ptsd Denial For Mdd

[fogcloud]

Am I out-of-luck? I got my denial for MDD today. Reason for denial is because it is not secondary to my PTSD. Well, I jumped into my files of each and every letter I have ever sent to the VARO related to my claim. Sure enough, I DID CLAIM IT AS SECONDARY TO MY PTSD!!! This is totally my fault and I have no idea why I put MDD under my secondary infirmities. Is there any thing I can do now? Can I just tell them I messed up in my claim? Or do I need to file an NOD? Or do I ask for a sit-down with the DRO? The VA doctor at the C&P said he agreed with my MDD. Hope someone has a good answer.

Fog

[john999]

I thinik MMD could be secondary to PTSD. Maybe you need a better medical opinion to tie in togeher. Most with PTSD suffer anxiety and depression. I think this just makes your PTSD case stronger if you can show that you are also very depressed.

[Ricky]

Please keep in mind that you will only get one rating for a mental issue no matter how many you display. This is per the general rating schedule for mental disorders. So if you have a claim in for PTSD you will be rated for PTSD

[fogcloud]

Thanks everyone. I should have mentioned that my claim for MDD and PTSD were denied. Apparently, they determined that I had the PTSD and MDD prior to enlisting. Can I do anything to help myself even though the MDD was in the "Secondary Column" by my own error?

[john999]

Fog

Were you in combat or have combat awards? What was you stressor? The military is saying they enlisted you knowing you had PTSD, or that they did not detect it on enlistment? What proof do they have to your pre-existing PTSD. This is odd. How long were in service?

[Josephine]

Thanks everyone. I should have mentioned that my claim for MDD and PTSD were denied. Apparently, they determined that I had the PTSD and MDD prior to enlisting. Can I do anything to help myself even though the MDD was in the "Secondary Column" by my own error?

If you can share with us,

What happened to cause you to have PTSD before service?

If you weren't sound at the time, why did they allow you in service?

I keep these regulations in my files, as the VA tried this one me also.

Betty

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this regard, every veteran shall be taken to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted, and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination, acceptance, and enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b).

To rebut the presumption of sound condition under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111, VA must show by clear and unmistakable evidence both that the disease or injury existed prior to service and that the disease or injury was not aggravated by service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b); VAOPGCPREC 3-03, 69 Fed. Reg. 25178 (2004); Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The veteran is not required to show that the disease or injury increased in severity during service before VA's duty under the second prong of this rebuttal standard attaches. See Cotant v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 116, 132 (2003).

When no preexisting condition is noted upon entry into service, the veteran is presumed to have been sound upon entry. The burden then falls on the government to rebut the presumption of soundness by clear and unmistakable evidence that the veteran's disability was both preexisting and not aggravated by service. The government may show a lack of aggravation by establishing that there was no increase in disability during service or that any "increase in disability [was] due to the natural progress of the" preexisting condition. 38 U.S.C. § 1153.

Wagner, 370 F.3d at 1096. Clear and unmistakable evidence is a more formidable evidentiary burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard. See Vanerson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 254, 258 (1999). It is an onerous evidentiary standard, requiring that the no-aggravation result be "undebatable." Cotant, 17 Vet. App. at 131.

Miller v. West, 11 Vet. 345, 348 (1998) (holding that a conclusion written by a medical

professional without factual predicate in the record is not clear and unmistakable evidence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of soundness)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[donews]

If you do not mind, it might be helpful if you posted a verbatim of the actual wording they used in your denial letter.