HadIt.com Elder Josephine Posted September 28, 2007 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted September 28, 2007 Citation Nr: 0514903 Decision Date: 06/02/05 Archive Date: 06/15/05 DOCKET NO. 03-32 077A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia THE ISSUE Entitlement to an effective date prior to April 11, 1995, for the grant of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Julie M. Clifford, Attorney ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. L. Wight, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1943 to January 1946. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a November 2001 rating decision rendered by the Roanoke, Virginia, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The RO received the veteran's original claim for service connection for PTSD on April 1, 1986. 2. The Board issued a decision denying service connection for PTSD in February 1990 and a decision in November 1994 holding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claim for service connection. 3. Thereafter, new and material evidence, including service department records, was received and the reopened claim was granted. 4. The veteran had PTSD due to service stressors when his original claim for service connection for this disability was received. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date of April 1, 1986, for the award of service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156©, 3.400 (q)(2) (2004); Spencer v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 283, 293 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 The Board notes that VA's General Counsel has held that the notification requirements of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) are not applicable to appeals such as the current one involving a notice of disagreement with the effective date of an award of service connection. See VAOPGCPREC 8-2003 (Dec. 22, 2003). This precedent opinion by the VA General Counsel is legally binding upon the Board. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104© (West 2002). In any event, the Board notes that the veteran was provided with VCAA notice in a letter mailed in January 2004. It is apparent from the argument submitted by the veteran's attorney that she is well aware of what is required to substantiate the claim and that there is no outstanding evidence to substantiate the claim. She essentially argues that the grant of service connection should be effective from the date of receipt of the veteran's original claim. As explained below, the Board agrees. Although the attorney identifies the date of receipt of the original claim as March 28, 1986, the statement of the veteran's then representative, which the attorney identifies as the original claim, is dated March 28, 1986, but was not received by VA until April 1, 1986. Thus, although it can not be said that the pertinent facts are not in dispute, it is clear that no further development of the record is required to determine when the original claim was received. Analysis Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after a final adjudication, or a claim for increase, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefore. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2004). When there is a final denial of a claim, and new and material evidence consisting of service department records is subsequently received, the effective date of the award of compensation is to agree with the evaluation (since it is considered these records were lost or mislaid) or the date or receipt of the claim on which the prior evaluation was made, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(1)(ii) (2004). The U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has noted that VA has consistently treated the reopening of a claim on the basis of service department records as a reopening of the original claim warranting a review of the former disposition in light of the service department records which were considered to have been lost or mislaid. Spencer v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 283, 293 (1993). In a statement dated March 28, 1986, the veteran's then representative informed the RO that the veteran was claiming entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The date stamp on this statement indicates that it was received by the RO on April 1, 1986. This claim was denied by the RO and the veteran's appeal of the RO's decision was denied in an unappealed decision of the Board in February 1990. In an unappealed decision of November 1994, the Board determined that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the claim. In a July 2001 decision, the Board granted reopening of the claim based on the receipt of new and material evidence, including service department records. The Board remanded the reopened claim for further action by the RO. In the rating decision currently on appeal, the RO granted service connection for PTSD, effective April 11, 1995. Since the new and material evidence warranting reopening of the claim included service department records, the proper effective date of the award of service connection is the date of receipt of the veteran's original claim, April 1, 1986, if the veteran's PTSD existed at that time. There is conflicting evidence concerning whether the veteran had PTSD due to service when his original claim was received. For instance, an October 1986 statement from a VA outreach therapist indicates that the veteran had been attending Readjustment Counseling Groups for seven months. During that time, he demonstrated symptoms of PTSD in accordance with DSM-III (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). The veteran reported service stressors beginning at Normandy and continuing through Germany. These traumatic events led up to his gunshot wounds and being pinned down for days under fire with no medical help and no food or water. During that time, he thought of