Legal Representation And/or Psych Imo

[bern381]

Through the wisdom of the members of this board it has become apparent that I will need to obtain a psych IMO and/or obtain legal representation in order to win my claim. Is anyone familiar with a doctor or lawyer in Notheast Ohio that could help my cause? Thanks.

[Hoppy]

I am not able to provide you with any names. However, If it were my claim I would get a lawyer.

I read this post and went back and read posts that you have made over the last several months. Here is where I am confused. You had a private doctor helping with the claim. What happened to her notes? Did the DRO get her notes? Also there was a time when they were giving you a second C&P. Is the exam cited by the DRO the first or second C&P.

“The examiner concludes that while some of your depression appears to be secondary to chronic pain, some of it is characterological and has its roots in your personality make-up. It is impossible to assign percentages to each of these sources of depressive symptoms, “

This statement negates and contradicts his previous statement that it was unclear what the cause of the depression was. The cause of the depression clearly lies within one or the other of the sources identified. One source being shoulder pain and the other characterological in nature. By indicting that the is no way to assign a percentage dictates that neither cause can be viewed a legally dominating. Thus, the benefit of the doubt rule is used to resolve issues when the evidence for the claim is equal to the evidence against the claim.

your depressive symptoms are more consistent with a dysthmic disorder that is more characterlogical in nature.

Without any specific way of assigning percentages “more consistent” is either irrelevant or again a contradiction. If he stated that you had a condition that is clearly dysthmic disorder however, it did not impact your functioning then they obviously could not use it to deny your claim. The fact that it is only “more consistent” has to be viewed first as to how much it impacts your ability to function.

I could pick apart this exam on many issues. I think that the exam is so deficient that they would be required to send it back for clarification. That is why I was wondering if this was the first or second exam. However, I have to wonder if the exam was not actually a winner and the DRO failed to apply the benefit of the doubt rule.

If it were my claim I would get an IMO that is more favorable and submit it along with a statement that for the reasons cited above the DRO failed to apply the benefit of the doubt rule.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Hoppy

[CRYPTOTECH]

I agree with Hoppy. B)

Frank

I am not able to provide you with any names. However, If it were my claim I would get a lawyer.

I read this post and went back and read posts that you have made over the last several months. Here is where I am confused. You had a private doctor helping with the claim. What happened to her notes? Did the DRO get her notes? Also there was a time when they were giving you a second C&P. Is the exam cited by the DRO the first or second C&P.

"The examiner concludes that while some of your depression appears to be secondary to chronic pain, some of it is characterological and has its roots in your personality make-up. It is impossible to assign percentages to each of these sources of depressive symptoms, "

This statement negates and contradicts his previous statement that it was unclear what the cause of the depression was. The cause of the depression clearly lies within one or the other of the sources identified. One source being should pain and the other characterological in nature. By indicting that the is no way to assign a percentage dictates that neither cause can be viewed a legally dominating. Thus, the benefit of the doubt rule is used to resolve issues when the evidence for the claim is equal to the evidence against the claim.

your depressive symptoms are more consistent with a dysthmic disorder that is more characterlogical in nature.

Without any specific way of assigning percentages "more consistent" is either irrelevant or again a contradiction. If he stated that you had a condition that is clearly dysthmic disorder however, it did not impact your functioning then they obviously could not use it to deny your claim. The fact that it is only "more consistent" has to be viewed first as to how much it impacts your ability to function.

I could pick apart this exam on many issues. I think that the exam is so deficient that they would be required to send it back for clarification. That is why I was wondering if this was the first or second exam. However, I have to wonder if the exam was not actually a winner and the DRO failed to apply the benefit of the doubt rule.

If it were my claim I would get an IMO that is more favorable and submit it along with a statement that for the reasons cited above the DRO failed to apply the benefit of the doubt rule.