Berta

I hope it doesn't get worse- I am having two separate projects done on my home and the weather made that impossible for weeks-only one got partially done- so I went to the closest food mart today and stopped by at the closest dollar store as well (here in the rural areas of NY we are expected to provide lunch for construction workers, unless they prefer to bring their lunch so I needed to stock up myself to handle that. The local deli 10 miles away closed due to the COVID and there is no place to get food around here else one travels many miles. I hope we dont go into another national Stay at Home situation because the effect of that has been tremendous on the VA as well as on everyone else. But this is NY state and we were hit hard by COVID so what ever the Governor decides -we must abide by. Only 42% of our county has even been vaccinated. and it looked- in both places that people were definitely storing up- I guess . many here in NY expect another Stay at home mandate.

VA mandates COVID-19 vaccines among its medical employees including VHA facilities staff Immediate press release minutes ago.

Please continue to pray for Buck's wife and for Buck too----- He has not updated this post above ,here, as far as I know, and she is facing the surgery this week.(Tuesday). Like any loving spouse he is very concerned about her and many of us here know the anxiety and fear that comes to a family dealing with so much. We feel helpless but God will give us strength. I know he appreciates all of the prayers so many members here have shown him. God hears every prayer ! THANK YOU!

Thank you for that Important info- Here in NY the Stay at home started on March 26th 2020 I believe , and is starting to lift but then again there are many unvaccinated people in my county-still getting COVID, per County Health web site ( only 43% who should, have been vaccinated)and I am sure that the local Vet reps had a hard time even filing claims because of the virus. Many of us could not get an appointment until March and April 2021 to get the vaccine. Us seniors found it stressful to even go to a food market and my two annual DR. appointment were changed. I wish I knew this info sooner----thank you very much.

Yes, this is Very Good News and prayers ,in my opinion, can do wonders! Try to eat right and get enough sleep Buck-you need to take care of yourself,too.

I periodically check the BVA for any successful CUE awards there-the BVA from 2020 up to mid 2021 has decided 4,373 CUE claims. Here are some winners I did not post here before. 1. "the Board finds that revision based on CUE is warranted and entitlement to an earlier effective date is warranted." ( retro from August 2008 back to November 1990 ) https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files5/a21009922.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. ORDER The Veteran's October 2000 notice of disagreement (NOD) was neither timely nor valid as to a December 2000 rating decision that reduced the evaluation for low back strain with degenerative changes and limitation of motion from 60 to 20 percent. The Board finds clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the December 2000 rating decision that reduced the Veteran's evaluation for low back strain with degenerative changes and limitation of motion from 60 percent to 20 percent from March 1, 2001; the December 2000 rating decision is revised, resulting in restoration of the 60 percent disability rating under then-existing diagnostic code 5293 from March 1, 2001. https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files5/a21008740.txt 3) ORDER "Due to a clear and unmistakable error (CUE), the June 17, 1986, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is revised to reflect that the termination of the Veteran's permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes was not proper. " Applying these facts to the standard of revision or reversal of a Board decision on the basis of CUE, the Board finds that revision of the June 1986 Board decision is warranted. It is undebatable that that decision erred in failing to apply 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a). The Board now finds that all of the evidence of record at the time of the June 1986 Board decision did not clearly demonstrate a sustained improvement in the Veteran's psychological functioning. As such, had the Board correctly applied the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a), it would have determined that the termination of the Veteran's permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes was not proper (i.e. a manifestly different outcome). Each of the Damrel elements is therefore satisfied. The June 1986 Board decision is therefore revised to reflect that the termination of the Veteran's permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes was not proper. The CUE motion is granted." ( This was a Motion to Revise a BVA decision ) ----------------------------------- 4) https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files5/21030629.txt "In sum, the RO reduced the Veteran's rating based on medical information that did not clearly show that any improvement observed at the time would result in the improvement in his ability to function under ordinary conditions. The burden is on VA to show that a rating reduction is warranted, and, as set forth above, VA has failed to meet this burden. As such, the 20 percent ratings for the right and left knee disabilities under diagnostic code 5010-5260 must be restored from August 1, 2016. See Dofflemeyer, 2 Vet. App. at 277 (holding that where VA has reduced a veteran's disability rating without observing the applicable law and regulations, such a rating is void ab initio and restoration is required)." This was an unusual added statement by the BVA to this decision) "The Board apologies to the Veteran regarding the perplexity in this case." This reveals that CUE claims can succeed but the denials of CUE at the BVA are very important to understand because they show exactly why the CUE claim failed and often they dismiss without prejudice ( meaning if the veteran properly prepares the CUE and cites the exact regulations the VA broke, and how the VA broke the regulation, then that new CUE should be filed. Nothing is impossible!