killing himself to stop the pain. The issue of suicide was continued to the present. It was noted that the veteran self medicated with alcohol and his wife accepted the veteran's emotional numbing. In June and July 1987, the veteran underwent VA psychological evaluation. He reported that he was involved with the landing at Normandy on D-Day plus 10. According to the veteran, he was assigned to the 335th Engineer Regiment, Seventh Armored Division as a tank driver. He related that he drove supply trucks, assisted with laying fuel pipes, and performed guard duty. Following service, he worked at the Hercules Arsenal in Radford, Virginia, and as a tractor- trailer driver. He retired from the Arsenal in 1986 due to a series of angina attacks necessitating heart surgery in 1985. He reported that he used alcohol excessively on weekends to reduce his anxiety and to improve his sleep while he was working. He had had continuous problems with sleep disturbance since his military service. He also had disruptive combat-related dreams, frequent intrusive thoughts of combat, and an exaggerated startle response. Based on the veteran's reported history, the examining psychologist diagnosed PTSD. However, other medical evidence, including the report of a November 1998 VA examination, indicates that the veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. Because of the conflict in the medical evidence, the veteran was afforded a VA examination by a board of two VA psychiatrists in November 2001. The veteran's claims folders were examined prior to a 45 to 60 minute interview of the veteran. The examiners concluded that the veteran met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD and that the disorder was due to a combination of combat and non-combat stressors. In addition, they noted that the disorder had been well documented by various providers, to include the outreach therapist who saw the veteran in 1986. In the Board's opinion, the report of this examination is highly probative because it is based upon a longitudinal review of the veteran's pertinent medical history and a thorough examination of the veteran, and the two psychiatrists are both of the opinion that the veteran has PTSD due to service and that the disorder was present when he was seen by the outreach therapist in 1986, prior to the filing of his claim for service connection. Therefore, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the veteran had PTSD when his original claim was received by VA. Accordingly, the proper effective date for the grant of service connection is April 1, 1986. ORDER An effective date of April 1, 1986, for the award of service connection for PTSD is granted, subject to the criteria governing the payment of monetary benefits. ____________________________________________ Shane A. Durkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder Pete53 Posted September 30, 2007 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted September 30, 2007 Josephine: Personality DIsorder than is non specific used to be the way the Army would use as a temporay diagnosis and they were supposed to come back and flesh it out. The VA started using it on their own volition and also changing a diagnosis on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder Josephine Posted September 30, 2007 Author HadIt.com Elder Share Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) Pete, I just sent an email to Dr. Gunderson, Personality Disorder Expert. He is one of the Psychiarist, author of the DSM IV Book, for his expertise on this Personality Disorder not otherwise Specified. To my knowledge it is not recognized by the DSM Psychiatric Book. Always, Josephine Edited September 30, 2007 by Josephine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder john999 Posted September 30, 2007 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted September 30, 2007 This is the diagnosis the Army has been using to dump PTSD vets who come back from Iraq. I had a doctor examine me for 10 minutes and declare I had a personality disorder. No medical or social history just a snap diagnosis and this was when I was having severe panic disorder symptoms. This was in Vietnam and the deal was that if you started to have problems you were discharged as unfit. The only ones who were not were the complete zombie cases who broke down in combat and had to be shipped home in restraints. What happened to you Josephine is so common it hurts me to remember it. It happened to many of us getting tagged with a PD disgnosis so the military can save money. They screw you for life to save a few bucks. These people don't deserve to command troops or be be dog catchers. I wonder how many vets with depression, panic or anxiety were discharged as medical as opposed to be unfit? Only the blatant psychotics got medical discharges and that was probably rare as well since the army would say it was pre-existing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berta Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Yes- I emailed Rick to read your post Josephine- this could be his best approach.We live in same locale but I could not take the time to help him here one to one- too much on my plate these days----- and I think this a better than a CUE approach for him--- Berta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Done wit this Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Wow This does look like it would help. I have been M.I.A. really busy week. