Whatever Happened To

[mrsvet28]

WAS JUST THINKING -HAVENT HEARD MUCH LATELY ABOUT BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT -SEEMS LIKE IT VANISHED-- DOES IT STILL STAND IN APPEALS PROCESS- HAVENT READ THEM LATELY :)

[Philip Rogers]

That meant your evidence was more than 50% positive, so there was no need to invoke the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't mean that your evidence was "overwhelming," but it was enough to rule in your favor.

pr

This is what was stated in my decision letter "As the preponderance of the evidence of record provides a positive link between your diagnosis of melanoma and your exposure in service, service connection is warranted".

I have not been able to figure out if it was benefit of doubt or if the evidence was so overwhelming. I have to agree they will figure out how to screw you.

[Commander Bob]

This is what was stated in my decision letter "As the preponderance of the evidence of record provides a positive link between your diagnosis of melanoma and your exposure in service, service connection is warranted".

Sorry to hear about the melanoma, kw34... Congratulations on the VA ruling in your favor.. Like Philip Rogers posted, your claim was so well grounded that there was no need to invoke the "benefit of the doubt rule". I see you are listing a 10% disability , Is that all???

Off topic...You have an outstanding SAC avatar, kw34. I lived on Clark Air Base, Philippines, when my dad was still in the USAF, back in the 1950's... I find that patch very nostalgic. This photo was taken from Clark AFB before the volcano buried it. Again Congratulations on the win...

Edited November 2, 2009 by Commander Bob

[cowgirl]

Not sure if this is 'benefit of the doubt'. What'dya think? One paragraph shows examiners' opinions 'con / pro' for unemployable due to sc conditions. The other said "all reasonable doubt has been resolved in your favor and entitlement to iu is granted because...". This was a NOD.

Hope this helps~!

This is what was stated in my decision letter "As the preponderance of the evidence of record provides a positive link between your diagnosis of melanoma and your exposure in service, service connection is warranted".

I have not been able to figure out if it was benefit of doubt or if the evidence was so overwhelming. I have to agree they will figure out how to screw you.

[kw34]

Sorry to hear about the melanoma, kw34... Congratulations on the VA ruling in your favor.. Like Philip Rogers posted, your claim was so well grounded that there was no need to invoke the "benefit of the doubt rule". I see you are listing a 10% disability , Is that all???

Off topic...You have an outstanding SAC avatar, kw34. I lived on Clark Air Base, Philippines, when my dad was still in the USAF, back in the 1950's... I find that patch very nostalgic. This photo was taken from Clark AFB before the volcano buried it. Again Congratulations on the win...

Commander Bob,

KC-135 and KC-10 in the eighties a SAC trained killer we used to say. Yes 10% is low thats the VA way the NOD is in I am in wait mode again now.

[Jayg]

I know you don't want to depend on benefit of the doubt. You want there to be no doubt. You want to just put so much evidence on your side the scale hits the ground.

The only time the VA has mentioned benefit of doubt is when they deny me.

Having evidence on your side don' mean nuttin' when all they have to do is lie or falsify the record. As just one example in my case they took a mildly supportive statement by my primary care physician, mildly mind, not even a strong one, and said that the doctor did not enter it into the record. They said the statement was "made by a- get this-- physician's- assistant-- student--- and that it was "erroneously perpetuated throughout the record." Funny. (as in 'strange' most certainly not 'funny- ha ha') That's not what my copy of the records show... <_<

as for my doctor's IMO, their physician's assistant said "it is not medically feasible..." Now who can argue with that?

Hoppy, I am really glad you got yours. I'm only on 5 years and counting. I have had to go bankrupt but still have my family and home. (so far) and not so serious health problems (mine are crippling but not life threatening).

In my case, they're not so much denying my claim as refusing to look at it. My claim is sitting with the superviser who is supposed to assign it to a rater. And it has been sitting with this superviser who so far hasn't demonstrated any interest in assigning it to (another) rater who can make a decision.

