90 Day Letter On Its Way From Bva

[Josephine]

Here is the latest, I think I have had it!!

Well, I just called the BVA. I was told my claims file left

the legal team

and now I have been mailed a 90 day letter to respond.

What can they possibly do to me now?

I have been at the BVA remanded to AMC for another almost two years

and before I receive the SSOC. The claims examiner calls me to advise

me to waiver my 60 days to submit new evidence to AMC.

She politely walks the file back to BVA.

I secure the IME and I think now it is being

considered as " NEW EVIDENCE".

Doesn't it sound like, I am starting the process again?

I will never live to see the end of this claim.

I may just have to drop the whole darn mess.

I don't know how to fight this thing any longer.

Always,

Betty

[tssnave]

Betty - you're in a slugfest w/ the VA, no doubt about it. Hang in there and keep us posted.

Free - you hit some of the same points that have bothered me about Betty's claim: the VA not accepting their own favorable C&P results and setting up the second, unfavorable C&P exam which they DID accept and now, most recently, they ask for a review of those findings and the lying lady shrink does NOT give a rationale which should mean the VA throws that evidence out since it's not suitable for rating without a rationale. My hope and prayer has been that a single BVA judge will see through the BS and rule accordingly. My fear is that my case will go on as long as Betty's. The C&P examiner in my case said I was "100% total occupation and social imparied due to sc bipolar and can't hold a job due to sc bipolar" and yet, they rated me 50% (on my NOD, the first time around they ignored evidence and said it wasn't even sc). Thanks for the explanation about the courts. That process makes a lot more sense to me now. I appreciate the explanation and link.

Cowgirl - I know what you mean. I got my C-file because Pete kept harping on it and even changed his tag line to something along the lines of you need to get it. Well, low and behold, there in my C-file was a treatment report from active duty for a psych consult and notes on that visit along with a diagnosis for depression (which is half of bipolar disorder). This, despite the "there is no evidence in your SMRs...." By the time I got my C-file they had awarded me 50% but it pissed me off to see that they took years to do so, and only after I filed a NOD after they denied service connection based on "no evidence" (I sent in letters from the shrinks who treated me on active duty and somehow, the VA didn't consider them "evidence" until I submitted an NOD). Pete is right, we need to get copies of our C-file to see just what's in there otherwise we can get royally messed over and not even know it.

TS

Edited January 31, 2008 by tssnave

[Josephine]

Betty - you're in a slugfest w/ the VA, no doubt about it. Hang in there and keep us posted.

Free - you hit some of the same points that have bothered me about Betty's claim: the VA not accepting their own favorable C&P results and setting up the second, unfavorable C&P exam which they DID accept and now, most recently, they ask for a review of those findings and the lying lady shrink does NOT give a rationale which should mean the VA throws that evidence out since it's not suitable for rating without a rationale. My hope and prayer has been that a single BVA judge will see through the BS and rule accordingly. My fear is that my case will go on as long as Betty's. The C&P examiner in my case said I was "100% total occupation and social imparied due to sc bipolar and can't hold a job due to sc bipolar" and yet, they rated me 50% (on my NOD, the first time around they ignored evidence and said it wasn't even sc). Thanks for the explanation about the courts. That process makes a lot more sense to me now. I appreciate the explanation and link.

Cowgirl - I know what you mean. I got my C-file because Pete kept harping on it and even changed his tag line to something along the lines of you need to get it. Well, low and behold, there in my C-file was a treatment report from active duty for a psych consult and notes on that visit along with a diagnosis for depression (which is half of bipolar disorder). This, despite the "there is no evidence in your SMRs...." By the time I got my C-file they had awarded me 50% but it pissed me off to see that they took years to do so, and only after I filed a NOD after they denied service connection based on "no evidence" (I sent in letters from the shrinks who treated me on active duty and somehow, the VA didn't consider them "evidence" until I submitted an NOD). Pete is right, we need to get copies of our C-file to see just what's in there otherwise we can get royally messed over and not even know it.