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. When I get some time in like two or three weeks I will really get into this further. I am trying to work Again with a torn rotator on the left side. I beleave that started at my last C&P exam. Just My luck. I would love to just get my service connection so I could have other Options. But I sit and wait on the VA to connect me - this post can be used in helping me get the retro, "I think". Thanks Josephine! And thanks Berta for bring this to my attention. And of course thanks Hadit for being here. This really gives me new hope. Macool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder Josephine Posted September 30, 2007 Author HadIt.com Elder Share Posted September 30, 2007 Berta, Thanks so much for bringing this to Macool's attention. I believe when he feels better, he needs to go to the BVA site and type in Service Department Records and he will locate the clue that we have been needing to nail these old birds. Not under Cue. I did write to Dr. Gunderson, to get the feedback on this Personality Disorder not Otherwise Specified. Bio: Dr. John Gunderson is a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. At McLean Hospital he is Director of Psychotherapy and of the Psychosocial Research Program. His seminal studies on the diagnosis, families, psychodynamics, treatment and pathogenesis of borderline personality disorder helped transform the diagnosis from a psychoanalytic construct into an empirically validated and internationally recognized disorder. He chaired the DSM IV work group on personality disorders, and currently chairs a major NIMH-funded collaborative study on the longitudinal stability of personality disorders. He is actively involved in treating borderline patients using all modalities and brings this experience to bear in his talks and writing. If the DSM Books do not recognize this as being a Personality Disorder, why in the heck did those two quack psychiatrist brand me with it. I do not have a P.D discharge anywhere. It has never been mentioned until those two quacks mentioned it. Thanks, Josephine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Josephine
Citation Nr: 0514903
Decision Date: 06/02/05 Archive Date: 06/15/05
DOCKET NO. 03-32 077A ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke,
Virginia
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to an effective date prior to April 11, 1995, for
the grant of service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Julie M. Clifford, Attorney
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
D. L. Wight, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from October 1943 to
January 1946.
This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal of a November 2001 rating decision rendered by the
Roanoke, Virginia, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The RO received the veteran's original claim for service
connection for PTSD on April 1, 1986.
2. The Board issued a decision denying service connection
for PTSD in February 1990 and a decision in November 1994
holding that new and material evidence had not been submitted
to reopen his claim for service connection.
3. Thereafter, new and material evidence, including service
department records, was received and the reopened claim was
granted.
4. The veteran had PTSD due to service stressors when his
original claim for service connection for this disability was
received.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for an effective date of April 1, 1986, for the
award of service connection for PTSD have been met. 38
U.S.C.A. § 5110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156©, 3.400
(q)(2) (2004); Spencer v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 283, 293 (1993).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000
The Board notes that VA's General Counsel has held that the
notification requirements of the Veterans Claims Assistance
Act of 2000 (VCAA) are not applicable to appeals such as the
current one involving a notice of disagreement with the
effective date of an award of service connection. See
VAOPGCPREC 8-2003 (Dec. 22, 2003). This precedent opinion by
the VA General Counsel is legally binding upon the Board.
See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104© (West 2002).
In any event, the Board notes that the veteran was provided
with VCAA notice in a letter mailed in January 2004. It is
apparent from the argument submitted by the veteran's
attorney that she is well aware of what is required to
substantiate the claim and that there is no outstanding
evidence to substantiate the claim. She essentially argues
that the grant of service connection should be effective from
the date of receipt of the veteran's original claim. As
explained below, the Board agrees. Although the attorney
identifies the date of receipt of the original claim as March
28, 1986, the statement of the veteran's then representative,
which the attorney identifies as the original claim, is dated
March 28, 1986, but was not received by VA until April 1,
1986. Thus, although it can not be said that the pertinent
facts are not in dispute, it is clear that no further
development of the record is required to determine when the
original claim was received.
Analysis
Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of
an award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim
reopened after a final adjudication, or a claim for increase,
shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall
not be earlier than the date of receipt of application
therefore. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §
3.400 (2004).
When there is a final denial of a claim, and new and material
evidence consisting of service department records is
subsequently received, the effective date of the award of
compensation is to agree with the evaluation (since it is
considered these records were lost or mislaid) or the date or
receipt of the claim on which the prior evaluation was made,
whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(1)(ii) (2004).
The U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has noted that
VA has consistently treated the reopening of a claim on the
basis of service department records as a reopening of the
original claim warranting a review of the former disposition
in light of the service department records which were
considered to have been lost or mislaid. Spencer v. Brown, 4
Vet. App. 283, 293 (1993).
