Good Old Fashioned Screw Job

[Hoppy]

I have been working on this claim for five months. The problem was that I could not find any old cases to show how the symptoms under the DSM II should have been diagnosed. The only place I know where to get a DSM II is at the bio-med library at UCLA. Then I would need to sit in the library and try to figure out things from diagnostic criteria that preceded my studies at UCLA. I was trained on the DSM III.

Low and behold I found what I needed this morning. However, what I also found is what a good job of cheating a veteran out of his benefits was perpetrated against the veteran I am helping. Technically a military psychiatrist overlooked making a diagnosis that should have been assigned to the symptoms reported in the SMR. Instead the psychiatrist thought he should address only the etiology of the symptoms. The psychiatrist said the symptoms were caused by an underlying PD.

The DSM II was junk in junk out. The diagnoses made under the psychodynamic criteria were the laughing stock of the entire intellectual community. Eventually, the DSM III totally changed the way the DSM worked. The assignment of etiology is no longer allowed under the DSM IV.

I found quite a few old and ongoing cases for what was called “hyperventilation disorder”. Hyperventilation disorder was service connected in the 70’s. I found cases where over the years the VA re-classified the hyperventilation disorder diagnosis to Panic Disorder.

The veteran had been to sick call with the same symptoms initially called hyperventilation episode on 20 occasions over a period of the next 16 months. Had the military shrink diagnosed this veterans condition on the discharge exam he would have had to call it a hyperventilation disorder. So instead he just did not make a diagnosis.

The DSM IV and some laws I found should get this SC’d.

______________________________________________________________________

disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon a personality disorder may be service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 4.127.

______________________________________________________________________

DSM-I and DSM-II were widely criticized for a variety of reasons. …… Most importantly, the reliability and validity of the first two editions were challenged (Blashfield, 1998; Kirk and Kutchins, 1994). The diagnostic descriptions were not detailed, leaving lots of room for error. Additionally, the descriptions had been written by a small number of academics rather than empirical studies. Many psychiatrists criticized the implicit medical model, stating that it was inappropriate because the cause of most disorders was unknown.

In 1980, with DSM-III, the psychodynamic view was abandoned and the biomedical model became the primary approach, introducing a clear distinction between normal and abnormal. The DSM became atheoretical since it had no preferred etiology for mental disorders.

In 1987 the DSM-III-R appeared as a revision of DSM-III. Many criteria were changed. In 1994, it evolved into DSM-IV. This work is currently in its fourth edition.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Hoppy (see edit history)

[free_spirit_etc]

Great Research! Great work!

Free

[Pete53]

Yep funny how these errors never benefit a claim

[Rockhound]

Hoppy: I am overjoyed that your research was fruitfull in that you found a copy of the DSMII. I on the other hand have been unable to find a copy of the DSM I or even a DSM II. I am trying to find any information that relates to the type of PD I was saddled with in 1974 as I believe you know well my problem.

Currently I am dealing with a transportation issue, because of the current cut backs in funding for my ride due to the present economical shortfall our state, county and city is experiencing.

I may end up having to find a used copy to buy if my search at UNR medical library doesn't yield anything. If you happen to have come across a DSM I and a DSM II that is for sale, could you or anyone else let me know? A personal message would be fine.

My current train of thought is that a PD is a developmental problem and their for the diagnosis should have been based on a persons personal and personnel records, and since they were not consulted or even provided in the C&P examiners opinion, then their could not have been a proper diagnosis in the first place, also the use of the broad statement "on the basis of the history" does not give anyone a clear idea what in the history was so compelling that the rater and the examiner were able to agree that the PD diagnosis was not only the right one, but a correction of the prior psychiatric diagnosis.

Sorry, I'm just ragging a bit. Everytime I hear or read about a PD being given to a Veteran it sets of bells in my head and I think of all the time that has gone by, having been labled with a PD diagnosis as well.

Rockhound Rider :D B)

[free_spirit_etc]

Good place to search for books:

http://www.bookfinder.com/

[Hoppy]

Rockhound,

I have always told you that the PD diagnosis you got was bogus. I have known about the problems with the DSM II since 1972. I had a friend who was a clinical psychologist PHD. He told me the DSM II PD diagnosis was no more than name calling and it depended on who was doing the name calling. I took a different road in college and then later went back to UCLA in 1984. By that time the DSM II was in the trash.

Knowing this really helped me with my claim since the condition I have was originally diagnosed under the DSM II. It was called angioneurotic edema and the shrinks assigned a DSM II code to it. It was dropped from the DSM III because there were no empirical studies that supported the association that the disease was caused by any psychiatric disorder. It was then considered a medical condition. It is now called angioedema.

[Rockhound]

I read the discription of both the Acute Schizophrenic Episode and PD inadequate type and could find no justification in my existing medical files at that time to warrent the PD diagnosis, yet the discription for Acute Schizophrenic episode was right on the money, including the catatonia that followed the episode. This being able to quote the DSM II gives me more faith in my CUE claim and more supporting evidence to show, by evidence at the time,did not warrent the PD diagnosis, were as it did the acute schizophrenic episode. It also justifies my belief that the moderate impairment to social and industrial adaptability was never included as a residual of the psychotic episode, as well as the mood and anxiety disorders that were a part of the whole diagnostic picture.

Now that I have evidence to rebut the PD diagnosis with the post traumatice organic personality disorder or personality change due to a medical condition, it will leave open once again the determination of the Acute Schizophrenia Episode, revised to date as being Schizophrenia, Residual Type, Undifferintiated Type.

Rockhound Rider ;)