So absolutely nothing is happening.

I'm about at the point where I would almost welcome another denial just so's I can go on to the next step...

[mrsvet28]

The reason it gets overlooked is because there are too many dots to connect. Your average undertrained RO raters don't seem to be able to figure it out. I have two claims that were awarded by DRO's who weighed the evidence for the claim with the evidence against the claim applied the benefit of the doubt rule.

At the time I was represented by a service officer who had been a veteran's rating specialist for the VA for 20 years prior to becoming a service officer. Due to well-planned stall tactics and idiotic denials It took many years for me to get to the DRO. My service officer and I used to argue as to why a slamdunk claim was taking so long. The RO claimed that there was evidence against my claim when in fact the evidence could not be substantiated. Years later I was awarded based on the benefit of the doubt as applied by a DRO. However, I always thought that the DRO used the benefit of the doubt rule to cover up the absolute absurdity that the RO thought there was evidence against my claim.

In the arguments I had with my X. rating specialist now service officer representative I took the position that the raters were corrupt, grossly incompetent or had just committed fraud. My service officer would take the position that the raters were so undertrained that is why he jumped sides and became a service officer. He just couldn't take working with all these undertrained rating specialist. I'm sure we might have a couple rating specialist on the board who would take offense to my position. However, it took me eight and a half years to get what should've been a slamdunk award for a life-threatening vascular disease. My employer who was city government terminated my employment and then determine that could not participate in vocational rehabilitation because an independent rehabilitation specialist hired to defend an ADA claim determined that there was no way to safely accommodate my disease. Equal opportunity employment commission agreed with the independent rehabilitation specialist and I was out on the street. During which time I had to file bankruptcy, became homeless and otherwise not a happy camper.

From time to time I have gone on this rant here on hadit over the last 13 years. Something for any defenders of rating specialist to chew on it is that my claims were awarded by the DRO with no new evidence.The delays and stall tactics resulted in an award of 6 1/2 years of retro-with no CUE'S or other misapplication's of law.

What is even sicker is that I'm now representing another veteran whereby the rater has taken a position against the claim based on diagnostic tools that were so unreliable they were considered in applicable for continued use and replaced. The rater also stated in direct conflict with the medical evidence that the veteran had not been treated post service for the condition which he sought to have service connected. These are the same type of tactics they used in delaying and denying my claim. The raters just like to make decisions playing Dr. rather than get an opinion from a Dr. One of the reasons my claim took so long was that they refused to schedule a C&P exam and also defended my claim by citing evidence-based the same broken, unreliable, obsolete and otherwise discarded diagnostic tools that they used and are continuing to use against veterans 10 years later.

Hoppy,

Same here with Mrvets claim -- after the remand -it took them a year to schedule a CP exam because the IMO(favorable) and the VA CP differentiated in the PTSD diagnosis-then they put it in a "special handing place "for 150 days(whever that was) they said they couldnt schedule anything until the 150 period expried-then it had to wait another 120 days before anexam could be scheduled-the remand warrented the new CP exam to find a PTSD diagnosis of 50 % or greater- because originally it said based upon the evidence of record the regional office would permit finding of service-connection, because of the differnce of opinions between the IMO's and the VA- it stalled it for 3yearstotal--now the AUG CP was favorable-and it was supoosed to be afforded "expeditious treatment"the folder didnt get back to the DRO till Oct 1--the whole month of Sept went by-it is now Nov./and they never recognized he has been on SS for PTSD-and a NSC pension since 03' because he can't work and we had no income-but it doesnt seem to matter-/when I called they told me it is on the DRO desk-so I put some heat on the attys. to speed this up-this is the only diagnosis we needed to settle the claim-they already verified the stressors/ and the SS IMO and 3 private IMO-and 3 VA exams !!! We have been stuck in the wheel for 12 years--Take Care MrsVet