TS

TS,

I believe we may have an honest Judge, being that she did allow me the 60 days I waivered by the advice of the Appeals Management Center.

Also she sent it to the legal team to see how many regulations had been broken since the first filing of my claim.

When I received my Last Statement in Support of Claim from the AMC, which I have no ideal of why I received it in November, but I was told I had to reply.

I replied alright. I started with the first SOC I received Oct. 7, 2004 and went step by next of what the DRO did to deny me benefits.

How I went to the BVA on this Statement I will never know, but this is straight from that SOC.

THIS IS NOT THE DRO’S FINAL DECISION, We are sending you this Statement of the Case so that you can better understand your appeal. An examination is being scheduled at the VA Medical Center. The VA. Medical Center will notify you about the date and the time to report for the examination. Form - 9 to appeal to BVA to complete within 60 days.

I imagine I will receive my 90 day letter Saturday as usual.

Thanks Sure do Appreciate,

Betty

[free_spirit_etc]

You are doing good to stay several steps ahead (even when you are behind) by checking out what is down the road as much as possible. That is one of the things that has really bothered me about them not letting attorneys get involved into late in the process --by then they have already set the case up like they want it. You see all this stuff in court - the vet didn't do this back then, the vet didn't argue that back in -- WELLLLLLLLLLL the vet wasn't ALLOWED to have an attorney BACK THEN. (they could, but the attorney couldn't charge anything).

It is like only allowing people have an attorney for their CLOSING ARGUMENT... and the attorney has to scramble around pulling the pieces together. And I imagine the vet gets to hear "You should have done this. You should have done that."

Anyway - staying steps ahead helps you see which ways to present your case NOW. At least some. I recommend looking at some of the court decisions from time to time and starting a file of cases that look like they apply.

But it gets so involved too. Because you read one case - and think you have an argument - but when you read other cases - you can realize - I'm glad I didn't argue THAT - because it didn;t hold up.

But I see a lot of times the case will say something about what COULD have been argued - but that the vet didn't advance the argument.

And you are SOOOOO right on getting copies of everything. My husband just had his SOCs - but he never asked for copies of his exams.

There were SO many things he COULD have gotten SC for.

One was a shoulder injury. He was in the Air Force for 28 years. He filed his claim BEFORE he retired. He claimed he had hurt his shoulder and that it was hurt BEFORE he retired and WHEN he retired.

But they sent him on the C&P - and though they found an injury - they said none of his SMR's indicate that his shoulder was injured - so they wouldn't SC it.

That makes NO sense to me - as it is unlikely that he injured in 28 years before - and he was claiming it was injured BEFORE he retired. But nope. It wasn't in his SMR's and no one can seem to FIND his discharge physical.

He claimed cervicle strain. His neck hurt pretty bad. Actually - even when he was in the later stages of cancer - when he asked for pain meds and I asked what hurt - it was his neck - not the cancer.

Anyway - that WAS in the SMRs - but they said the X-rays didn't SHOW any injury. So they denied for no CURRENT injury.

On the Appeal - they did another X-ray - but just saw a SLIGHT separation on two of the cervicle disks. I think they should have granted SC and rated it at sero percent, but at least rated it. But nope - they denied SC.

I knew he was denied SC later for headaches. They denied him based on the undiagnosed illness thing - but here is their profound statement "We can not grant Service Connection for your headaches as they have been diagnosed as headaches."

Is that profound or what???

But when we went to the VA a couple years ago and got his med records - I read the C&P for that exam.

The VA doc stated there were TWO causes for his headaches:

1. Cervicle strain - and they used as evidence the x-rays that showed significantly more damage at the same location as had been found before (it had worsened).

2. Chronic sinutitis - which the C&P doctor stated had been diagnosed in service. Not only had he had significant sinus problems in service - the C&P reported that he had received X-RAY IN SERVICE that confirmed the CHRONIC condition.

But though the C&P doctor said his headaches were CAUSED by TWO service conditons (one that had been diagnosed as chronic in the service - and one that he had claimed on discharge from the service) - the SOC merely denied service connection for the headaches because they were NOT an UNdiagnosed illness.

