ptsd To Berta: Bva Second Remand In Two Years.

[lu12]

Any comment on how should I start this new action is truly appreciated due to the fact that I'm exhausted.

Filed my claim for service connection back in 1998 for depression. In April 1996 on a C&P orthopedic exam it was reported that I was experiencing anxiety problems, in August 1996 was medically treated again by the VHA for the same problem, anxiety. Late in 1998 my claim was denied.

1998 VA examiner and claim decisions makers label the psy. disorder as Dysthymia. Dysthymia is a "less severe form of depression // is a disorder characterized by symptoms of mild depression.

My case went before the Board in 2006, the Board remanded my case and came back early 2008 with a 30 percent rating for a Dysthymic disorder. Filed a NOD, the Board remanded my case one more time. I base my NOD on the following facts:

1998 Examiner did not consider evidence of record from VHA system and private sector including numerous IME-IMO's. 1998 VARO claim examiners and decisions makers also failed to consider supportive and objective evidence available at that time.

2008 Examiner and (AMC) base their opinions and diagnosis on 1998 VARO changed diagnosis classified as "DYSTHYMIA" and it is my believe that been classified with a different diagnoses affected the out come of the new service connection and recent rating of 30% and a 2008 GAF: 55-60

2009 VARO-SOC denied my claim for entitlement for a higher evaluation in excess of 30 percent.

I've been diagnosed Since early 1996 with recurrent mayor depression, Chronic long lasting anxiety, PTSD secondary to multiples surgical procedure and pain disorder.

2007-2008 VHA attending PSY. Current Dx's: MDD, anxiety and pain disorders GAF: 50

2006-2007 most recent IMO's refer to the following Dx's: MDD, anxiety, GAF:50 this evidence were rejected by VA Examiner during the psychiatric evaluation. evidence not mentioned by the Board second remand nor by 2009 VARO denial decision and new VA-SOC

I know that you can only be rated for one condition, but my contention is that I filed my first claim under a different diagnosis "DEPRESSION" because that was the diagnosis that I was given them by independent private physicians. In addition to the facts that the PTSD and pain disorders are residual effects of my MDD and Chronic Anxiety. Facts that serve to prove aggravation of the Psychiatric conditions for the past 19 years.

BVA in 2006 recognized and consider the evidence since my presumptive period to present, 19 years of cumulative evidence, yet the Board remanded my case for a second time in early 2008.

Along with the 2009 denial decision, the new VARO gave me 60 days to submit more arguments, a VA form 9, and to point out the facts in their SOC in which I disagree with and the error I believe they made in applying the law, matter of fact that it all started with a Wrong Diagnosis.

In regards to entitlement to sc for a cervical spine disorder this issue was also remanded by the Board due to the facts That the Examiner did not reconcile his opinion with other opinions of the record per remand by the Board, in addition to the fact the the examiner estated that there was no evidence of any cervical Dx's or other evidence of record when the BVA identified almost every piece of evidence and multiples Dx's related to the cervical condition .

I'm still waiting to hear about this issue, due to the fact that it was sent to a different VARO-VAMC for further development.

cordially,

lu12

Edited February 23, 2009 by lu12

[Berta]

all claims to be developed on Remand and the cervical spine claim needs VARO to satisfy those 5 factors.

Geez- many IMOs-

The TMJ could have association to any mental disorder that would cause teeth grinding due to stress, the SC knee could certainly have affected the cervical problem-

what I do see here is that the BVA distinctly raised many ways the cervical problem could be aggravated by or secondary to the SC knee.

The GERD-did you take NSAIDS for anything and were they precribed by the VA?

It will take me more time to digest all this , thanks for posting it here.

You still have a big foot in the door on this one- a good remand in my opinion-

and the VARO must honor this.

Did they ignore all of those IMOS?

I will read SOC and maybe that will answer my questions-

LU12 how is the Puerto Rico Public Advocate to deal with?

[Berta]

I read the SOC -excuse me men and women but WTF!!!!!!

I think they definitely violated the remand and you should definitely tell them to CUE themselves!

Cripes-this is almost like what I am dealing with.

I cant believe this- am I going nuts?

They completed ignored the wording of the Remand-------

LU 12 -am I seeing what you see here?

The SOC- I thought maybe my PC got stuck on the last page- there isnt more left to scan and post ---is there?

[lu12]

all claims to be developed on Remand and the cervical spine claim needs VARO to satisfy those 5 factors.

Board states, that I claimed for these other issues in 2008, this is not right. I claimed this in 2004 together with a response related to a VA VCAA notice.

