wildcat Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I have been reading hadit.com as a "guest" for many months now. I think the advice given out by Tbird and others has been excellent. My claim for PTSD,Aggravtion of "bi-polar condition", heart, etc has been in Seattl just over a year now. I k now this not bad as many vets claims have taken considerably longer. I called the 800 # last week and the person said my claim has been up to "the review panel twice". I can't understand the problem / situation. I have a letter from my LA shrink ( a VA pysch. examiner for 15 yrs. early in his career) stating definite aggravation of bi-polar "if the board is reasonable". I was doped up massively on Thorazine and in Vally Forge Hosp. 400 miligrams and was a "zombie". Some call it a chemical labotomy (sp). This was back in 1967- and yes I am a boots on ground Nam vet. Saw my VA shrink yesterday..."mood disorders clinic" and gave him an article about the bad effects of Thorazine. He agreed. He appears to processing me for a "major depressive disorder" rating. Or, that is the feeling I am getting. Is the Seattle panel awaiting a VA shrink opinion because THEY don't believe my private sector shrink of 9 years. I worked for LA unified school in south central for 10 years. I went "off on the job" to my supervisor and went on sick leave for 30 days. Had to be evaluated by an independent shrink before returning to a transfer job. I was a sp. ed. administrator too for many years and can't believe the extremely poor process to notifiy Vietnam vets of what is available to them during 1965 - 1971. In Sp.Ed. legislation (1975) all school districts had to do "Search and Serve" notices in newspapers, etc to notify people that if they had a child with problems- contact your local school district. This was LAW! Now as a 63 year old man with a stent in his heart, loyal citizen, I chat with a 51 yr. old shrink was in jr. hi when I started basic traing in Fort Bliss in May 1966. Should I relax and just wait for Seattle to make a decision. Or do I have to been more depressed in my November session so the Portland shrink will state major depression...and nofify Seattle Wildcat Bien Hoa 1967 - 68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder john999 Posted September 15, 2005 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted September 15, 2005 Wildcat: I think you have that wrong, it's because the the VARO dosen't dot the I's and cross all the T's That vets are getting a raw deal. The VARO seems to have a problem in seeing what is already their in front of them. It's like they are the playing a delaying game, hoping you will give up and go away and some, if not more than some, do. It seems that those Vet's who keep the pressure on the VA are the ones who finally win out in the end, at a cost to the american tax payer untold man hours and unnecessary numbers of C&P exams. not to mention the cases that go all the way to the courts and their associated costs too. Just because the VARO didn't do it's job right to begin with. Jim S. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder john999 Posted September 15, 2005 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted September 15, 2005 Jim S You are right. The failure is at the VARO level. That is why you need to keep it there and get it right before you go to the BVA or COVA as a last resort. Some RO's do a fair job and others are just horrible. Even at the same office you can get pretty good decisions and other times just the most incompetent ratings imaginable. I don't know why this happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Johnson Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 (edited) Wild, You can call Dale White at (206)220-6124 (ask for Dale White), or you can call "Frank I." at the same number and punch in his direct extension of x2927. If they give you any trouble from the 220-6124 number then say you got it from Chris Arnold (the director of the regional office)...both men work for team one or something and act as direct go between men for the raters (they collect and bring all your information to the raters)...hope it helps:-) P.S. - You can say I sent you.. they hate me:-) Edited September 15, 2005 by Jay Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 Wild, You can call Dale White at (206)220-6124 (ask for Dale White), or you can call "Frank I." at the same number and punch in his direct extension of x2927. If they give you any trouble from the 220-6124 number then say you got it from Chris Arnold (the director of the regional office)...both men work for team one or something and act as direct go between men for the raters (they collect and bring all your information to the raters)...hope it helps:-) P.S. - You can say I sent you.. they hate me:-) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Give me a ring...for clarification purposes (360) 798 - 3507 Thanks, Sully U of Arizona USC sucks ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder Hoppy Posted September 16, 2005 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted September 16, 2005 Wildcat: I think you have that wrong, it's because the the VARO dosen't dot the I's and cross all the T's That vets are getting a raw deal. The VARO seems to have a problem in seeing what is already their in front of them. It's like they are the playing a delaying game, hoping you will give up and go away and some, if not more than some, do. It seems that those Vet's who keep the pressure on the VA are the ones who finally win out in the end, at a cost to the american tax payer untold man hours and unnecessary numbers of C&P exams. not to mention the cases that go all the way to the courts and their associated costs too. Just because the VARO didn't do it's job right to begin with. Jim S. