ptsd Claims Process/regional Office

[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

[john999]

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}>

[john999]

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.

[Jay Johnson]

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

[wildcat]

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 !

[Hoppy]

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

[wildcat]

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 !"