Yes it is correct-no time limit on CUE claims....we have had some winners here. And I was very successful in filing CUE on decisions that were only a day old- I wrote to former Secretary Shulkin about that and he implimented new regulations for CUE that can be filed within the appeal period. He also used my suggestions that led to the HLR aspect we have today- whereby a HLR is trained to seek CUE in any decision the claimant has filed HLR on. They (HRLs)have definitely caught VARO CUEs in that process, per what vets have posted here.

Thanks Broncovet- My husband's proposed reduction letter came on Dec 24th, 1988 and the VA has changed a lot since-because it seemed he only had the NOD option from the letter. Maybe I raised CUE in it but I dont think so-and AMVETS never advised him not to file a NOD. They did nothing for him. The reduction was obviously absurd . Part of my NOD was funny- They said he had been in Voc Rehab and this is one reason why they reduced. I made the point that he had only been in Voc Rehab for one semester, had to get accomodations for his PTSD , and also needed a tutor, and that being in Voc rehab for one month did not and can not turn any disabled veteran into a Rocket Scientist. The other point was that they said he had gained a substantial job at the VAMC. I reminded them of his past employments they were well aware of and that he only got this Part time VA job, because I told the Director ( I gave his name and phone # )that I would help him file an EEOC case against them if he left the VAMC that day without a VA job.) There was rampant nepotism at this VA and he had excellent EEOC basis-more to it, but in no way did a part time VA job come near to his former occupations- Nuke and PHVAC operator. Their personnel director was fired ( or maybe just moved somewhere else-) OPM had stated he was fully qualified for a Full time Firemen's position there. He never got an interview because the fire depart hired another relative of the Fire Dept's Boss. instead and the personnel director shouted across a full room of people to us at HR that OPM said he was not qualified for that position- I held up the same OPM statement she held up and said I think the director of this facility needs to know you cannot read! No wonder they dropped the proposed reduction on the NOD- I knew he had a STRONG EEOC case -so did the Director. Nepotism and also NSC Domiciliary vets were running this VAMC. Some were in the onsite PTSD therapy group-their main social worker said my husband was not eligible to be in that group- because he was a service connected combat veteran.?????? He was not a drinker and I think that is why they would not let him into the PTSD group.

Yes, that is 100% correct!!!!!!!! the VA MUST have clear and unmistakable evidence that any pre existing disability was not aggravated by service. https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files5/a21009686.txt ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a depressive disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An acquired psychiatric disability was not noted upon the Veteran's entry into military service; an October 2008 record showed a normal psychiatric evaluation. 2. The evidence shows, clearly and unmistakably, that an acquired psychiatric disorder preexisted the Veteran's period of service in 2010. 3. The evidence does not show, clearly and unmistakably, that an acquired psychiatric disord CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, PTSD and a depressive disorder NOS was aggravated by his active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

