De Novo

[broncovet]

Can someone explain a De Novo Review? Is a De Novo in addition to a DRO appeal, or is it instead of a DRO Review? Also, is their an advantage to a DRO hearing? I am guessing that a hearing would take longer, but is it worth the wait?

[carlie]

I suggest to request a DRO with a Hearing - gives you a face to face meeting.

jmho,

carlie

[carlie]

Study Chapter 5 - Appeals -- Section C

http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/M21_1MR.html

Hope this helps a vet.

carlie

[Teac]

Can someone explain a De Novo Review? Is a De Novo in addition to a DRO appeal, or is it instead of a DRO Review? Also, is their an advantage to a DRO hearing? I am guessing that a hearing would take longer, but is it worth the wait?

Actually a De Novo review, a DRO Hearing and a DRO appeal are all one of the same. The only proper name is De Novo review, you can either request to appear at the review or not. In my opinion this is just a waste of time and an added burden to you and the VARO. If you are working your own claim and have your evidence in order than in my opinion there is no reason to appear in person. If you appear in person I suggest that you have a represenative with you because if you say one thing out of context you could ruin your chances of getting service connection. If you request to appear this will take longer because they must schedule teh appeal for a specific date, time and place, and in most cases a heariing is not worth the longer wait. JMHO

[lllfly]

De Novo

The New

1.cover again

2.as if for the first time:as

3.allowing independent appellate determation of issues (as of fact or law) a de novo review.

B

1.allowing complete retrial upon new

evidence

2.A de novo review is an in-depth review.Decisions of federal administrative agencies generally suject to de novo review in the U.S. District Courts, and some lower state court decisions are subject to de novo review at the next level.

Now you know.

LLFLY

[yoggie2]

I personally think the DRO hearing in person is KING if you have the evidence to back your claim. For instances if they made major mistakes as in my claim..."errors"..... I have often read and heard where Vets file a NOD and file for a DRO (NOT the hearing) and the VA just parrot the original denial...Just my opinion,,,,

[john999]

Yoggie

When I have asked for a De Novo review in my NOD I have gotten a cut and paste job. You got to have a hearing in front of a person to have a chance in my opinion. This gives you the best odds to point out mistakes. It helps if you have a competent POA at the hearing with you, and not some half-witted DAV guy who wants you to settle for a whatever the DRO wants to hand out as a token.

[MRRRR5]

I requested a DRO review for a NOD submitted in October 2006 (left tarsal tunnel syndrome); got the "brown envelope" today with a SOC and VA Form 9!

It was definitely a cut and paste job. The VA stated in the original denial that I had all the symptons, however, the doctor "gave an assessment (impression) of left tarsal tunnel syndrome, and not a definitive diagnosis".

So I contacted (emailed) the doctor, explained the VA denial and why, and ask her to clarify what she meant on the original EMG report. Doctor responsed that "the diagnosis is left tarsal tunnel syndrome".

Sent this to VA with the NOD and they still denied me.

Oh by the way, the date on the paperwork of the DRO review was 9 July 2008; go figure!!! :P

[mobie16r]

A DE NOVO Dro is like going back and starting your claim anew,but you keep the initial date of claim,and it is handle on the local level,just like a getting second chance and if you don't get what you want,you can still appeal ,TO THE BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS (BVA) in Washington D.C.You don't necessary have to submit new evidence but you can, and that's the good part.I would aways go De Novo Dro.

Mobie16r

Edited July 12, 2008 by mobie16r (see edit history)

[MRRRR5]

I requested a DRO review for a NOD submitted in October 2006 (left tarsal tunnel syndrome); got the "brown envelope" today with a SOC and VA Form 9!

It was definitely a cut and paste job. The VA stated in the original denial that I had all the symptons, however, the doctor "gave an assessment (impression) of left tarsal tunnel syndrome, and not a definitive diagnosis".

So I contacted (emailed) the doctor, explained the VA denial and why, and ask her to clarify what she meant on the original EMG report. Doctor responsed that "the diagnosis is left tarsal tunnel syndrome".

Sent this to VA with the NOD and they still denied me.

Oh by the way, the date on the paperwork of the DRO review was 9 July 2008; go figure!!!

Update,

great advise from some of the posters for this topic that I will remember when I go to the VARO hearing.

Submitted my Form 9 BVA appeal after receiving SOC. Also requested a VARO hearing.

Got letter today that hearing is next month. After reviewing 2006 C&P from this that they used to initially deny SC, I notice VA doctor stated that that "there was no C-file to review". Wasn't this supposed to be available for examiner to review which they would had seen the issues from the previous EMG/NCV study and on-going problems/treatment?

I have since received another doctor's medical opinion in June 2008 who took a full history, reviewed my medical records, and sent me for an EMG/NCV. The EMG/NCV came back normal but he (doc) stated that the condition is chronic "peripheral nueropathy of the left lower extremity" and prescribed Gabapentin for it.

I hope this PN diagnosis doesn't cause any further delays; any comments are welcomed and appreciated.

[Berta]

Is the PN secondary to diabetes due to AO?

De Novo- boy did I raise hell when I got a verbatim de novo review SOC-

I then got a conference set with my rep and the DRO from the VSM -I asked her to CUE the decision-it is against VA regs to get copy and paste de novos-

I feel a De Novo-when it is handled properly per the DRO regs in 38 CFR and M21-1- means one more pair of eyes -and thus one more chance to get the evidence read.

"Got letter today that hearing is next month. After reviewing 2006 C&P from this that they used to initially deny SC, I notice VA doctor stated that that "there was no C-file to review". Wasn't this supposed to be available for examiner to review which they would had seen the issues from the previous EMG/NCV study and on-going problems/treatment?"

Right- they should have had the records and reviewed them- this is a good point to raise at the hearing-

I have seen Independent Medical Opinions at the BVA web site were found to have much more weight than VA C & P opinions when the IMO doctor had access to all of the clinical records and referred to them in their opinions.

[MRRRR5]

Is the PN secondary to diabetes due to AO?

De Novo- boy did I raise hell when I got a verbatim de novo review SOC-

I then got a conference set with my rep and the DRO from the VSM -I asked her to CUE the decision-it is against VA regs to get copy and paste de novos-

I feel a De Novo-when it is handled properly per the DRO regs in 38 CFR and M21-1- means one more pair of eyes -and thus one more chance to get the evidence read.

"Got letter today that hearing is next month. After reviewing 2006 C&P from this that they used to initially deny SC, I notice VA doctor stated that that "there was no C-file to review". Wasn't this supposed to be available for examiner to review which they would had seen the issues from the previous EMG/NCV study and on-going problems/treatment?"

Right- they should have had the records and reviewed them- this is a good point to raise at the hearing-

I have seen Independent Medical Opinions at the BVA web site were found to have much more weight than VA C & P opinions when the IMO doctor had access to all of the clinical records and referred to them in their opinions.

Berta, the PN is not due to diabetes.

I will raise that point at the hearing as you suggested; thanks.