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

[cowgirl]

Hey Betty, I agree and say thanks John, he sent shivers all over me just for posting this! Oh yeah ask a attorney if vindication is worth something? John, sorry to hear your dilema as well. My doc says SMRs show vague diagnosis's to keep me in service, guess that was meant to be. cg

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.

Edited March 9, 2008 by cowgirl

[Josephine]

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.

John,

That is exactly what Dr. Crowley made sure the BVA knew in his Evaluation and his Opinion. He didn't mind telling them that they knew at the time that I did not have a Personality Disorder and was discharged without benefits.

We both were in that same boat. Kicked out and I had been told so much that I would be giving up any benefits, I was fearful of filing.

I will be anxious to see what the R.O does with this letter from the Judge. It is about 8 pages and it does state the claim of 1992 is re-opened. They will do with it what they want anyway.

I am sure I never filed in 1992, for at the time my niece was already a DRO at that R.O and they would have never allowed it.

Thanks bunches!

Betty

[Josephine]

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

rdawg,

This is what the paper states:

New and Material

Review of the record reflects that the veterans claim for chronic

anxiety with nervousness was initially denied in June 1992 on the

basis that the service treatment records were negative for treatment

of a psychiatric condition, and such treatment was not indicated

until many years thereafter. In making this determination, the RO

considered the claimant's available service treatment records and

post treatment records dated from discharge from service through

1992. The veteran was notified of the RO 's denial in 1992. The

notice letter provided her with information as to her procedural

rights. She did not appeal this and the decision is final.

However, if new and material evidence is presented or secured with

respect to a claim which was disallowed, VA shall reopen the claim

and review the former disposition of the claim. Manio v Derwinski, 1

VET App .145 (1991)

When determining whether additional evidence is new and material, VA

must determine whether such evidence is new and material. VA must

determine whether such evidence has been presented under 38 C.F.R. &

3.156 (a) in order to have a finally denied claim reopened under 38

U.S.C. & 5108 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007). Effective from August 29,

2001, the regulations defining " new and material evidence" were

revised and clarify the types of assistance the VA will provide to a

claimant attempting to reopen a previously denied claim. 38 C.F.R. &

3.156 (a) and 3.159(b). These specific previsions are applicable only

to claims filed on or after August 29, 2001. As the veteran filed his

claim seeking to reopen in December 2002, the Board has considered

these provisions.

To re-open a claim which has been previously denied and which is

final, the claimant must present New and Material evidence. 38

U.S.C.A & 5108 (West 2002 & Supp 2007). Under new amended

regulations, new evidence means existing evidence not previously

submitted to decision makers. Material Evidence means existing

evidence that by itself or when considered with previously evidence

of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate

the claim. New and Material evidence can be neither cumalative nor

redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior

final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a

reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.FR. & 3.156

(a) (2007).

In this case, the evidence received since the RO's June 1992 denial

of service connection for chronic anxiety with nervousness includes

some duplicate copies of previously considered treatment records.

such records were considered in the previous denial and are not new

and material.

Also added to the claims file since the previous 1992 denial were

additional service treatment records not previously of record and

private and VA treatment records which show continued treatment for

psychiatric complaints.

The service treatment records are new in that they reflect

inservice treatment for psychiatric symptoms which were determined to

preclude further military service.

These documents include inservice assessments as to the veterans

psychiatric complaints. This evidence is considered New in that it

contains information that was not considered at the time of the 1992

decision, and it is material because it purports to show treatment

for psychiatric disability during service which was not objectively

shown by the evidence previously.

The BVA is speaking of the Psychiatric Consulation of Dr. Jones,

Psychiatrist and Board Certified Psychiatrist Dr. McHon.

Without these records there was no way that I could prove service

connection. The VA knew to secure these records upon my first filing,

they just kept lying to me and told me they didn't exist. They did

and I secured them from the St. Louis Archives 2004.

Here is a Statment from Another BVA Case:

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.

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).

Didn't I prove that I had Chronic Anxiety at the time also?

Thanks a bunch,

Betty

Edited March 10, 2008 by Josephine

[free_spirit_etc]

Yep. Josephine's case reminded me of the story - the Emperor's New Clothes. She kept trying to tell them the Emperor was naked - and they kept admiring his new clothes.

I mean the discharge stuff is a farce - and they KNOW it is a FARCE - and that is what the two quacks did - they tried to build on the Farce - with a bunch of made up stuff - counting on the Farce discharge supporting their opinion. And it WOULD have - had Betty not fought it so strongly.