In a statement dated March 28, 1986, the veteran's then
representative informed the RO that the veteran was claiming
entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The date stamp
on this statement indicates that it was received by the RO on
April 1, 1986. This claim was denied by the RO and the
veteran's appeal of the RO's decision was denied in an
unappealed decision of the Board in February 1990. In an
unappealed decision of November 1994, the Board determined
that new and material evidence had not been presented to
reopen the claim. In a July 2001 decision, the Board granted
reopening of the claim based on the receipt of new and
material evidence, including service department records. The
Board remanded the reopened claim for further action by the
RO. In the rating decision currently on appeal, the RO
granted service connection for PTSD, effective April 11,
1995.
Since the new and material evidence warranting reopening of
the claim included service department records, the proper
effective date of the award of service connection is the date
of receipt of the veteran's original claim, April 1, 1986, if
the veteran's PTSD existed at that time.
There is conflicting evidence concerning whether the veteran
had PTSD due to service when his original claim was received.
For instance, an October 1986 statement from a VA outreach
therapist indicates that the veteran had been attending
Readjustment Counseling Groups for seven months. During that
time, he demonstrated symptoms of PTSD in accordance with
DSM-III (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders). The veteran reported service stressors beginning
at Normandy and continuing through Germany. These traumatic
events led up to his gunshot wounds and being pinned down for
days under fire with no medical help and no food or water.
During that time, he thought of killing himself to stop the
pain. The issue of suicide was continued to the present. It
was noted that the veteran self medicated with alcohol and
his wife accepted the veteran's emotional numbing.
In June and July 1987, the veteran underwent VA psychological
evaluation. He reported that he was involved with the
landing at Normandy on D-Day plus 10. According to the
veteran, he was assigned to the 335th Engineer Regiment,
Seventh Armored Division as a tank driver. He related that
he drove supply trucks, assisted with laying fuel pipes, and
performed guard duty. Following service, he worked at the
Hercules Arsenal in Radford, Virginia, and as a tractor-
trailer driver. He retired from the Arsenal in 1986 due to a
series of angina attacks necessitating heart surgery in 1985.
He reported that he used alcohol excessively on weekends to
reduce his anxiety and to improve his sleep while he was
working. He had had continuous problems with sleep
disturbance since his military service. He also had
disruptive combat-related dreams, frequent intrusive thoughts
of combat, and an exaggerated startle response. Based on the
veteran's reported history, the examining psychologist
diagnosed PTSD.
However, other medical evidence, including the report of a
November 1998 VA examination, indicates that the veteran did
not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. Because of
the conflict in the medical evidence, the veteran was
afforded a VA examination by a board of two VA psychiatrists
in November 2001. The veteran's claims folders were examined
prior to a 45 to 60 minute interview of the veteran. The
examiners concluded that the veteran met the criteria for a
diagnosis of PTSD and that the disorder was due to a
combination of combat and non-combat stressors. In addition,
they noted that the disorder had been well documented by
various providers, to include the outreach therapist who saw
the veteran in 1986. In the Board's opinion, the report of
this examination is highly probative because it is based upon
a longitudinal review of the veteran's pertinent medical
history and a thorough examination of the veteran, and the
two psychiatrists are both of the opinion that the veteran
has PTSD due to service and that the disorder was present
when he was seen by the outreach therapist in 1986, prior to
the filing of his claim for service connection. Therefore,
the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the veteran had PTSD when his original claim
was received by VA. Accordingly, the proper effective date
for the grant of service connection is April 1, 1986.
ORDER
An effective date of April 1, 1986, for the award of service
connection for PTSD is granted, subject to the criteria
governing the payment of monetary benefits.
____________________________________________
Shane A. Durkin
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans' Appeals
Department of Veterans Affairs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
12
4
2
2
Popular Days
Sep 30
10
Oct 2
8
Sep 29
5
Sep 28
1
Top Posters For This Question
Josephine 12 posts
john999 4 posts
Pete53 2 posts
Berta 2 posts
Popular Days
Sep 30 2007
10 posts
Oct 2 2007
8 posts
Sep 29 2007
5 posts
Sep 28 2007
1 post
24 answers to this question
Recommended Posts