This issue came up here recently and I prepared this article on the subject. As I write this there have been 17,555 decisions at the BVA on proposed reductions, since 1992. We have no idea how many other proposed reductions were rectified at the VARO level, and never got to the BVA -my husband's was one of them-and the NOD was scathing and I used the regs they used AGAINST THEM, and they changed their tune and we dont know how many proposed reductions were never appealed by the veteran. They accepted what the VA said and probably could have gotten the reduction restored. The Worse thing any veteran can do is to ACCEPT a proposed reduction without trying to appeal it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2,268 BVA decisions appear from 2020 to 2021 so far on this difficult ad even horrifying aspect of the VA claims process. ORDER The reduction of the rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from 50 percent to noncompensable, effective February 1, 2019, was proper. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A September 2015 rating decision granted service connection and assigned a 50 percent rating for the Veteran’s PTSD from August 21, 2014, the date of receipt of his claim for service connection; the rating decision and a September 2015 notification of the rating decision informed the Veteran that since there was likelihood of improvement, the assigned evaluation was not considered permanent and was subject to a future review examination. 2. The Veteran failed to report for an October 2019 VA PTSD examination; he did not provide good cause for missing this examination. 3. An October 2019 rating decision proposed reducing the Veteran’s PTSD evaluation from 50 percent to noncompensable, and an October 2019 notice of the proposed reduction advised the Veteran he had 60 days to indicate his willingness to report for an examination or to submit new evidence showing the proposed action should not be taken. 4. A February 2020 rating decision reduced the Veteran’s PTSD evaluation from 50 percent to noncompensable, effective February 1, 2020, after meeting all due process requirements in executing such a reduction. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The reduction of the disability rating from 50 percent to noncompensable for PTSD, effective February 1, 2020, was proper. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.655. https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files2/a21004495.txt These claims warranted a successful restoration of the veteran's percentage:. https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files6/20038667.txt https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/a20008653.txt In this case: "In August 2019, a VA RO proposed to reduce the disability rating of the Veteran’s service-connected left lower peripheral neuropathy from 40 percent to 20 percent. In September 2019, the Veteran requested a predetermination hearing to address the proposed reduction. The evidence of record demonstrates that a predetermination hearing was not held prior to the rating reduction being effectuated in a December 2019 rating decision. " "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The reduction in the rating of the Veteran’s right lower peripheral neuropathy disability from 40 to 20 percent disabling, effective March 1, 2020, was improper. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.344. 2. The reduction in the rating of the Veteran’s left lower peripheral neuropathy disability from 40 to 20 percent disabling, effective March 1, 2020, was improper. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.344. 3. The reduction in the rating of the Veteran’s femoral nerve peripheral neuropathy disability of his left lower extremity from 10 percent to noncompensable, effective March 1, 2020, was improper. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.344. 4. The reduction in the rating of the Veteran’s femoral nerve peripheral neuropathy disability of his right lower extremity from 10 percent to noncompensable, effective March 1, 2020, was improper. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.344." 2. After completing the requested actions, and any additional development deemed warranted, readjudicate the issues of entitlement to disability ratings greater than 40 percent for the service-connected right and left lower diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Allow the Veteran and his representative time to respond before returning this issue to the Board, if any portion remains denied." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/a20005778.txt "ORDER The reduction to 70 percent being improper, restoration of a 100 percent rating for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), effective January 1, 2018, is granted. "FINDING OF FACT The notification of the proposed reduction was improper because it relied on a single examination without comparing it to the most recent prior examination and without reference to or compliance with the procedural requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.343(a). " Thus, the Board finds that the AOJ relied on a single examination without comparing it to the most recent prior examination and without reference to or compliance with the procedural requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.343(a). Moreover, the record does not illustrate clear error in the assignment of a 100 percent rating. Accordingly, this procedural error renders the rating reduction void ab initio. See Greyzck v. West, 12 Vet. App. 288, 292 (1999); Wilson v. West, 11 Vet. App. 383, 386-87 (1998). Therefore, restoration of the 100 percent disability rating for PTSD as of January 1, 2018, is warranted." