Can You Believe "we" Proved My Claim 44 Years Later

[Josephine]

It looked the the BVA was already leaning that way on the Remand. They pointed out the Reverand and one of the treating doctors - asked the AMC to get even more information from them - and to send it back to the quacks to see if they continued with the same diagnosis in light of the additional evidence - and to justify their diagnosis with reasoning if they did.

It looked like the BVA was saying - It looks this is something other than a Personality Disorder - this needs to be checked out - and the docs who have labeled her with such need to actually look at the other evidence and either change their diagnosis - or give their medical rationale for why their opinion is so out of step with the rest of the record."

"Does not change our opinion" is not providing any medical rationale for the diagnosis.

They didn't justify it because they couldn't justify it.

I do think something needs to be done about these bogus psych discharges vets get -which sets them up for this to happen to them.

I wonder if Betty can now get that bogus C&P removed from her file so it can never haunt her again.

Free

Free,

Those two doctors get paid high salaries to do numbers on veterans as

they did me. They just didn't expect me to continue on with this

claim until I brought them down. I knew I could never win this claim,

as long as she was allowed to keep spitting out her lies.

Dr. Crowley ask me ," Where in the world did this mess come from". He

also ask me if I had a lawyer.

It was a pretty slanderous attack on me and you were correct in your

posting.

Those two doctors alone, traumatized me, hypnotized me, humilitated

me, called me a whore and any bad thing someone could possibly say

about someone.

Why, I don't know. Dr. Lxxxx was the author, but Dr. Bxxx was also a

part of the examination. It was his mouth that did all the talking.

I don't know if I can ever get over that examination. And to bring my

poor little dead son into this has been more than my mind can handle.

I only have two children. I have two daughters. Yes, I conceived

three times, but I only have two live children. I took so many shots

trying to save this baby and those were the one medical records that

I could never get my hands on. I tried Richmond I tried everywhere.

She made it seem as though I threw him in a trash can or gave him

away."The veteran claims to only have two children, " according to

her".

One day in the next world she will answer for this one.

Maybe in someway the BVA will contact them to stop this type of

examination write up.

Always,

Betty

Edited March 9, 2008 by Josephine

[free_spirit_etc]

I think that is your key for the earlier effective date.

§ 3.105 Revision of decisions.

(a) Error. Previous determinations which are final and binding, including decisions of service connection, degree of disability, age, marriage, relationship, service, dependency, line of duty, and other issues, will be accepted as correct in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. Where evidence establishes such error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended. For the purpose of authorizing benefits, the rating or other adjudicative decision which constitutes a reversal of a prior decision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error has the same effect as if the corrected decision had been made on the date of the reversed decision. Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, where an award is reduced or discontinued because of administrative error or error in judgment, the provisions of §3.500((2) will apply.

§ 3.156 New and material evidence.

© Service department records. (1) Notwithstanding any other section in this part, at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section. Such records include, but are not limited to:

(i) Service records that are related to a claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name, as long as the other requirements of paragraph © of this section are met;

(3) An award made based all or in part on the records identified by paragraph ©(1) of this section is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later, or such other date as may be authorized by the provisions of this part applicable to the previously decided claim.

(4) A retroactive evaluation of disability resulting from disease or injury subsequently service connected on the basis of the new evidence from the service department must be supported adequately by medical evidence. Where such records clearly support the assignment of a specific rating over a part or the entire period of time involved, a retroactive evaluation will be assigned accordingly, except as it may be affected by the filing date of the original claim.

And, yes - you were given good advice on filing the TIU claim.

The 1992 date is the date of the DENIAL. I wonder when they are saying that claim was FILED. That Should be your Effective Date.

But again - it MIGHT even be able to go back to when you were awarded your Pension.

I wish I could find the section I had - I believe from the MR-21 that said if a vet claims for an earlier effective date - they cannot hold up the rest of the claim while they decide that.

I am wondering if it would be best to be proactive on this. Something like sending an IRIS and ASK them. Though you wouldn't REALLY being asking them - you would be connecting the dots for them AGAIN.

Something like: "As the BVA pointed out that my SMRS that showed in-service treatment for my condition were not associated with the claims file when my claim was originally decided, and that materially affected my claim - it is my understanding that under ____ the date of my award would be the date of the claim was originally filed.

I am wondering if this will be done automatically, or if I will be required to file a CUE for this. It is my understanding that either the veteran or the VA can call a CUE on a previous decision. So I am not certain whether the VA is doing this - based on the BVA decision, or if I will be required to do this."

I am not sure about what occured with the 1983 granting of Pension - but depending on what occured - you could even add -

"I am also not sure if the effective date goes back to the filing date that resulted in the decision that the BVA indicates was made on my claim in 1992 (in which my SMRS showing in-service treatment of my condition were not associated with the record), or if it goes back to the ____ date, where the VA granted 100% disability for this condition in 1983, but denied me Pension based on excessive income. As the VA rated the condition at 100% for Pension purposes at that time, but did not Service Connect my disability - due to material SMRs not being in my file - I am wondering if my effective date actually goes back to THAT claim.

You could also add - "Also, as I am already recieving Pension for being 100% disabled, and unable to work - am I required to file for TUI, or is that already of record in the granting of the Pension?"

