Jump to content
HadIt.com Future: Zoom Meeting Dec 3, 2022 02:00 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada) - Join Us. ×
It Turns Out HadIt.com Is Not Dead Yet! ×
  • 0

Wannabee?


Guest Berta

Question

  • Answers 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • In Memoriam

I did work in the line shack, and that is where all the action was. I was a Plane Captain. We saw many deaths at sea and on land. That is the reason this guy said that he was in the line shack. Some ADJ's (Jet Mechanics) did work on the line division (line shack). He was just taking advantage of that fact.

He should have left it alone.

Many questions were answered for me also.

Cue question???

I had 11 teeth damaged while at on cruise. The VA only list 2 SC teeth as dental trauma in my 1986 claim. If the VARO just overlooked the other teeth, that were on the service dental records as per injury, would this disallow que?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder
I did work in the line shack, and that is where all the action was. I was a Plane Captain. We saw many deaths at sea and on land. That is the reason this guy said that he was in the line shack. Some ADJ's (Jet Mechanics) did work on the line division (line shack). He was just taking advantage of that fact.

He should have left it alone.

Many questions were answered for me also.

Cue question???

I had 11 teeth damaged while at on cruise. The VA only list 2 SC teeth as dental trauma in my 1986 claim. If the VARO just overlooked the other teeth, that were on the service dental records as per injury, would this disallow que?

Stretch, Sounds like CUE to me!! ~Wings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can show that the VARO Rater was supposed to consider the Character of service as well as the medical records, when considering an alternative diagnosis of a personality disorder, to rebutt the presumption of sound condition, then is it fraud by the VA Rater for not requesting the personnel records to be intered into the C-File so the C&P Examiner and the rater would have the complete records, to base their opinion and decision on?

In part, taken from a claim of Fraud that Berta posted:

The facts as they were known at the time of the May 1998

grant of service connection for PTSD with dysthymia and

depression were not before the adjudicator.

In part of a Claim of CUE by Jim S. (Just a theory, not an actual claim)

The facts as they were known at the time of the November, 1974 denial of service connection for a Mental disorder were not before the adjudicator. Nor were they in evidence at a subsequent claim in January, 1979, to reopen with new and material evidence, which was denied on the same basis as the November, 1974 claim.

A personality disorder being a developmental disorder, it is tantamount of the Rater to consider not only medical evidence during time of service, but that of the Veterans character of service, as shown by his personnel records.

Can anyone enlighten me if a Veteran's personnel records must be considered when a personality disorder is suggested? Especially when considering a change in the diagnois of a mental disorder, the rating agency shall determine whether the new diagnosis represents progression of the prior diagnosis, correction of an error in the prior diagnosis, or development of a new and separate condition. If it is not clear from the

available records what the change of diagnosis represents, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner for a determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder
If I can show that the VARO Rater was supposed to consider the Character of service as well as the medical records, when considering an alternative diagnosis of a personality disorder, to rebutt the presumption of sound condition, then is it fraud by the VA Rater for not requesting the personnel records to be intered into the C-File so the C&P Examiner and the rater would have the complete records, to base their opinion and decision on?

In part, taken from a claim of Fraud that Berta posted:

The facts as they were known at the time of the May 1998

grant of service connection for PTSD with dysthymia and

depression were not before the adjudicator.

In part of a Claim of CUE by Jim S. (Just a theory, not an actual claim)

The facts as they were known at the time of the November, 1974 denial of service connection for a Mental disorder were not before the adjudicator. Nor were they in evidence at a subsequent claim in January, 1979, to reopen with new and material evidence, which was denied on the same basis as the November, 1974 claim.

A personality disorder being a developmental disorder, it is tantamount of the Rater to consider not only medical evidence during time of service, but that of the Veterans character of service, as shown by his personnel records.

Can anyone enlighten me if a Veteran's personnel records must be considered when a personality disorder is suggested? Especially when considering a change in the diagnois of a mental disorder, the rating agency shall determine whether the new diagnosis represents progression of the prior diagnosis, correction of an error in the prior diagnosis, or development of a new and separate condition. If it is not clear from the

available records what the change of diagnosis represents, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner for a determination.

Jim, Maybe you should start a new thread? The title of this post is wannabe. ~Wings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wings and everyone else:

I was just trying to show that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander. If they can show fraud, why can't we.? If we can prove fraud by the VARO Raters, then I think you will see an improvement in claiims adjudication. Of course proving fraud by the VARO is not as easy as they can prove fraud against a Wannabe.

Just like when the VARO neglects to review evidence, which is known to be in the records and is made aware of this evidence, then their refusal to consider that evidence in their adjudication is no different, than the fraud they say was commited here. simply put.

The facts as they were known at the time of denying of service connection, were not before the adjudicator

I dislike wannabes as much as I hate wannabe Raters.

Jim S. :P

Edited by Jim S. (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim has a good point. Fraud can be used to deny a claim easier than it can to get one approved. It's much harder to come up with records that don't or shouldn't exist than it is to simply deny evidence exists. I believe it is just as fraudulant but almost imposible to prove when decisions are made without the proper and full evidence. And when it is proven, no one is held accountable. It is a matter of Law on both sides. A wannabe should be prosecuted for fraud. A rater should be prosecuted for fraud.

Time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

The thing is that the VA has absolutely no incentive to approve a claim and every incentive to deny. No one gets punished for wrongly denying a claim. I don't think any rater gets a gold star for approving the most claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines