tdiu Concerning Tdiu

[Josephine]

Are these two doctors the first being from the C&P October 2004 and the second one April 12, 2005 addressing my being unempoyable?

Should they have said more?

Thanks,

Betty

Edited October 1, 2008 by Josephine

[free_spirit_etc]

Your raised some good points. But wouldn't the fact that the VA found her to be eligible for a pension based on unemployability (though ineligible due to her husband's income) come into play?

The VA hasn't even acknowledged her claim back to 1983 yet. But they should be able to grant it back to 1983 (or whenever she filed to arrive at the 1983 decision) because she applied for Service Connection - and they approved her for pension - except for her family income.

So they SHOULD date her SC claim back to the date that preceeded the 1983 decision -since they granted it back to 1992 based on the fact that the SMRs that showed service connection were not in her file.

And since most of her other conditions that would be considered disabling didn't even get diagnosed until AFTER 1983 - then on what basis did the VA say she was unemployable in 1983?

I agree that any statement by a doctor made at that time would help. It would seem that even a statement from a doctor who treated her at that time would help.

Based on the work history reported in the C&P exams - she had intermittent jobs that would be considered marginal employment even before 1983.

And they are using one of the doctor's notes to try to say she wasn't that disabled - i.e. that she worked at a high stress job and then worked at home.

If her job wasn't a high stress job, but a job that she found stressful - and if she never did work (as in employment) from home - but rather his reference to her working at home meant working around the house.. then they have misconstrued his statements.

I do think that she should get SC back to 1983, as her SMRs were missing - and they found her to be disabled then. Even at 10% - that would be a chunk of change.

I imagine a female vet would have a harder time showing they could never hold sustaining employment because of a disability - because "back in the day" many females only worked part-time off and on anyway. So it wouldn't be as strong a correlation as a male vet that could show he never worked much. It would be harder to determine if it was because of being disabled or by choice.

Free

Free,

This has been my take.

Neither Betty nor any doctor documented the reason she has not worked since 1983 prior to the NSC exam. Thus, the record is silent as to any occupational impairment prior to the NSC exam. The VA does not recognize non combat veterans subjective historic accounts of events that are not supported by medical evaluations.

Thus, they can not back date evidence. As far as I know the medical evidence she has prior to the NSC exam is prescriptions for meds and complaints of anxiety. There were no hopitilizations nor any significant testing nor GAF scores assigned prior to the NSC exam. The meds and complaints of anxiety will not result in a high GAF based on a review of the records known to exist. If Betty could produce a medical consult written in 1983 that her anxiety prohibited her from working starting in 1983 then she would have a basis for a higher rating to 1983. if the rest of the CUE stood up.

[Josephine]

Free,

This has been my take.

Neither Betty nor any doctor documented the reason she has not worked since 1983 prior to the NSC exam. Thus, the record is silent as to any occupational impairment prior to the NSC exam. The VA does not recognize non combat veterans subjective historic accounts of events that are not supported by medical evaluations.

Thus, they can not back date evidence. As far as I know the medical evidence she has prior to the NSC exam is prescriptions for meds and complaints of anxiety. There were no hopitilizations nor any significant testing nor GAF scores assigned prior to the NSC exam. The meds and complaints of anxiety will not result in a high GAF based on a review of the records known to exist. If Betty could produce a medical consult written in 1983 that her anxiety prohibited her from working starting in 1983 then she would have a basis for a higher rating to 1983. if the rest of the CUE stood up.

Hoppy,

The VA did not give me an exam for the NSC. They had all of my post treatment records to read from 1965- date and a few sick bay records.

They will just have to believe the doctors.

I would just like to know how to fill out this TDIU form, since it is not my fault the VA was negligent and did not acquire my military records.

Now, I am having to go back most of my life to prove something that happened.

Always,

Betty

[Hoppy]

And since most of her other conditions that would be considered disabling didn't even get diagnosed until AFTER 1983 - then on what basis did the VA say she was unemployable in 1983?

Free,

I think the RO intrepreted a statement Betty made to the examiner that she could not work because of the anxiety since 1983. If the examiner stated that a review of the evidence of record supports a determination that her disability has prevented her from working since 1983 then the RO would need to rebut the doctors statement.

I have told Betty about this and I do not think the doctor who made the note about her not working since 1983 supported the logic behind this comment. Thus, the RO intrepreted it as a subjectibe statment from Betty rather than an opinion from the doctor based on the medical record.

If Betty were to have a doctor review the written reports only and determine that the drugs and other notes written by doctors since 1983 showed a signficant impairment to employment then her case to 1983 would be stronger. They have already low balled her for that period of time. The best way to fight the VA is with more and stromger medical reports. As the record stands now the evidence does support a low rating such as 10% back to the date they made the award. Then her disability increases as her more recent exams show increased symptomology.