statements to the VA in support of his claims for service connection compensation benefits, and due to such actions, he has forfeited his rights to VA benefits (aside from insurance benefits) under 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a). If the positive and negative evidence was in approximate equipoise, the law requires that the benefit sought be granted, as the veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(B); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2000). In this case, however, the positive and negative evidence is not in equipoise. Accordingly, the benefit of the doubt does not apply. ORDER Forfeiture was properly declared against the veteran pursuant to the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103. The appeal is denied." Somehow this veteran gave VA false information and statements that triggered them to investigate him.

I was confused too- you stated: "She also told him to put in a claim for heart disease as depression caused it." This is evidence of secondary service connection-but only if the doctor had a complete rationale for it, by experience. Depends on how the VA will view that statement and the doctor's expertise.

Chief- was the sleep apnea service connected as secondary to the asthma? If so that decision might be right- But what concerns me on many decisions is that the disablity could have increased since filing the initial claim- and depending on what med evidence VA has- they could award on a claim that is 2 years old but in those 2 years the disability could have increased and these additional treatment records or medication changes (that could have pronounced affect on you)have not been called to their attention. WHat I mean is say vet files PTSD claim in 2003. They award 30% in 2005. Say in 2004 he not only got changed to stronger PTSD meds, the meds affected his employability. Also he was in the inhouse PTSD program in 2004 and had also lost his job due to PTSD problems. Without a good SO or help from someone-a vet could assume that all of his updated med records follow his C file trail and that VA will award based on them all. Many records such as the PTSD program never go into the c file- even if the vet gets the 100% temp check- there is good chance that these actual records from the hosp as well as medication profile are not in the c file- and if they are- they have not been updated or referred to by the vet for a proper award. Looking at ones c file first is the best thing a vet can do when they file a claim. Or getting a copy of it- In your case -does the rating actually reflect your disability now or what it was when you filed the claim. We often have to tell them what is what like they are 10 years old. They are flipping through our med recs-mosh kosh (old Marine words meaning fast as can be) and it can help them and the vet tremendously to send them copies of highlighted and updated med recs and other things that support the claim.

You are right Moe- but this is a different matter- My AO claim is the first of its kind-per NVLSP. The veteran was proven as exposed to AO- that is not the issue- In January 3 authorizers got and signed off on something- dont know what- then a 800 vet rep in March told me my SMC CUE claim had been finished- he said the PC said that had been decided. Then I got a few letters from the VARO Manager as well as additional statements about the CUE (think it is the SMC CUE- I have 2 there and they didn't define which one-but the vet rep last month said the SMC CUE was done-) Meantime they tried to re-open something that would stave off a proper retro on the AO claim.I had to respond to that. I have had years of past personal experience with this VARO- many there remember that I sent them some of Rod's cremains in the mail in support of my past claims. I also filed a claim against the former VA Secretary (Jesse Brown)stating he contributed to murder of this veteran. I have been a thorn in their side for 20 years-I complained to the IG about them and jump right on any legal errors they make- (they have made plenty legal errors far and had to completely re-do a de novo review recently on my claims.) I have had success on all of my prior claims. Because the medical evidence completely proved them. When I finally got someone at VA to read (and find the lost evidence which was always in my c file-yet ignored )the claims succeeded on the medical evidence they had. That is the only thing one needs.Usually. My battles with them were solely to get them to read the evidence. I fully believe that the VA ,at some point assesses the monetray value of the claim and then they-in some cases not all- try to stave off the decision and the retro. Some of us claimants- for some reason- find that they put us into outright Battles- when all of these struggles could be alleviated if the VAROs gave literacy tests when they hire people.

"The degree of Doctor of Philosophy, a higher degree than an Honours or Masters degree, involving at least two and a half years of supervised research resulting in a thesis. PhD graduates may call themselves “Dr”." This is a Phd. If I stay at school beyond Masters, I will have a Phd and be called Doctor- An MD is a medical doctor- if they are a psychiatrist, they are an MD with expertise in the filed of psychiatry. A Psychiatrist out ranks a Phd Psychologist . I say if a psychologist (VA or private)gives you a proper opinion with full medical rationale ,that helps your claim and reflects the actual picture of your symtoms etc., that is what you should use to support your claim. If it is from a Psychiatrist (VA or private) it has more punch behind it. This shrink you mentioned sounds very biased against vets- I feel you would be better off getting a good IMO from a real MD-Psychiatrist- A real doc will give the MMPI, Weshler, the HAnd Test, Trails Mosing, etc etc- maybe 6 and maybe less tests that reflect -as well known acceptable evidence in the standard medical community- the actual proper diagnosis and extent of disability. Our VA had one of the best PTSD shrinks around- a psychiatrist- it took an act of Congress for him to take over my husband's VA shrink care- as my husband had been a former VA employee and they kept him with the VA employee shrink- who didnt have a clue as to PTSD- He gave a battery of tests to Rod and could assess the significant brain damage (from 1151 stroke) and separate that completely from his PTSD- 100%SC- as the psychiatrist determined-and when VA got this report (they 'lost' it for years-then refused to acknowledge )the veteran-already dead by then for three years, got 100% SC PTSD posthumous award. I say get a real doctor.and get an MD shrink.