Geez- many IMOs-

What is interesting is that the BVA finally make reference to most IME/O, opinions of record that they failed to disclosed on the first remand, now this time (the Board)they just minimized my IMO statements, they make reference to half of the opinions from the IMO leaving the other half in blank. More over AMC and I have to say this like this, the AMC intentional failed to disclose evidence of record ignoring BVA analysis and point of facts presented by the Board.

The TMJ could have association to any mental disorder that would cause teeth grinding due to stress, the SC knee could certainly have affected the cervical problem-

I have submitted evidence that relate this condition to the service and to the PP, I also submitted evidence that both Dental examiner and Claim examiner failed to make Known evidence of record. In addition Dental Examiner contradict him self in his medical report throughout his medical opinion. Proving that the claim was well grounded, raising the benefit of doubt rule, evaluation of evidence,ect...

what I do see here is that the BVA distinctly raised many ways the cervical problem could be aggravated by or secondary to the SC knee.

I did request a reconsideration to have my Appeal re - characterized and perfected to include this condition secondary to my lower back and rt. knee. Now they may considered it as secondary to the scd's

The GERD-did you take NSAIDS for anything and were they precribed by the VA?

You got my first remand and you posted it here at Hadit under 3yr to retire, I think, my case and Nexus will help others here. if you want I can provide u with a copy of the IME-IMO nexus opinion. Matter of fact evidence avoided and eluded by the RO for 8 yrs.

You still have a big foot in the door on this one- a good remand in my opinion-

and the VARO must honor this.

Berta, is not the VARO Whom is handling this, is the AMC and this means that they are handling my appeal for the second time the same way they did the first time they are still eluding (SOME). Maybe now I can ask them to CUE them self?

LU12 how is the Puerto Rico Public Advocate to deal with?

Like dealing with a ghost, last time I went to his office he told me there was nothing else for me after my 100%IU/PT - well I won my GI appeal with a 30% and my psy. claim another 30% but classified and rated under a wrong Diagnostic code, evidence of record support a 50% or a 70%

my contentions is that I claimed for depression characterize by anxiety, PTSD and pain disorder and they continue to ignore contemporaneous, (SOME) supportive and objective material evidence, some of then with GAF ranging from 35 to 50 evidence ignored by the last examiner that in return assigned a GAF score of 50. My last (Private) IME/O dtd 2007 states Dx's: recurrent MDD/Anxiety, Physically and Mentally Disable with a GAF 50. this IMO was submitted to the Board in 2008 and they make no reference of it on their 2008 remand neither the AMC on the 2009 SOC.

Now last IMO relates to: Pt. is Physically and Mentally Disable, but 2007 examiner referred to my PSY Disorders as to: 30% which is equals to:

An evaluation of 30% is granted when ever there is occupational and social impairments with OCCASIONAL DECREASE IN WORK EFFICIENCY AND INTERMITTENT PERIOD OF INABILITY TO PERFORM OCCUPATIONAL TASK... I fell up to this point that I'm not capable to perform well due to both conditions.

Comments are welcome,

lu12

[lu12]

I read the SOC -excuse me men and women but WTF!!!!!!

I think they definitely violated the remand and you should definitely tell them to CUE themselves!

Cripes-this is almost like what I am dealing with.

I cant believe this- am I going nuts?

They completed ignored the wording of the Remand-------

LU 12 -am I seeing what you see here?

The SOC- I thought maybe my PC got stuck on the last page- there isnt more left to scan and

post ---is there?

Berta, u should have pages, 1, 14,15, and 16 out of the AMC 2009 SOC.

Pages from 2 to 13 relates to the same law and regulations that they continue to violate day after day.

Thanks,

lu12

[Berta]

Yes-I seem to have it all- I would ask them to CUE themselves if I were you-unless they seem to be working on any responses you made since you got the SOC.

[lu12]

Yes-I seem to have it all- I would ask them to CUE themselves if I were you-unless they seem to be working on any responses you made since you got the SOC.

Berta,

I will summit a new NOD and request to the AMC to CUE them self in regard to this issue, they ask for my opinions and I been thinking to relate to every RD,SOC, and SSOC that I got since 1998 from the DVA. I will summaries each and every false and inaccurate statement including every error made by the system. This will be no concise NOD, I will also include the form - 9 and consider to request a personal hearing before the BVA. Then again I don't know if is better to wait until I get a response in regard to the cervical spine issue.

Been doing lots of reading, can see all the dots, at the same time can't put them together just yet. I will also include 2007 evidence gather specially for the BVA Evidence that the Board did not refer to on their second remand.

For this Issue 2007 Dx's and new evidence are similar and correlate 1998 Dx's and evidence of recurrent MD and Anxiety not Dysthymia.

Berta do you remember any case related to minimized Dx's and wrong diagnostic code, I already found some information under CFR related to wrong rating but nothing on wrong Dx's.

lu12