****That section could be adapted based on whether they granted the Pension for Anxiety - or a combination of symptoms - as to whether they already found the anxiety 100% - or if TUI would need to kick in.

And I would ADD - "I understand that the Pension and Compensation Manual indicates that if there is a question on the effective date of the claim - that the claim be processed while that issue is being decided. Therefore if there will be any delay in determining my effective date - based on my previous claims for this condition - I ask that my Compensation be started, while the issue in respect to the effective date is being determined."

**** I am NOT sure if sending this would be a good thing to do. You might want to see what others think on the matter. I was just thinking that even though the BVA granted SC - that doesn't mean the RO learned to read - so you might want to proactively connect the dots for them in advance - so they MIGHT see:

1. The BVA SAID the SMRs were material and not in your record when your claim was decided.

2. That the REGS SAY that this means your claim should be granted back to the ORIGINAL filing.

3. That you filed more than once.

4. That you are ALREADY considered UNEMPLOYABLE through the granting of the Pension.

5. That they should NOT hold up your ENTIRE claim while deciding (i.e. should AT LEAST pay you RETRO to 2004 OR the Original date the claim that resulted in the 1992 denial's date - while deciding if you are eligible even EARLIER).

I just thought it might be to your advantage to tell them where to dig BEFORE they start digging --because you know how once they dig in it is hard to get them to budge.

And framing it as a question -- perhaps through the IRIS - might make it a bit more smoother - than if you present them with statements of what they SHOULD do.

I know. I know. You questions will really be -- "Here is the law. Please explain to me how you are going to follow the law... Are YOU going to follow the law? ..Or am I supposed to file CUES... and TUI claims to get you to follow the law? Please help me do the right thing to help you follow the law..." - and will also be a chance to REMIND them of the dates involved and the issues involved...

Just a thought,

FREE

Berta,

Reasons and Bases

The additional service medical records submitted from the National

Personnel Records Center and the Report from Dr. M. Payne, dated

April 2004 are considered Both New and Material and your claim for

service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is re-opened.

The DRO unfairly denied me for my claim of Anxiety with Depression

and re-opened the claim for an “ Acquired Psychiatric Disorder”, with

medical records in his possession at the time of the denial and the

re-opening of the New Diagnosis.

Berta,

I appreciate any help that you can give me.

Always Appreciate,

Betty

[Josephine]

x

x

x

Good Work Sister! It really bugged the heck outta me that VA shrinks would call your case Personality D/O when there was NOTHING in your history to support this opinion.

We're sure happy for you Josephine. You are a valuable family member and an asset to the Hadit mission. You have touched our lives. God Bless you and yours. ~Wings

Wings,

I am not sure If I thanked you. There are a lot of post here. If I

did, I am thanking you again. I really appreciate all of the research

you did for me and the regulations you sent to me.

Always,

Betty

[Josephine]

Congratulations Josephine!!! You and I have not interacted here, but like most others I have been keeping up with your saga. Your tenacity is something to behold. I really doubt that I would have been able to do what you have done.

I believe the analysis provided by Free Spirit is excellent and her questioning why it took all of these years to resolve is right on the money. With the VA spending billions of dollars every year to pay medical professionals, why on earth does any veteran have to go to a private doctor to get an honest diagnosis and evaluation? There is a limited amount of medical schools in the US (and elsewhere), so all the doctors, VA and private, got trained the same. What reward could possibly be valuable enough for the quacks to abandon their honor, integrity, and professionalism? If it was a VA salary and government employee benefits, they sure sold out cheap!

Somehow, your story needs to be exposed to the public.

Betty, I am very proud of you and sincerely wish you a much more pleasant life from now on!!!

Thanks so much,

Yes, it was two VA Psychiarist who sold themselves to the devil to make sure that I was denied.

My first C&P was with the Most Honorable PHD Psychologist who used His Integrity to the Highest.

If he ever reads this write up by the Judge he has been rewarded as it is mentioned he is one of the three physicians ( VA) in favor of service connection premised upon an accurate picture of the veteran's history and current condition.

He is to be commented. He did not compromise or sell out his self for a dollar.

Always and Many Thanks,

Betty

Edited March 9, 2008 by Josephine

[john999]

It even calls into question the nature of your discharge. You were kicked out because of a PD but you never had a PD. It may be too late and amount to nothing but vindication but you should have gotten a medical discharge. I should have also but it is a hard system to fight.

[rdawg]

WOW

I just replied yesterday and had to tab thru 3 pages to find my post.

If Hadit has any kind of rcords for number of posts on one subject I think the success story of Betty will beat them all.

You asked what do I think...

I think as of right now you will get 100% back to 2004. Nice chunck of change. I think the VA should do the right thing and call cue on themselves and award you back to 1978 and award you an additional amount for the pain and suffering they have caused by denying you for so long. I think you should sue the 2 phycs that lied for malpractice an mabye file charges of conspiracy to commit fraud by the phycs and the raters who went doctor shopping when you had enough positive opinions to grant benefits.

But thye can justify all of that because, to them, you never had an inservice diagnosis. That is one of the three hickson elements that you were missing. Once you got the doctor to clarify his writing and obtained the strong IMO they had no choice but to grant benefits.

You should be very proud of yourself. This should be considered a very large accomplishment in your life.

rdawg

Edited March 9, 2008 by rdawg