Vso Made A Statement About A New Law

[carlie]

A new member at Hadit posted something about his VSO telling him there was a new law

that went into effect April 1, 2010.

He gave me the contact email address to this VSO.

I sent the VSO the following email.

She was good enough to respond to my email - but in my opinion she was not able to provide

any supportive information on this supposed "new law".

I sure hope this new Hadit member keeps learning and keeps a good eye on what his

VSO decides to do - or not do, with his claim.

I feel her reply adds nothing "new" at all.

I feel her first two sentences are BS.

I would like some opinions on this if you feel so inclined.

Thanks,

carlie

-Original Message-----

From: carlieaol.com [mailto:carliel.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:56 PM

To: XXXXX

Subject: New law in effect April 1, 2010

Hello,

My name is XXXXXX, I'm a 60 percent service connected disabled veteran

and I live in Florida.

Another veteran I've been speaking with referred me to you.

He's told me you said there is a new law that went into effect on 1

April 2010 that states the VA will now have to pay more attention to

your doctor then the QTC.

Can you please provide me with a reference to this new law as I am

unfamiliar with it.

Is it a change in the CFR's or new instruction in M21-1MR or what.

I am very interested in finding out more about exactly what and where

this can be found.

I appreciate your help on this.

Carlie XXXXX

She replied with :

From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX@va.gov>

Subject: RE: New law in effect April 1, 2010

Date: April 15, 2010 6:53:12 AM EDT

To: Carlie XXXX <carlie.com>

First of all the BVA has always went with your doctor not a doctor that

has seen you for 45 minutes or less. A doctor that treats you for 2 or

more years holds more weight than a doctor that sees you for a few

minutes. The law has been on the books for years the VA has ignored the

laws. Now the VA is being held to the standards. The M21 is not law it

is a convenience for the VA to use while they are rating. The law is

the 38 C.F.R. Federal Regulations with the Statutes the VA is bound by.

The Secretary of the VA is bound by the laws and upholds these laws and

the VA must upholds them as well. We use the laws, rules and

regulations daily. The VA is going to uphold the law. Some of the VA

are already using the standard of using the doctors statements and

examinations over the C&P or QTC's as being more comtemporous

examinations so your VARO will be coming around soon I am sure. The

VA's are transitioning. The electronic system is suppose to be online

by fall so change is on the way.

[carlie]

The M21 is and agency internal "standard", "rules", and/or "guidelines" that is established and set by the secretary of the VA. Would'nt one think that all VBA employees would be bound follow such? However, this VBA employee feels that the M21 is merely a "convenience".

The good news (i guess) is that someone from an "va.gov" e-mail answered your inquiry back. Bad news is that the answer was filled with "VA fluff" and no real substance. I'll look into this and ask around, but personally, I feel that law or nor law for this said issue won't change much within the the VBA as the "law" may only be a "super convenience".

poolguy,

Thanks for making me chuckle !

Great to see you post.

carlie

[LarryJ]

The M21 is and agency internal "standard", "rules", and/or "guidelines" that is established and set by the secretary of the VA. Would'nt one think that all VBA employees would be bound follow such? However, this VBA employee feels that the M21 is merely a "convenience".

The good news (i guess) is that someone from an "va.gov" e-mail answered your inquiry back. Bad news is that the answer was filled with "VA fluff" and no real substance. I'll look into this and ask around, but personally, I feel that law or nor law for this said issue won't change much within the the VBA as the "law" may only be a "super convenience".

Heck, I've got a va.gov email addy, and I'd not pay a bit of attention to any opinion upon which I might opine!

[JustPLS]

A new member at Hadit posted something about his VSO telling him there was a new law

that went into effect April 1, 2010.

He gave me the contact email address to this VSO.

I sent the VSO the following email.

She was good enough to respond to my email - but in my opinion she was not able to provide

any supportive information on this supposed "new law".

I sure hope this new Hadit member keeps learning and keeps a good eye on what his

VSO decides to do - or not do, with his claim.

I feel her reply adds nothing "new" at all.

I feel her first two sentences are BS.

I would like some opinions on this if you feel so inclined.