But Betty continued to tell them the Emperor had no clothes - and 100 other people backed her story - But they discounted THEIR OWN doctors who also agreed with Betty - so they could maintain the farce that they KNEW was a farce all along.

They KNEW the emperor was naked - but they still made Betty PROVE it.

When she finally got someone to say it in a way that THEY felt exposed and naked too - they decided the game was over. Or at least the BVA did - Who knows about the RO - they might still be admiring the Emperor's new clothes.

Free

John,

That is exactly what Dr. Crowley made sure the BVA knew in his Evaluation and his Opinion. He didn't mind telling them that they knew at the time that I did not have a Personality Disorder and was discharged without benefits.

We both were in that same boat. Kicked out and I had been told so much that I would be giving up any benefits, I was fearful of filing.

I will be anxious to see what the R.O does with this letter from the Judge. It is about 8 pages and it does state the claim of 1992 is re-opened. They will do with it what they want anyway.

I am sure I never filed in 1992, for at the time my niece was already a DRO at that R.O and they would have never allowed it.

Thanks bunches!

Betty

[Josephine]

Yep. Josephine's case reminded me of the story - the Emperor's New Clothes. She kept trying to tell them the Emperor was naked - and they kept admiring his new clothes.

I mean the discharge stuff is a farce - and they KNOW it is a FARCE - and that is what the two quacks did - they tried to build on the Farce - with a bunch of made up stuff - counting on the Farce discharge supporting their opinion. And it WOULD have - had Betty not fought it so strongly.

But Betty continued to tell them the Emperor had no clothes - and 100 other people backed her story - But they discounted THEIR OWN doctors who also agreed with Betty - so they could maintain the farce that they KNEW was a farce all along.

They KNEW the emperor was naked - but they still made Betty PROVE it.

When she finally got someone to say it in a way that THEY felt exposed and naked too - they decided the game was over. Or at least the BVA did - Who knows about the RO - they might still be admiring the Emperor's new clothes.

Free

Free,

Dr. Crowley did it well!

Introduction: On January 11, 2008, I saw Betty xxxx in my office for independent medical (psychiatric) examination. She was accompanied by her husband of 42 years. XXXXX. He met her in U.S. Navy Corps School in 1963 at Great Lakes Illinois. He described her as then having been a very attractive, youthful female, who took part in on-base activities, but her hands perspired a lot and she was fearful of the swimming pool.

Review of Medical and Personnel Records:

I have reviewed the following service medical records and personnel records for this veteran, for the period when she was en-listed Navy Corps Wave during the period of Mar. 15, 1963- May 1964.

Psychiatric Consultation by Dr. F. D. Jxxxx 12 March 1964, Dr. G MCMxxxxx 27 March 1964, and a letter by Dr. B. C Campxxx, the veterans military treating physician clarifying his shorthand of his treatment for anxiety with Librium and Cafergfot for headaches.

The treatment records of Dr. George Smxx and Dr. Clarence Tayxxx, his partner.

Although stated in the SSOC of December 7, 2007, to be illegible. Dr. Georxxx Smxx. has written a letter of clarification of treatment of this veteran.

The treatment records of Dr. Milxxx Kxx, 1975-1976 also stated as illegible, I have read 4 letters by Dr. Michael Pxxx 4/5/04, 1/3/06/4/28/06, and 10/09/07 and reviewed the treatment records of Dr. Michael Payxx August 1979 - 2007.

Medical History:

Mrs. XX is a 63 year old female whose medical conditions are: TIA, Rheumatic heart disease, Hypertension, Diabetes, Anxiety, Depression, Headaches, Hypothyroidism, and inner ear/Vestibular disease and de-generative disc disease, Orthostatic hypotension.

Psychiatric History: This veteran has a very long history of anxiety with depression, with treatment beginning in service by Dr. B.C Cxxxx with medication of Librium; treatment 1965-1979 with Dr. G. Smixx and Dr. Clarence Tayxxx; Radford Psychiatrist, Dr. Miltxxx Kibxxx, 1975-1976 to 2007 with Dr. Michael Payxxx and she remains in treatment with Dr. Michxxx Payxxx.

Mental Status Examination: Mrs. xxxx presented in my office as a pleasant, cooperative white female, appearing about her stated age of 63. She was in good contact with the examiner, understood the purpose of this examination - independent evaluation, regarding veterans benefits - and gave permission for me to write this report. She was well oriented for time, place and person. There was no abnormality of thought process or content. She spoke of having had much difficulty with anxiety and depression over many years.