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/20034828.txt All of these are painful to read but the reductions due to missing a C & P exam are proper.This case has some good CAVC citations for anyone with PTSD who the VA pulls this BS on. ORDER As the reduction of the Veteran’s disability rating for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with alcohol use disorder, from 100 percent to 70 percent, effective November 1, 2017, was not proper, restoration of the 100 percent rating is granted. Special monthly compensation (SMC), pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s), is granted effective November 1, 2017, subject to controlling regulations governing the payment of monetary awards. "FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notification of the proposed reduction was improper because it relied on a single examination without comparing it to the most recent prior examination and without reference to or compliance with the procedural requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.343(a). 2. As of November 1, 2017, the Veteran has one service-connected disability rated as 100 percent disabling with other service-connected disabilities independently resulting in a at least a combined 60 percent rating." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files7/20044483.txt ( another case whereby the VA did not follow the regulations- can you imagine how stressful those reductions were to the veteran with PTSD? "ORDER The reduction in the disability rating for the Veteran's service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder with major depressive disorder (hereinafter "PTSD") from 100 percent to 70 percent, effective December 1, 2019, is void; restoration of the 100 percent disability rating is granted. "Under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders, a 100 percent disability rating is warranted for total occupational and social impairment due to such symptoms as persistent danger of hurting self or others. Based on the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms during the August 2019 VA PTSD examination, and after resolution of all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds that there was no actual improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work. This is because the evidence available at the time the RO proposed reducing the disability rating demonstrates a level of impairment consistent with the previously assigned 100 percent disability rating. For these reasons, the Board finds that the RO did not properly apply the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 in the September 2019 rating decision. As noted previously, when a RO makes a rating reduction without following the applicable regulations, the reduction is void ab initio. Greyzck, 12 Vet. App. at 292. Thus, the appropriate remedy in this case is a restoration of the 100 percent disability rating for PTSD effective on the date of the reduction, December 1, 2019. See Hayes v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 67, 73 (improper reduction reinstated effective date of reduction). The appeal is therefore granted." https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files5/a21009918.txt This is 38 CFR 3.344 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344 The worse thing any veteran can do is Accept a proposed reduction. There are excellent articles from Vet attorneys on how to combat a proposed reduction: https://www.veteranslawblog.org/va-benefits-reduction/#:~:text=When the VA decides to,a temporary retreat of symptoms. ( Chris Attig) https://www.hillandponton.com/can-i-stop-va-rating-reductions-on-my-disability/ ( Matt Hill) https://cck-law.com/blog/what-happens-when-va-proposes-to-reduce-my-disability-rating/ (CCK) and M21-1MR ,Part III, subpart iv, Chapter 8, Section D Manyof the decisions restoring the veterans proper comp $ use the term Void Ab Initio: "VOID AB INITIO THELAW.COM LAW DICTIONARY & BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 2ND ED. Latin, void from the beginning. Never legitimate or valid" In essence meaning the VARO f---ed up royally. Thereis no other way to describe their ineptitude sometimes. The NOD I prepared for my husband, when they tried to lower his PTSD from 30 to 10% was a beauty. After he died I was able to get his PTSD % up to 100% P & T, with an EED three years after their ridiculous proposed reduction crap. He was so angry and upset he could not handle the NOD so I wrote it for him. Then he calmed down and said maybe the VA is right.....??? I laughed and said they are usually never right when they pull this crap. After he read and signed the NOD and read the regulations he was mad as Hell again-because their reason for reduction was ABSURD! They changed their tune and dropped the proposal due to the NOD. But I will repeat this again fast because ( we are under a tornado warning----) A veteran who gets a proposed reduction must act fast to combat it. VA could have easily broken the regulations as they did in some of the above cases. Or they can choose to do nothing. Some of the reductions above were proper, some were far from proper and legal. And the restored ones are heartbreaking to see how a legitimate deserving veteran was treated so negligently by the VA claims process.

