In essence, the Court said that if the VA says their medical expert is a medical expert, then it is so ... unless the veteran can prove otherwise.
This is called the "presumption of regularity" doctrine ... which basically says that what appears to be regular is regular, with the burden shifting to the attacker to show the contrary
In this case I actually feel the CAVC is right- but I sure dont think this is fair- This is why I stress to knock down the C & Ps, go line by line and do all you can to diminish the credibility of the VA examiner as to their ability to opine with any expertise.I did this many times for the many denials I got since 1995- and of course the best thing to do is the find out what credentials the examiner has (before the C & P if possible) and then get an IMO from a real expert.
Mr. Rizzo’s attorney argued to the Board that Dr. Deyton’s opinion was defective because “Dr. Deyton did not support his conclusion with expert analysis.” This argument, however, attacked Dr. Deyton’s opinion itself – not his qualifications to provide such an opinion. Absent some challenge to Dr. Deyton’s credentials, this court sees no reason to preclude the Board’s reliance on Dr. Deyton’s competence to supply a medical opinion.
As this court has often
GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !
When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief
Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was
simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."
Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.
Question
Berta
Re: this recent case-
Per Larry Scott:
In essence, the Court said that if the VA says their medical expert is a medical expert, then it is so ... unless the veteran can prove otherwise.
This is called the "presumption of regularity" doctrine ... which basically says that what appears to be regular is regular, with the burden shifting to the attacker to show the contrary
CAVC decision and more commentary at:
http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfsep09/nf091009-3.htm
In this case I actually feel the CAVC is right- but I sure dont think this is fair- This is why I stress to knock down the C & Ps, go line by line and do all you can to diminish the credibility of the VA examiner as to their ability to opine with any expertise.I did this many times for the many denials I got since 1995- and of course the best thing to do is the find out what credentials the examiner has (before the C & P if possible) and then get an IMO from a real expert.
Mr. Rizzo’s attorney argued to the Board that Dr. Deyton’s opinion was defective because “Dr. Deyton did not support his conclusion with expert analysis.” This argument, however, attacked Dr. Deyton’s opinion itself – not his qualifications to provide such an opinion. Absent some challenge to Dr. Deyton’s credentials, this court sees no reason to preclude the Board’s reliance on Dr. Deyton’s competence to supply a medical opinion.
As this court has often
GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !
When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief
Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was
simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."
Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
3
3
2
2
Popular Days
Sep 14
4
Sep 15
4
Sep 16
3
Sep 17
3
Top Posters For This Question
deltaj 3 posts
Berta 3 posts
Pete53 2 posts
broncovet 2 posts
Popular Days
Sep 14 2009
4 posts
Sep 15 2009
4 posts
Sep 16 2009
3 posts
Sep 17 2009
3 posts
13 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now