She reports she had no psychiatric difficulties whatsoever prior to military service. Her file contains records related to her Honorable Discharge due to unsuitability regarding emotional difficulties.

She spoke of chronic anxiety with depression over the years. She became emotionally labile and tearful as she described some of her experiences in the service and feeling like a disgrace upon leaving the military. She has panic attacks, fear of driving a vehicle, fear of the unknown, fear of heights and water, white -coat syndrome, headaches, dreams of the stairs leading to the pool. She has night terrors and is desperately trying to get her husband to wake her up. She sleeps about 6 hours a day, but states this does not harm her much;her hands stays visibly wet and becomes wetter as she talks about her service time. There were some memorable upsetting experiences in her Navy service including a near drowning, etc. She has never bee able to have any gainful employment for any substantial time since the military and had to give up and seek veterans compensation in 1978. She last worked part time in 1983.

The veteran was given tranquilizer Librium by Dr B. C. Campxxx for the treatment of anxiety as documented in her SMR'S and it is also clarified in his letter of May 10, 2005, and has continued with symptomatic treatment for anxiety for the last 44 years with the physicians listed above.

After the brief evaluations by Drs. MC Mahxxx and Jones in March 1964, the veteran was deemed unsuitable for continuing military service due to a Personality Disorder, and was discharged without medical or other benefits.

Summary of Professional Opinion:

My review of the records show no documentation which would support the diagnosis of Personality Disorder. There simply are no data which would support that diagnosis under the criteria provided in the Diagnostic and Stastical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. No psychological or personality testing was done. There was never any showing of an " enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture... is inflexible and pervasive across a broad rage of personal and social situations... is stable and of long duration... (and) is not better accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder." DSM IV TR, pages 287 - 288.

The " other mental disorder" which she clearly DID and DOES have, and for which she has been treated for 43 years, is Anxiety Disorder.

The veteran had no childhood psychiatric, difficulties or treatment, Her anxiety disorder began during her time in service. She has been treated for anxiety disorder for 43 years by a number of physicians.

Diagnosis: 300.00 Anxiety Disorder, NOS,Chronic, Severe, with Depressive Features.

This chronic, and in this veterans' case, disabling, mental disorder first manifested itself while in service and has required treatment ever since. There is no evidence to support the diagnosis of personality disorder made in 1964 and used as a basis for her separation from service.

Sincerely.

B. Cxxxx M.D. D.L.F.P.A.

Betty

[jmack]

I don't know where to start, I have the letter. Yes, the

Judge was the Most Honest and Wonderful Judge and gave Credit to

those in the Manner of how a claim should be decided.

I am sure the Attorney for the Board wrote the letter and the Judge

signed it.

Can you believe that "WE" did this 44 years after

discharge? I couldn't have done it without each and everyone of

Congrats, I just knew that you would prevail. All Glory to GOD.

Jmack

you!!!!

ORDER

SERVICE CONNECTION FOR CHRONIC ANXIETY IS GRANTED.

This is like a new case at the BVA

THE ISSUE

Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the

claim of entitlment to service connection for an acquired psychiatric

disorder, to include anxiety and depression.

It goes on to say that I filed in 1992 and was denied and it became

final as I never appealed.

New and Material

To reopen a claim which has been previously denied and which is

final, the claimant must present new and material evidence.

In this case, the evidence received since the R.O's June 1992 denial

of service connection for chronic anxiety with nervousness includes

some duplicate copies of previously considered treatment records.

Such records were considered in the previous denial and are not new

and material. Also added to the claims file since the previous 1992

denial were additional treatment records not previously of record and

private and VA treatment records which show continued treatment for

psychiatric complaints.

The service treatment records are new in that they reflect inservice

treatment for psychiatric symptoms which were determined to preclude

further military service. These documents include inservice

assessments as to the veterans psychiatric complaints. The evidence

is considered new in that it contains information that was not

considered at the time of the 1992 decision, and it is material

because it purports to show treatment for psychiatric disability

during service which was not objectively shown by the evidence

previously.

Any way this Attorney read my buddy letter, a nurse, who was an eye

witness and I was able to prove assault by a physician and mental

abuse by physicians.

The Swimming pool was a factor also, but not Doris.

Dr. Payne is given weight for his treatment of me for the last 30

years.

Dr. Muller the first C&P doctor carried a lot of weight.

My Pastor of 50 years was given credit

Dr. Campion was given a lot of weight

Dr. Crowley was given a lot of weight

The two lying shrinks very little is said of them.

I have no ideal of how far back I will be paid and how much the

percent will be.

A big thanks to everone!!!

Always,

Betty