Thanks for posting that- storm here- I cant get good access- OK the CAVC has made an order -GOOD_ Have you heard from any lawyers yet? Maybe these days if they see Mandamus they dont contact the claimant- I heard from by mail or phone, email 12 vet lawyers ,but they didnt want to take a Mandamus petition-and I really did not prepare it correctly anyhow- but when the RO in Buffalo got a copy, they took their thumbs out of their butts- and I got an award. If not I suggest you contact a lawyer. If I had a lawyer years ago the VARO ( Buffalo) would not have given me so much crap- Instead I chose to continue to give them evidence ( much sent in many many times, until I got an adjudicator who was Literate. So you DID get a legal letter. You could have covered the info you didnt want us to see- I cant handle any more of this issue

I assume you still deal with the Buffalo VARO- I have had multiple problems with them , for every claim I ever had. I will post their contact info

You asked: "The fight continues lol I would really like to see if anyone else has received a va letter with no va letter head on it tell you to appeal?" That is highly unusual Mr. CUE. I assume your Petition for Mandamus was received by both the US CAVC and the RO. It is not on their docket yet- only one mandamus petition , denied, and not at all regarding you or your issues. They update the site orders every day "Decisions shown were issued during the last 3 days. Data updated nightly." http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/index.php?fullsite=yes There also is a alert doo dad for system maintenance at the CAVC . Your petition has not been posted yet- but have you received any info at all from CAVC that they have received it? None if this is making sense to me. USCAVC Home page has this contact # "Call (202) 501-5970 and follow the auto-attendant prompts." http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/contact.php I dont get it- I think you should contact a lawyer- it is Highly unusual to get a letter from the VA that is not on a VA letterhead. Can you scan and attach here the first page of that letter? The page that should have their letterhead... I assume your C file #,Name, address is on it so please cover that info prior to scanning it.

That is wonderful News!!!!! Yes, CUE could alter the reduction period, and then 3.156(C) could kick in ,based on the BVA decision you quoted here. I am unaware of any special division at the ROs that handles this type of CUE- but then again, your lawyer seems very much willing to help you and get everything fixed. I also feel many proposals of reduction are never aggressively fought by the claimant. My husband got a proposal to reduce his 30% SC for PTSD on Christmas Eve 1988, to 10%. I prepared his NOD and used the same regulations VA used to reduce, to support how inaccurate and deficient their proposal was. AMVETS was his POA and called here ( he was at work at the local VAMC) and they told me the VA had restored his 30% entitlement. He also asked me who prepared the NOD and I said I helped him with that , and wrote a scathing NOD because their proposal was not based on any logical evidence at all- I already posted here years ago what they had based it on- it was Ridiculous!!!! So back to 30% SC 1989, then after he died, with two claims pending -one for higher rating of his PTSD, I got that up to 100% P & T back to November 1991 as an accrued benefit, and I also succeeded in his 1151 claim being awarded. Both awarded after 3-4years at the RO level. The worse thing any veteran can do is to accept a proposed reduction. Nothing is Impossible- but in your case it will take a lawyer to handle this. Three years after the proposed reduction his PTSD got much worse-that was part of his 1151 malpractice claim. I began to fight aggressively at the local VAMC for the real PTSD shrink-he had become violent -and they still had him seeing the employee shrink, who didn't have a clue on PTSD. It was the VA PTSD shrink and two VA hospitalizations, and multiple psychiatric tests, and hypnosis, etc etc, that proved his PTSD was ,at that point, "catastrophic" per the medical records. That was part of his I am so glad they are willing to help you! Many lawyers dont want to deal with CUE scenarios- but you lawyer saw the potential right away!!!!!!!!

You did not identify what claim your questions were about-in this recent thread. In this past thread you were claiming OCD to be secondary to your SC PTSD OCD claim - VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Research Forum - VA Disability Compensation Benefits Forums - HadIt.com Veterans I went with that-it took time to find the BVA cases I posted and then realized there were other issues as well-you have asked us about here. Please disregard my comments and suggestions on the PTSD OCD claim, ( the BVA decisions might help someone else) and I think I gave you advice already on the pes planus claim. When someone comes here with valid questions and they might well have told us before here about their issues, it helps a lot to tell us exactly what issue they are asking questions about. I might be a "Godsend" and many here are certainly 'Godsends' too but I do not have a crystal ball. I gave this thread my best shot because I thought it regarded the PTSD OCD claim. Others will help you. My past advice on the Flat feet ( pes planus) claim was solid.Custom Orthos as I have and as you said you need as well, prove this is a ratable disability (which gets worse in time) and thousands of vets have been able to service connect their flat feet to their military service, as well as have that as a factor in TDIU claims. (Edited at add- Flat feet ratings are in this BVA decision: https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files9/20059661.txt

I was wrong about the BVA remand https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files8/20053571.txt. Some of your past posts are confusing to me- and regard other issues- https://community.hadit.com/topic/73405-appeal-granted-and-closed/page/2/ https://community.hadit.com/topic/73267-time-for-cp-examiner-to-send-results/ but then again the issue you have now seems to depend on whether you would meet the TDIU criteria if you are unemployed, or perhaps you meet the criteria for 100% schedular. Your VSO seems very willing to help you- and he/she knows far more about your PTSD/OCD claim than we can know, in the limits of the internet. It has not been denied yet and I assue they will give you C & P exam at some point for this new claim.