It is NUTS!!

Free

Betty - you're in a slugfest w/ the VA, no doubt about it. Hang in there and keep us posted.

Free - you hit some of the same points that have bothered me about Betty's claim: the VA not accepting their own favorable C&P results and setting up the second, unfavorable C&P exam which they DID accept and now, most recently, they ask for a review of those findings and the lying lady shrink does NOT give a rationale which should mean the VA throws that evidence out since it's not suitable for rating without a rationale. My hope and prayer has been that a single BVA judge will see through the BS and rule accordingly. My fear is that my case will go on as long as Betty's. The C&P examiner in my case said I was "100% total occupation and social imparied due to sc bipolar and can't hold a job due to sc bipolar" and yet, they rated me 50% (on my NOD, the first time around they ignored evidence and said it wasn't even sc). Thanks for the explanation about the courts. That process makes a lot more sense to me now. I appreciate the explanation and link.

Cowgirl - I know what you mean. I got my C-file because Pete kept harping on it and even changed his tag line to something along the lines of you need to get it. Well, low and behold, there in my C-file was a treatment report from active duty for a psych consult and notes on that visit along with a diagnosis for depression (which is half of bipolar disorder). This, despite the "there is no evidence in your SMRs...." By the time I got my C-file they had awarded me 50% but it pissed me off to see that they took years to do so, and only after I filed a NOD after they denied service connection based on "no evidence" (I sent in letters from the shrinks who treated me on active duty and somehow, the VA didn't consider them "evidence" until I submitted an NOD). Pete is right, we need to get copies of our C-file to see just what's in there otherwise we can get royally messed over and not even know it.

TS

[tssnave]

Free,

It is stories like yours and Betty's that make me so thankful to have hadit. This website levels the playing field for veterans and their families. Hang in there and thanks again for all the help you've given Betty, myself, and others.

Thanks,

TS

[free_spirit_etc]

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/ppaethics.cfm

Section 2

A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception to appropriate entities.

5. Ethically, the psychiatrist may disclose only that information which is relevant to a given situation. He or she should avoid offering speculation as fact. Sensitive information such as an individual’s sexual orientation or fantasy material is usually unnecessary.

6. Psychiatrists are often asked to examine individuals for security purposes, to determine suitability for various jobs, and to determine legal competence. The psychiatrist must fully describe the nature and purpose and lack of confidentiality of the examination to the examinee at the beginning of the examination.

That is from the code of ethics - American Psychiatric Association. Of course, if you would issue an ehtics complaint - they would say they didn't state it as a fact - because the SAID appears, seems, etc.

But if they are VA docs they dang well know the VA terminology. And they dang well know they worded their speculation in a deceptive way - so that the VA could ACT like what they stated was a fact.

Why say it APPEARS like an unpreviously diagnosed Personality Disorder SEEMS to do anything.

They know the terms to use are more likely than not and less likely than not. By using APPEARS they could throw their speculation out there - let the VA put their own interpretation on it - and be able to defend themselves with "We didn't SAY probably..or more likely...."

But that is also another thing you can use if you HAVE to appeal - but hopefully you won't have to - because the BVA should know they shouldn't grant weight to evidence that doesn't even give a point of measurement.

I remember when I first joined hadit - and people were suggesting that vets include a statement that they intend to appeal and pursue their claim until it is granted - to put the VA on notice that they weren't going to get rid of the claim by wearing them down.

One thing you have going for you is that EVERYONE at the VA now KNOWS that you are NOT going to back down - and giving some flimsy denial is not going to get rid of you...lol

Free

Cowgirl,

No, Dr. Muller has never been mentioned since the C&P and neither has

the buddy letter.

Way back when, John S ask me to sent him my statement of the

case, he was correct, I am fighting the whole darn system and

trying to stay sane at the same time.

If you guys didn't come in and help me, I couldn't keep this thing

going as long as I have.

You are correct, those little meaningless words are just that.

Possible, Probably, Appears and Maybe this and Maybe that?

They mean absolutely nothing!

Betty