Post a clear title like ‘Need help preparing PTSD claim’ or “VA med center won’t schedule my surgery”instead of ‘I have a question.
Knowledgeable people who don’t have time to read all posts may skip yours if your need isn’t clear in the title.
I don’t read all posts every login and will gravitate towards those I have more info on.
Use paragraphs instead of one massive, rambling introduction or story.
Again – You want to make it easy for others to help. If your question is buried in a monster paragraph, there are fewer who will investigate to dig it out.
Post straightforward questions and then post background information.
Question A. I was previously denied for apnea – Should I refile a claim?
Adding Background information in your post will help members understand what information you are looking for so they can assist you in finding it.
Rephrase the question: I was diagnosed with apnea in service and received a CPAP machine, but the claim was denied in 2008. Should I refile?
Question B. I may have PTSD- how can I be sure?
See how the details below give us a better understanding of what you’re claiming.
Rephrase the question: I was involved in a traumatic incident on base in 1974 and have had nightmares ever since, but I did not go to mental health while enlisted. How can I get help?
This gives members a starting point to ask clarifying questions like “Can you post the Reasons for Denial of your claim?”
Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. This process does not take long.
Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. The review requirement will usually be removed by the 6th post. However, we reserve the right to keep anyone on moderator preview.
This process allows us to remove spam and other junk posts before hitting the board. We want to keep the focus on VA Claims, and this helps us do that.
Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:
You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons …Continue reading
Sorry ahead of time, this is a bit long.
Dated March, 27 1974
Statement of the Case
Pertinent Laws; Regulations; Rating Schedule Provisons:
(38 USC 310, 331) circa: 1974. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated by service.
(38 C.F.R. 3.303) circa: 1974. Congenital or developmental defects as such are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation.
(38 C.F.R. 3.102) circa 1974. When reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other part, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. A reasonable doubt means a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from speculation or remote possibility.
(side note) It must be noted that the above references are only in part, you must read them in their entirety in order to understand their proper applicability and use) This side is from me, not the VA and not a part of the Statement of the Case.
Service connection for concussion and nervous disorder is not assignable.
Reason for Decision:
Although Mr. XXXXXX sustained a concussion while on active duty, the latest VA examination is negative for residual disability. Accordingly , there is no disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by military service to which a grant of service connection could attach. Available records which form a portion or Mr. XXXXXX C File indicate a pattern of disability first thought to stem from a psychosis and later found to stem, instead, from a personality disorder. As the latter is a condition congenital and developmental in nature for which disability compensation benefits are not payable, service connection must be withheld. We regret that the evidence now on file does not permit a more favorable determination. We will continue to review any later furnished evidence that is pertinent to the matters under discussion.
(Me again) The statement in the Reason for Decision really gets to me and it is hard sometimes to get past it and look at thing in an impersonal and objective manner. Which I am not a very good judge to say whether I am or not.
I'll try to take these in order and give you my reasoning why the reasons stated above are not only wrong, but very misleading.
I. Concussion , although sustained while on active duty, the latest VA examination is negative for residual disability.
A. EEG tracing showed an adnormal slow wave pattern of the frontal lobe of the brain and remained the same after two subsequent tests, even after being off medication for a period, the EEG tracing showing slow wave pattern was still abnormal and was attributable to the concussion I incurred when I fell a broke my Nasal Bone, while a patient for the same psychotic episode, the fracture nasal bone being the only disease or injury for which I was SC and it was only at 0%..
1. To this date, their has never been a repeat EEG test, to confirm that the slow wave form tracings of the frontal lobe of the brain, has resolved back to normal or its continuing effects on me, the Veteran.
2. Since their was a known Concussion, a verifiable injury to the frontal lobe of the brain, evidenced by the SC fractured nasal bone, which is the area of the brain where ones personality develops from, why then was this not explored further, to see what or if it was the cause or reason for the PD diagnosis as per (38 C.F.R. 4.128, Change of Diagnosis) circa: 1974.
Rating boards encountering a change of diagnosis will exercise caution in the determination as to whether a change in diagnosis represents no more than a progression of an earlier diagnosis, an error in a prior diagnosis, or possibly a disease entity independent of the service connected psychiatric disorder. (in total)
II. Available records which form a portion of Mr. XXXXXX C File indicate a pattern of disability first thought to stem from a psychosis and later found to stem, instead, from a personality disorder.
