I Hate The Va! I Hate Them I Hate Them I Hate Them

[SouthernBelle]

So, I'm so mad I can't see straight right now. They denied the increase again. I can't believe it, I really just can't understand how a DOCTOR'S OPINION, the DOCTOR WHO TREATS MY HUSBAND TREATS HIM! can be ignored for a lower rating. RATERS ARE NOT DOCTORS! DAMN, I'm pissed. I am sitting here shaking I'm so mad.

Edited December 15, 2008 by SouthernBelle

[poolguy11550]

Pool guy - if she gets a DRO review the background of the previous rater is moot because the DRO will be the one making a new Decision on his claim. Have you ever heard of anyone successfully winning a case because of the education/background of the rater? To me this is completely irrelevant as the VA has the authority to rate the claim no matter what the education/background is of the rater. I am concerned you are, with good intentions, steering SB down a blind alley that will just delay her claim further.

Thanks,

TS Snave

This is a process, the DRO review will hopefully clear this matter up and most likely the DRO will. If not, then it should be strongly pointed out that a reasonable minded person would have seen the 70% rating warranted under the laws pertaining to the reasonable doubt. The clear fact is that in the raters own writing he/she even suddgest that the veterans condition as 50% for and 50% against the increase. I feel that the inquiry into the background rater is warrented when it is overwhelmingly clear the rater is not familier with his/her duties. Thats how I see it.

[jbasser]

Pool guy - if she gets a DRO review the background of the previous rater is moot because the DRO will be the one making a new Decision on his claim. Have you ever heard of anyone successfully winning a case because of the education/background of the rater? To me this is completely irrelevant as the VA has the authority to rate the claim no matter what the education/background is of the rater. I am concerned you are, with good intentions, steering SB down a blind alley that will just delay her claim further.

Thanks,

TS Snave

TS, for administrative reasons, Please bow out out of this topic.

Thank you

J

[SouthernBelle]

I only have 30 Days to respond to the SSOC, it is dated 10 December 2008. If I request the DRO review, does that count as a response or do I have to send the NOD in at the same time so I still make their deadline?

[rentalguy1]

poolguy...read the evidence that was considered. The evidence that was of record at the time of the decision clearly does not merit a 70% rating when compared to the criteria listed in the Chronic Adjustment Disorder criteria of 38 CFR 4.130. The education level of the rater is moot, regardless of what appeals process is taken. Section 4.2 assures this by stating that it is the responsibility of the RSVR to interpret reports of examination in light of the whole disability picture. Sections 4.3 and 4.7 do not apply in this claim, either, due to the nature of the evidence in the file. In the absence of the evidence that I listed previously, I can almost guarantee that this decision will not be overturned by either a DRO or the BVA.

TS, your point is valid, and upheld by the regs.

[rentalguy1]

You have to submit an NOD before you can ask for a DRO review. Write it so that you are disagreeing with their decision dated XXXXX, then at the end of the letter tell them that you wish to have a DRO review with a IN PERSON hearing.

I still urge you to consider what you are doing before doing it. I will stand behind you and help no matter which direction you go, though.

[poolguy11550]

"while some symptoms supportive of a 70% evaluation are noted by the evidence we reviewed, the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria at the 50% level."-

What specific evidence brings the "disability picture" to the 50% level. Also note that there is no reference to the reasonable doubt- was this important step even considered? The point is we'll never know because the record is silent to that fact. Therein lays my point- the claimant my be 50%, but it is the VA's duty to clearly note why it came to such decision.