Varo Sent My Claim / File Out Of State

[jecsb4]

Hope all are doing well,

I have a reconsideration (for a higher SC%) I filed last year, have a C&P by an non-qualified general doctor, I contacted the VARO telling them the exam was flawed and provided evidence as to why. Suprising they schedule me for another C&P and that one was more in line with what my IMO statement stated along with two other specialists.

So the second C&P was in April, and now I hear that my file was “brokered out” in May and is due back to my VARO in Sept and is ready for a decision. This data was provided to me by my POA, not the VARO

My questions are the following:

Is this sound like a good development – sending it to VARO in OK?

Does this seem like a bad thing – having my file to OK?

It seem to me that my VARO could have made a decision locally…unless they are to busy.

Is it logical to send a file to a separate office when all the historical data is w/ the local VARO, the doctors, etc?

To me, it doesn’t make sense to farm out a file when it can be handled locally….the more a file is shuffled around, the longer it takes…it doesn’t sound logical to me.

My POA said there are 5 stations / steps in final decision process??

What If I want to submit more evidence – can I? Will it get to the OKVARO?

Should I do a IRIS query for info / update?

Thanks

[deltaj]

Last time V.A. sent my husband's file out of state during an appeal period, I think it was to prevent my husband's representative at DAV from seeing evidence in the file. My husband had sent them additional service records during an appeal period which he had obtained from the National Personnel Records Center. My husband's representative overlooked this service records in a sea of documents and failed to mention 38 CFR 3.156 ©. He also failed to bring it to V.A.'s attention that VARO's 1971 notification letter to the veteran had the wrong zip code on it in the veteran's address. see 38 CFr 3.1 and see 38 CFR 3.103. I did later get him an earlier effective date based on a CUE claim about a claim received 18 months before the effective date than he had been given and new and material evidence received during the appeal period of that decision under 38 CFR 3.400 (q), but it was not the effective date he should have gotten.