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files3/21011177.txt "ORDER A rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is granted." The decision explains why the rating is not higher than 70%. ------------------ https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024814.txt "ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is granted from August 2, 2018." (this is why I asked if you applied for TDIU) In part the above decisions states: "The Board emphasizes that the determination of whether a veteran is unable to secure of follow a substantially gainful occupation due to service-connected disabilities is a factual rather than a medical question. Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Given the August 2018 VA examiner’s favorable findings, coupled with the Veteran’s competent and credible reports, as well as her level of education and occupational background, the Board finds that she is unable to secure or maintain a substantially gainful occupation due to her PTSD with OCD. Accordingly, a TDIU is established from August 2, 2018." This case cites Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013) You can google it but I do not think it will help you- the BVA articulated clearly why this veteran was denied PTSD rating increase but was awarded, instead, TDIU. Is this the remand,if you did have a BVA remand? https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files8/20053571.txt

A rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is granted." The decision explains why the rating is not higher than 70%. ------------------ https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024814.txt "ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is granted from August 2, 2018." (this is why I asked if you applied for TDIU) In part the above decisions states: "The Board emphasizes that the determination of whether a veteran is unable to secure of follow a substantially gainful occupation due to service-connected disabilities is a factual rather than a medical question. Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Given the August 2018 VA examiner’s favorable findings, coupled with the Veteran’s competent and credible reports, as well as her level of education and occupational background, the Board finds that she is unable to secure or maintain a substantially gainful occupation due to her PTSD with OCD. Accordingly, a TDIU is established from August 2, 2018." This case cites Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Is this your BVA remand,if you did have a remand? https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files8/20053571.txt

I will try to read your past posts-but I think you are trying to get a higher rating for PTSD, due to OCD, caused by or aggravated by your SC PTSD. Was the claim filed for higher PTSD rating or for TDIU? Was this anything to do with a remand from the BVA in 2018? ( I thought I caught that under a search here from one of your posts.) Or is this a new claim? If so, can you give us the Docket # and Citation # ? You stated : "Question about nexus letter. I had 2 doctors provide nexus letters to support my claim." If they are Phycologists or psychiatrists, then, if they followed the IMO/IME criteria here at hadit, their opinions should be properly considered, along with any C & P examiner's opinion. "I made sure to read the help guides and have a better understanding of what is required as in the verbiage and what nots. I read some articles and wanted to include to support my claim. My VSO said if it comes back as denied he can supply case file to support my claim. You can review past cases etc. " Yes, anyone can find VA case law on the net . I review past VA cases all the time at the BVA web site. However they do not hold up well to support most VA claims, as evidence- because those decisions are unique to the specific claimant. Perhaps your VSO meant the US CAVC cases. If they are of a Precedential nature, they could be used in support of a claim - depending on the USCAVC decision. Then again BVA cases reference many long standing CAVC decisions, and excerpts from 38 USC / CFR so maybe the VSO meant that- "I also add medical references from Pubmed or medical journals on your own to support the claim? I have 2 nexus letters and I included a reference page with medical journal information. The doctor didn’t quote medical journal but mentioned my specific issues. Will providing this help? " Possibly- but it so much better for a IMO/IME doctor to add their own citations of medical abstracts, publications etc, that would support the claim. There are plenty of articles on the net that show the medical nexus between PTSD and OCD such as: ????? (I got this error message "The link could not be embedded because of an unexpected error: error: "Something went wrong. Please try again.". Oh good , it posted here---- https://www.verywellmind.com/trauma-ptsd-and-ocd-2797516 If you google PTSD and OCD a lot of medical abstracts, articles ,etc will pop up. It is far better to have a IMO/IME doctor use their own references however, because they will have the most recent studies, abstracts etc on what would support the claim.

