'round And 'round We Go

[Ron II]

IRIS today:

I am requesting a DRO informal hearing/conference in accordance with 38 CFR, 3.103.2 and Part 1, M21-1MR (Duty to Assist).

I received the Denver's VARO reply, reference 339/27F/SA, 9/26/08, which is partially quoted below:

"Per information from the appeals team, a DRO hearing can only be requested during the initial phase of your appeal prior to the DRO review."

Please provide me with the precise paragraph of M21-1MR that prescribes

the limitation provided in your reply. Additionally, I see nothing in 38 CFR, 3.103.2 that indicates such.

I appreciate your help in this important matter.

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

The above was my reply to the VA. I replied via IRIS.

Ron

Edited September 30, 2008 by Ron II

[Ron II]

Hi,

This describes it pretty well I think (copy and paste).

DISCUSSION

Notice of Disagreement

My Notice of Disagreement pertaining to Sick Sinus Syndrome with Sinus Bradycardia, Status Post Pacemaker, (claimed as cardiac pacemaker related to bradycardia/arrhythmia, and previously chest pains) was filed with the VA on or about September 11, 2007. It was denied January 31, 2008 while new evidence was being filed.

New and Material Evidence

On January 23, 2008 an Echocardiogram (EC) was conducted by Colorado Springs Cardiologists and interpreted by Dr. David Albrecht. As a result of the testing, Dr. Albrecht provided a diagnosis of Concentric Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (LVH). This new evidence is an independent medical opinion/examination the VA did not have when they made the previous decision and the evidence bears directly on the issue of why it was previously denied. Your denial included the necessity (for a rating of more than 10 percent) for several medical values including, “A higher evaluation of 30 percent is not warranted unless...or evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilation on..., echocardiogram, or X-ray.”

The January 23, 2008 Echocardiogram is the most accurate assessment of my current level of disability and actually supports my contention that my condition has become worse since my 2003 stress test. If nothing else, the new and material evidence shows Concentric Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (LVH) on January 23, 2008. Additionally, since December 2003, there are two pieces of evidence now, the 6.2 METs evaluation and the LVH finding that support a 30 percent rating. It seems that “...reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present .”--now portrays a picture involving multiple tangible medical views warranting 30 percent, and nothing tangible since 2003 that supports a 10 percent rating.

______________________

The VA did not provide a stress test--they determined my METS level by ESP.

Ron

[Ricky]

I would think that if you've already had a DRO review, that it would be too late to request a hearing. The next step would be on to the BVA (thus the Form 9) and they will have to review the new evidence. The only thing I can think of would be for you to request a reconsideration based upon your new evidence and that you would like to have this reconsideration conducted via a DRO Hearing. It's worth a shot. Otherwise, just sit back and wait for your docket number.

As part of your due process rights you can request and they must grant a hearing with any VA employee (rater/DRO/VSCM) at anytime during the process. There are a many post decisional hearings conducted.

[rentalguy1]

As part of your due process rights you can request and they must grant a hearing with any VA employee (rater/DRO/VSCM) at anytime during the process. There are a many post decisional hearings conducted.

Please point me to the section in 38 CFR or M21 where that is stated so I can bookmark it. That could be very useful to many of us in the future.

[Ricky]

Please point me to the section in 38 CFR or M21 where that is stated so I can bookmark it. That could be very useful to many of us in the future.

Sure: CFR 38.103 c (1) - the only restrictions are if the file has been certified to the BVA. I do not have the time right now to pull the M21 reference so I will leave that to you sir.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Ricky

[Ricky]

Allan provided this in another post. It covers POST DECISIONAL HEARINGS:

M21-1MR, Part I, Chapter 4