http://www.vetscommission.org <http://www.vetscommission.org/> VETERANS' DISABILITY BENEFITS COMMISSION Public Meeting Notice & Agenda The Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission is hosting a town hall meeting open to the public on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, at the National Vietnam Veterans Art Museum, located at 1801 South Indiana Avenue, in Chicago (Map). The meeting will begin at 7:00 pm and end at 9:00 pm. Interested persons may attend the meeting to present oral statements to the Commission. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also provide written comments for review by the Commission at any time via e-mail to veterans@vetscommission.intranets.com or by mail to Ms. Jacqueline Garrick, Senior Policy Analyst, Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004. The purpose of the Commission is to carry out a study of the benefits under the laws of the United States that are provided to compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:00 pm Commission Town Hall Meeting 7:00 - 7:30 Briefing from the Commission 7:30 - 9:00 Open discussion for Public Comment The Commission members who will be participating in Chicago: Team Leader: Donald M. Cassiday, Col, USAF (Ret.) William M. Matz, Jr., MG, USA (Ret.) Rick Surratt (former USA) Commission staff: Ms. Jacqueline Garrick For additional information about the Commission, its charter, members, activities and research, please visit: http://www.vetscommission.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/ Change your email address when needed by signing in at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeteranIssues/ Forward to other veterans, tell them to Sign up at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeteranIssues/join

PS here's a start: http://www.va.gov/oig/cap/VAOIG-04-01822-45.pdf Dayton - Dec 2004 -Investigative report- there is probably more at the IG site there on Dayton too-

I suggest you write or email your Congresspersons and state Senators- they are easily reached on line. Hillary Clinton emailed me back personally-on a vet's matter I had. and my own Congressional offices here have been very instrumental in helping my husband in the past -regarding VA care- like calling the VAMC director when he was refused admission-that changed in less than 20 minutes after my Congressman's call to the Bath VAMC director. Also I suggest that you write to the Committee on Veterans Affairs and also to the VA Inspector General- ALL of the above have web sites and email and snail mail addys and phone numbers. Emails are good but hard copy letters are often better.Especially to the IG. I learned where all the pay phones were at our local VAMC and kept my Congressman's phone number in my purse. Last time I only needed to threaten a doctor I would call him and this is how my husband got an MRI and new diagnosis- and was transported to a better VAMC. They jump when pushed. Check out the IG web site too: this VAMC might have already been or is process of- being investigated. Check out # 51 - at the bottom of their home page-http://www.va.gov/oig/ and also their press releases. It is pretty revealing- then again many of us already know all about the dark side of VA care.

I agree with John- normal VA SOP on this- you have 60 days to respond to the denial of the CUE.and you can appeal it- just like any other claim. I felt your CUE was excellent- I would fight them on it-but the C & P refusal-they will probably hold against you- I would send them a formal filled out TDIU form-if I were you- (attached) add a copy of any SSA wage statements you have, and tell them of any evidence ,from any doctor, or if VocRehab turned you down-that states that you are unemployable-due to your service conncted disabilties- if you have that evidence to copy and send at this time. Tell them (Under Remarks you can refer to additional attched statements) the side affects of any SC meds you take that hinder your ability to work. There are numerous suggests at hadit as to TDIU claims. If a veteran's service connected disability prevents them from being substantially employed ,by medical evidence, they can succeed on a TDIU claim. I dont trust them to open this claim for you- the way they stated it there- the EED of a TDIU claim is usually the date of the formal 21-8940 (attached) if they did not send you the actual form with this letter-they are hoping you dont find out that the formal form must be filed before they can award.They could then possibly save money on your EED. They sent me a letter a few weeks ago suggesting they want to re-open an old CUE claim I had regarding my husband's heart disease-and my direct SC death claim- it was a very interesting ploy! My local vet rep actually got it too-they are slick-and have assessed the monetary value of my claims. If they re-open and award that CUE , they would not owe me the 11 years plus DIC retro on the AO claim. 1151 DIC is NOT the same benefit as AO DIC-not a duplication- They would owe me some money on this CUE (which is supported by medical evidence today as it was when I first filed it)-but not at all close what I intend to get under direct AO death. So- I suggest that although it appears they are appraoching you with a TDIU'deal' that may or may not be granted-cover all bases now and file the formal TDIU claim if they 'forgot' somehow to send it to you. TDIU_form.pdf

If you can read this -you are here click on New topic and then post yur question

Moe- dont know who asked -maybe you? The 2006 BVA decisions- click on the 2003 thing on left , then under the BVA search engine click on and open the Years box. 2006 decisions are right at the top- click on that 2006 and they will pop up.