A. The only evidence I have been able to find in my C File, to date even, except the VA C&P Examiner's summery report, are my own statements as to my history prior to service, which I am sure they twisted to their advantage. But then I thought such evidence, unless supported by concurrent evidence can not be used, but then again, I have been wrong before.
1. Taking the examiner's summery report. As I have spoken of many times, using the exact statement and witting, the examiner only stated "At this time my preferred diagnosis would be that of a personality disorder, inadequate type associated with an inadequate educational experience. No. psychosis is present and that on the basis of the history, he could not fully support the diagnosis of Schizophrenia, He is competent to hand his own affairs at this time.
(me again) I am trying hard to look at the examiner's report in an impersonal and objective manner, but for the life of me I have yet to see anything that says, states, insinuates, or other wise supports the Rater's statement that my psychosis, the proper diagnosis being at the time, Acute Schizophrenic Episode, in remission, stemmed from a PD. This appears to me, at least, a complete fabrication and misstatement of the facts and evidence, extent at that time. Restating it as a nervous disorder, is even a mischaracterization of the original diagnosis and the events that led up to my being hospitalized, on a psychiatric ward for three months. (see 38 C.F.R. 4.127) circa: 1974. Mental Deficiency and Personality Disorders
Mental deficiency and personality disorders will not be considered as disabilities under the terms of the schedule. Attention is directed to the outline of personality disorders in the APA manual, Page 34, et seq. Formal psychometric tests are essential in the diagnosis of mental deficiency, brief emotional out-bursts or periods of confusion are not unusual in mental deficiency or personality disorders and are not acceptance as the basis for a diagnosis of psychotic reactions developing after enlistment, i.e., mental deficiency with psychotic reactions or personality disorders with psychotic reaction, are to be considered as disabilities analogous to and ratable as schizophrenic reaction, unless otherwise diagnosed.
If there was an error in the original diagnosis, where is the supporting statement that clearly and unmistakably shows this? Assumptions are not facts, making statement not in evidence are not proof. A mere diagnosis of a PD, while there is an existing diagnosis of a psychiatric one, although not fully supported by a VA C&P Examiner, yet supported by a conference of Psychiatrists of the US Navy Medical Board, is not sufficient to constitute error in the minds of others, that they would not differ in their opinion, that their was in fact, error in the original diagnosis.
I'm tired, but most of all, I am angry. Angry that there are those who say, their was error or CUE and then there are those who say, there is no error or CUE. My consensus is that since there is no agreement, there must then be error or CUE in the original claim. Right or wrong, that is how I reason it in my mind and that is not debatable.
The problem, as I see it, is not what the error or CUE was, but how to write it, to support it properly, so that it has meaning, weight, and is sufficiently evidenced, so that it will prevail.
I have Cognitive problems that I have finally been able to substantiate, at least to myself and one neuropsych examiner, so writing this in a meaningful and understandable way is difficult at best. Maybe I am just venting and trying to understand all this, and it will be all I get from it, however I do not think so. Maybe my NSC adjustment disorder is so ingrained in my personality now, that I will never accept anything less, than showing that the VARO committed reversible error, in their original decision, which denied my claim for a psychiatric disorder, its residuals, and for residuals of a TBI/concussion.
Finally the question that bothers me the most, why is their no discussion by the Rater and/or C&P Examiner as to the other two parts of (38 C.F.R. 4.128) other than error and secondly where are the formal psychometric tests to support the C&P examiners own assertion and opinion of the PD diagnosis? The Rater cannot use the psychometric tests results from one Dr. saying one thing and use those same test results to say another without showing his rational (reason and basis) why the other opinion is in error and then of course it must show that it was clearly and unmistakably in error, in order for his opposing opinion to be used as the correct one and in order to have a change in a prior diagnosis be valid.
Like I have said, this is tiring and now my head is beginning to ache, so I will leave you to ponder what I have said and look forward to comments, suggestions, or support. Anyone, with the exception of the support, I may not and probably won't agree upon, but don't let that keep your from posting. Please.
Rockhound RiderEdited by Rockhound (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
Top Posters For This Question
john999 3 posts
Rockhound 3 posts
Angela 2 posts
Teac 2 posts
Jul 16 2008
Jul 15 2008
Jul 26 2008
Jul 17 2008
10 answers to this question
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.