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> RO's do not dot the I's, cross the T's, nor look up the big words they do not understand. My first denial was totally based on the fact that the RO did not associate the fact that different doctors use different diagnostic terms for the same condition. Had they looked up the diagnostic terms they would not have made such a blunder as to say I was not treated in-service for my condition. In my second denial the RO started to make up new laws. I learned how to argue against these when I started researching trust laws. The RO did what attorneys call "inventing false standards of law". The RO turned medical principals into legal arguments. Service connection is not based on a specific number of diagnostic references in the SMR. Would you believe they denied it the second time saying there were not enough references in my SMR. That is a false standard of law. There is no law that says how many times the condition needs to be diagnosed. The medical principals established by medical opinions determine how many events are necessary. In my case the condition was diagnosed in service and had no known cure. Thus, once you have it you will always have it. The problem is that the RO's adjudicators are undertrained. They wind up on tangents that they should never venture into. That is why you wind up taKing cases to DRO's and the BVA. The senior adjudicators have a better understanding of the lasw do a better job. Hoppy 100% for angioedema with secondary conditions Hoppy 100% for Angioedema with secondary conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat Posted September 16, 2005 Author Share Posted September 16, 2005 RO's do not dot the I's, cross the T's, nor look up the big words they do not understand. My first denial was totally based on the fact that the RO did not associate the fact that different doctors use different diagnostic terms for the same condition. Had they looked up the diagnostic terms they would not have made such a blunder as to say I was not treated in-service for my condition. In my second denial the RO started to make up new laws. I learned how to argue against these when I started researching trust laws. The RO did what attorneys call "inventing false standards of law". The RO turned medical principals into legal arguments. Service connection is not based on a specific number of diagnostic references in the SMR. Would you believe they denied it the second time saying there were not enough references in my SMR. That is a false standard of law. There is no law that says how many times the condition needs to be diagnosed. The medical principals established by medical opinions determine how many events are necessary. In my case the condition was diagnosed in service and had no known cure. Thus, once you have it you will always have it. The problem is that the RO's adjudicators are undertrained. They wind up on tangents that they should never venture into. That is why you wind up taKing cases to DRO's and the BVA. The senior adjudicators have a better understanding of the lasw do a better job. Hoppy 100% for angioedema with secondary conditions <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hoppy, A big thanks to you and others for the guidance,suggestions, and cautions about dealing with the VA. God - If I had been so stubborn and insensitive during my sp.ed. administrative career "the parents" and staff would have had my arse fired in a " New York minute". I really appreciate the help and now know that I am walking in a "bi-polar mine field" with these examiners, board reviews, etc. As I told Jay last night on the phone...I am amazed at the "lack of trust" between a huge govt agency that is suppose to be helpful - but is not. It would help if we had fewer fraudulent claims that clog up the system and delay legitimate claims. I may get a "dime" or two or a denial - than I too become a "street lawyer!". I won't toss in the towel. Thanks again for the emotional support and guidance ! Wildcat Bi-Polar Guy Bien Hoa 67-68 "Old Goat !" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
wildcat
I have been reading hadit.com as a "guest" for many months now. I think
the advice given out by Tbird and others has been excellent. My claim for
PTSD,Aggravtion of "bi-polar condition", heart, etc has been in Seattl just over
a year now. I k now this not bad as many vets claims have taken considerably
longer.
I called the 800 # last week and the person said my claim has been up to
"the review panel twice". I can't understand the problem / situation. I have
a letter from my LA shrink ( a VA pysch. examiner for 15 yrs. early in his
career) stating definite aggravation of bi-polar "if the board is reasonable".
I was doped up massively on Thorazine and in Vally Forge Hosp. 400 miligrams
and was a "zombie". Some call it a chemical labotomy (sp). This was back in 1967-
and yes I am a boots on ground Nam vet.
Saw my VA shrink yesterday..."mood disorders clinic" and gave him an article
about the bad effects of Thorazine. He agreed. He appears to processing me
for a "major depressive disorder" rating. Or, that is the feeling I am getting.
Is the Seattle panel awaiting a VA shrink opinion because THEY don't believe
my private sector shrink of 9 years. I worked for LA unified school in south
central for 10 years. I went "off on the job" to my supervisor and went on sick
leave for 30 days. Had to be evaluated by an independent shrink before
returning to a transfer job.
I was a sp. ed. administrator too for many years and can't believe the extremely
poor process to notifiy Vietnam vets of what is available to them during 1965 - 1971.
In Sp.Ed. legislation (1975) all school districts had to do "Search and Serve"
notices in newspapers, etc to notify people that if they had a child with problems-
contact your local school district. This was LAW! Now as a 63 year old man with
a stent in his heart, loyal citizen, I chat with a 51 yr. old shrink was in jr. hi when
I started basic traing in Fort Bliss in May 1966.
Should I relax and just wait for Seattle to make a decision. Or do I have to been
more depressed in my November session so the Portland shrink will state major
depression...and nofify Seattle
Wildcat Bien Hoa 1967 - 68
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
9
5
3
2
Popular Days
Sep 15
9
Sep 14
8
Sep 16
5
Sep 17
1
Top Posters For This Question
wildcat 9 posts
john999 5 posts
Hoppy 3 posts
Pete53 2 posts
Popular Days
Sep 15 2005
9 posts
Sep 14 2005
8 posts
Sep 16 2005
5 posts
Sep 17 2005
1 post
23 answers to this question
Recommended Posts