Just to add - I found one award to a Operation Tomadachi veteran at the BVA and one on remand - a Fukushima veteran. We never know when this subject regarding veterans who were exposed to ionizing radiation at these terrible nuclear incidents, will turn up here. In part: "In August 2020, a private physician who reviewed the Veteran’s records opined that the Veteran's diagnosis of renal cancer is at least as likely as not secondary to ionizing radiation. He noted that the Veteran was exposed to it in March 2011 from a nuclear power plant meltdown in Operation Tomodachi and was diagnosed with kidney cancer in August 2015. An X-ray and CT scan were completed and a tumor the size of a racquetball was located in the left kidney. He stated that RCC is the most common type of kidney cancer in adults and it can be caused by several environmental and genetic factors. These include smoking, sustained misuse of over-the-counter NSAIDS, and occupational exposure to certain chemicals, and radiation. Strong evidence has been recorded of a possible connection between kidney cancer and exposure to ionizing radiation. This evidence is based upon studies conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory, studies of nuclear workers on other sites, and others exposed to ionizing radiation. These findings are consistent with the National Research Council's determination that radiation can cause cancer of the kidneys and other urinary organs. There are select studies that show a strong nexus of RCC to ionizing radiation. After referring to specific studies, the physician that that it is cumulatively understood from these studies that the organ that is most sensitive to chemical effects from ionizing exposure is the kidney. The Veteran had no signs of ionizing radiation, immediately, from his exposure in 2011. There were no other apparent risk factors that explain the onset at such a young age." "The low dose estimates from the DoD and the assessment that these estimates are well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions is probative evidence against the claim. The private medical opinion is probative and favorable to the claim. In light of the favorable opinion and the fact that a rather large tumor was discovered within close proximity to the presumptive periods for chronic diseases and radiogenic diseases, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise concerning the etiology of the Veteran’s kidney cancer. Under the circumstances, the Veteran is afforded the benefit-of-the doubt. Thus, the claim for service connection is granted." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files12/20080528.txt "In support of his claim, he has submitted medical evidence which confirms treatment for both thyroid cancer and colon cancer. In February 1998, he testified before the undersigned that his radiation exposure occurred while stationed in Japan. Specifically, he spent a year and a half in Fukushima which was a city located approximately 50 miles south to southeast of Nagasaki, and he made recreational trips to Nagasaki during off- duty hours. He served as a radar operator. He was issued a dosimetry badge at Itazuka Air Force Base which he wore for his entire tour of duty in Japan, but he was never informed of the dosimetry findings." Remanded https://www.va.gov/vetapp99/files2/9917075.txt I have been interested in "The China Syndrome" stuff since the Three Mile Island nuclear accident .The Movie had come out shortly before the accident in Pennsylvania.My husband had been married to someone else at that time and I didnt know him. He said he was forced to stay on call at JCP&L where he was a nuclear power plant equipment operator- for many weeks but they never called him to three Mile Island, Thank God I also found an award for a female veteran who had been involved with severe X ray exposure while working with a military dentist.

I feel FAT had the best solution- to get an independent Medical opinion which would probably involve an independent exam from migraine, or neuro specialist. This is very odd: "Short-termfollow-up with contrast-enhanced MRI is recommended." (Did you get the follow up contrast enhanced MRI MRI?) "Primary Diagnostic Code: Significant Abnormality; Attention Needed" An independent doctor would surely be able to define what the significant abnormality is. There is info here in our IMO/IME forum on how the opinion should be prepared- The IMO/IME doctor needs all available medical records ( inservice SMRs and VA and any private medical records) and needs to state that they have read them and give a full rationale as to why it is "as likely as not" the PTSD ( or any of the other SCs) have caused the migraine condition as secondary. Have you gone over your meds to see if any of them for any SC condition you have could cause migraines? Also there is some association medically between migraines and cervical radiculopathy but it ems they never service connected the cervical radiculopathy. Headache in patients with cervical radiculopathy: a prospective study with selective nerve root blocks in 275 patients - PubMed (nih.gov) https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files2/19112387.txt https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files11/20075996.txt https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files2/a21002958.txt These links above are 3 grants of Migraines as secondary to PTSD- There are many denials at the BVA as well. But this search feature might help you-find reasons for denials as well as reasons for awards. https://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva_search.jsp?QT=migraines+secondary&EW=PTSD&DB=2019&DB=2020&DB=2021&RS=11

I wonder if the VA will ever add the Fukushima incident U.S. Armed Forces Sickened After Fukushima Meltdown Get Help From Online Fundraising | HuffPost and the Tomodachi incident involving US troops, ad well as the Fukushima incident Operation Tomodachi - Wikipedia will VA ever add them to their Radiation Risk Activity list...........