Thanks,

carlie

-Original Message-----

From: carlieaol.com [mailto:carliel.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:56 PM

To: XXXXX

Subject: New law in effect April 1, 2010

Hello,

My name is XXXXXX, I'm a 60 percent service connected disabled veteran

and I live in Florida.

Another veteran I've been speaking with referred me to you.

He's told me you said there is a new law that went into effect on 1

April 2010 that states the VA will now have to pay more attention to

your doctor then the QTC.

Can you please provide me with a reference to this new law as I am

unfamiliar with it.

Is it a change in the CFR's or new instruction in M21-1MR or what.

I am very interested in finding out more about exactly what and where

this can be found.

I appreciate your help on this.

Carlie XXXXX

She replied with :

From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX@va.gov>

Subject: RE: New law in effect April 1, 2010

Date: April 15, 2010 6:53:12 AM EDT

To: Carlie XXXX <carlie.com>

First of all the BVA has always went with your doctor not a doctor that

has seen you for 45 minutes or less. A doctor that treats you for 2 or

more years holds more weight than a doctor that sees you for a few

minutes. The law has been on the books for years the VA has ignored the

laws. Now the VA is being held to the standards. The M21 is not law it

is a convenience for the VA to use while they are rating. The law is

the 38 C.F.R. Federal Regulations with the Statutes the VA is bound by.

The Secretary of the VA is bound by the laws and upholds these laws and

the VA must upholds them as well. We use the laws, rules and

regulations daily. The VA is going to uphold the law. Some of the VA

are already using the standard of using the doctors statements and

examinations over the C&P or QTC's as being more comtemporous

examinations so your VARO will be coming around soon I am sure. The

VA's are transitioning. The electronic system is suppose to be online

by fall so change is on the way.

Carlie,

I agree with you completely on her first two sentences. I think you have her pegged correctly. Just my opinion, though.

[retiredat44]

if there are new laws, how are they they be enacted to clams already submitted..

retroactive, effective date?

etc..etc..

[Rockhound]

retiredat44: I hope one of the elders will step in here. I was going to give my opinion, but I'm a bit foggy due to the time and side effects of my meds. If I answered it, I would probably get part of it right and part of it wrong. LoL.

Please could one of the Elders step in here and post the answere?

Rockhound Rider :)

[Wings]

x

x

x

TREATING PHYSICIAN RULE, Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 471

The "treating physician rule" that gives the opinions of

treating physicians greater weight in evaluating medical

evidence has been rejected in the context of veterans

benefits claims. See Van Slack v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 499,

502 (1993); Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 473 (1993).

Searched BVA (2010) for "treating physican rule"

Found 446 documents out of 4625

. . . As for the Veteran's specific argument that the private

physician's opinion should be given greater weight because

the private physician is the "treating physician," the

Board notes that such a treating physician rule is not

subscribed to by VA. See White v. Principi, 243 F. 3d 1378

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (the "treating physician" rule is not

applicable to VA claims).

. . . the Court has declined to adapt a "treating physician rule"

under which a treating physician's opinion would presumptively be given

greater weight than that of a VA examiner or another doctor.

See Winsett v. West, 11 Vet. App. 420, 424-25 (1998);

Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467-471-3 (1993).

. . . The Board further notes that "the Court has expressly

declined to adopt a 'treating physician rule' which would

afford greater weight to the opinion of a veteran's treating

physician over the opinion of a VA or other physician."

Winsett v. West, 11 Vet. App. 420, 424-25 (1998) (citing

Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993); see also

Williams v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 270, 273 (1993) ("Nowhere is

it provided in law or regulation that opinions by the

examining psychiatrists are inherently more persuasive than

that of other competent mental health professionals.").

The Court has held, however, that "[a] private medical

opinion may not be discounted solely because the opining

physician did not review the claims file." Nieves-Rodriguez

v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Further, "the Board

may not prefer a VA medical opinion over a private medical

opinion solely because the VA examiner reviewed the claims

file." Id. The level of training, education, and

experience of the person conducting the examination is a

factor that, if the Board affords more or less weight to the

report because of that reason, must be thoroughly explained

in its decision. Cox v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 563, 569

(2007) (citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995),

aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed.Cir.1996)).

Edited April 22, 2010 by Wings