The response sure indicates to me that this lawyer is on the ball---- I hope they can represent you!!!!!

There are a significant amount off rdiation claims at the BVA but many mny o them were denied. Here are two winners: This recent award was to a female veteran who Stated: "At the October 2019 hearing, the Veteran reiterated the circumstances that she believed included exposure to radiation from Chernobyl radiation while stationed overseas in Germany." :Accordingly, the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current breast and thyroid cancers originated during her active service. The benefit of the doubt is resolved in the Veteran's favor; service connection for breast and thyroid cancer are warranted. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102." https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files5/21029208.txt This vet was exposed to Ionizing radiation : " The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) and military personnel records have been associated with the claims file. The Veteran's personnel records show that in February 12, 1960 he was assigned to Camp Hanford for "AIT" or Advanced Individual Training. This training lasted 1 month. These records also show that in March 1960 he was assigned a new duty, reflecting a change in rank after completion of AIT, at Hanford Camp. This new assignment lasted 8 months. See Record of Assignments, contained in the Military Personnel Record, associated with the claims file in July 2014. Thus, the Veteran's military personnel records show that the Veteran was at Hanford for 9 months, from February 12, 1960 until November 28, 1960. In other words, the Veteran was stationed at Hanford for more than 250 days. Additionally, the Veteran's cancer, characterized a pharyngeal cancer, is one of the cancers considered in the regulation. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran participated in a radiation-risk activity pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(d)(3)(ii)(E) due to his service at the Hanford site in Washington lasting more than 250 days and his pharyngeal cancer diagnosis. Thus, as the Veteran has been found to have participated of a "radiation-risk activity"; he is to be considered a "radiation-exposed" Veteran and his pharyngeal cancer is subject to presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(d). Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, service connection for pharyngeal cancer, to include associated residuals, on a presumptive basis is warranted, as the Veteran has been found to have participated of a radiation risk activity during service pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(d)(3)(ii)(E). In reaching this determination, the Board has made no finding as to the current severity of the Veteran's cancer or any associated residual. However, the Board notes that the evidence of record suggests the Veteran has scars pertaining to the surgical interventions for his cancer, difficulty talking due to his surgeries, has experienced disruptions with feeding and has received his nutrition through a feeding tube due to his cancer residuals." https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files5/21029000.txt These claims are very difficult to succeed in. I Here is more info from VA https://www.va.gov/disability/eligibility/hazardous-materials-exposure/ionizing-radiation/

WOW!!!!!! we dont see much radiation exposure claims here: Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think sometimes neither the veteran nor their rep,if they are having a hard time getting comp , specfically for a cancer service nexus ,-have any idea that the VA does have Radiation ( a.k.a Atomic vets presumptive regulations. This is Great Broken Soldier. I will find some BVA cases and post here= there are many types of inservice exposed to radiation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.309 "(d) Diseases specific to radiation-exposed veterans. (1) The diseases listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section shall be service-connected if they become manifest in a radiation-exposed veteran as defined in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, provided the rebuttable presumption provisions of § 3.307 of this part are also satisfied. (2) The diseases referred to in paragraph (d)(1) of this section are the following: (i) Leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia). (ii) Cancer of the thyroid. (iii) Cancer of the breast. (iv) Cancer of the pharynx. (v) Cancer of the esophagus. (vi) Cancer of the stomach. (vii) Cancer of the small intestine. (viii) Cancer of the pancreas. (ix) Multiple myeloma. (x) Lymphomas (except Hodgkin's disease). (xi) Cancer of the bile ducts. (xii) Cancer of the gall bladder. (xiii) Primary liver cancer (except if cirrhosis or hepatitis B is indicated). (xiv) Cancer of the salivary gland. (xv) Cancer of the urinary tract. (xvi) Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma. (xvii) Cancer of the bone. (xviii) Cancer of the brain. (xix) Cancer of the colon. (xx) Cancer of the lung. (xxi) Cancer of the ovary. Note: For the purposes of this section, the term “urinary tract” means the kidneys, renal pelves, ureters, urinary bladder, and urethra. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1112(c)(2))"