ptsd Just Got Back From Appt With Va Psych....grrrrr

[Gridsmasher11]

I just returned from an appointment with my VA psychiatrist....She just seems to want to keep increasing my meds but doesn't really want to help with my claim.....I asked her to specifically write me a nexus letter or to put into my treatment notes that my PTSD 'is more likely than not caused by my time in the Gulf"....She says that she has already stated that it is service connected and that she wants me to be service connected for this but will not write this as I have asked....Are they instructed to not write it plainly so we can support our claims????? She said it would be a conflict of interest.????I asked her how it would be a conflict of interest, wasn't she my treating Phsychiatrist (she said yes) but she just wants to him and haww........GRRRRRRRRR...VA causes us more stress and just wants to dope us up and hope we forget...............................................Did find out some things that may help my claim......The doctor that did my PTSD C&P back in March is only an MD.....According to VA regs it should have been a Psychiatrist or Phsycologist...So I have a point there....Still gathering the stuff to keep fighting my claim.............................GRID

[mobie16r]

Remember a psychiartist,psychologist is just like policeman a brothehood, one dont go against the other

[LarryJ]

LarryJ,show me where you got to be diagnose by a va psy for ptsd,because what you wrote on your post do not say you have to be diagnose with ptsd by a va psy.IT says VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or contract psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD.

ADEQUATE MEANS:Equal to or sufficient for a specific requirement

Mobie, you may very well be correct.

I certainly HOPE that you are correct (one of the FEW times that I'd like to be wrong in my understanding of this PTSD mess)!

So, what you think that that passage is saying is that the VA psychiatrist/pyschologist has to "confirm" that the claimed stressor was (or was not) good enough (a powerful enough stressor) to support the diagnosis of PTSD (regardless of who actually DID the diagnosis). You are saying that the VA pscyh just has to "pass or approve" the claimed stressor as being serious enough. Right?

Well, if that is what you are saying, then, if it's true, we may be a LITTLE bit better off with this new PTSD regulation (I say a LITTLE bit better off because the VA psychiatrist or psychologist STILL has to approve the stressor itself, but it will keep hundreds of veterans from having to go looking all over hell and half an acre, trying to come up with some officially written proof that they were stressed). And, the VARO staff still has to okay the fact that the veteran was, physically present, when the stressors were occurring, by evidence in the veteran's service files.

I still hope your interpretation is the right one.

[mobie16r]

Larry you are right the va psy have corroborate that the veteran Irag tour is the reason he suffer from ptsd

Edited August 8, 2010 by mobie16r

[Pete53]

I think that mobie has got it right. This is going to be a big help for Veterans who did not see combat but have PTSD.

[Berta]

I agree and concur with Larry 150 % !!!!!!!!!!!!!! or more.

I raised the IMO issue in my comments at the Fed Reg site when this reg came out.I don't know if any other commenter asked these questions as well.

I was on the second page along with 173 other commenters:

Name: Berta M Simmons

Organization: volunteer vets advocate

General Comment

I am a volunteer veteran's disability advocate ,widow of 2 vets, mother of a vet and a VA claimant.

The proposed amendment to the PTSD determinations does recognize the inherent nature of warfare, as well as exposure to hostile and terrorist activities. It does not recognize however the inherent nature of the VA claims process.

I fully believe this amendment could inspire some wannabees but I feel they would be few and far between.

If a VA psychiatrist or.psychologist etc makes a finding that in their opinion the veteran has PTSD but not from a service connected cause, or event,would that veteran be able via appeal to have the right to a JSRRC verification process?

If a veteran had an independent medical opinion from a mental health provider with PTSD expertise-

would any nexus statement from this private provider be rejected? And if so why?

PTSD veterans have been denied-many times over the last 4 decades-in some cases because VA said their rendition of their stressor did not raise to the level of a stressor as defined by VA.

Could they re-open those claims providing this potential amendment as evidence of new and material evidence?

Prior to the VCAA many veterans with PTSD were denied because the VA said their claim was “not well grounded”?

Could they re-open those claims providing this potential amendment as evidence of new and material evidence?

I appreciate that this proposed rule could begin to reduce the backlog. However, I recently responded to Congressman Filner-Chairman House Veterans Affairs Committee on another matter and added that the backlog due to the remand situation at the BVA is a “re-do” of what regional office employees could have done right in the first place.

The Backlog problems started at the regional office levels and continue at that level.I was awarded Section 1151 DIC in 1997 and a few months ago I succeeded in direct service connected death of my husband. But I had to send to RO a template of what my award letter should have stated.It was the most erroneous award letter I have ever seen, carefully crafted to hope I didn't realize they still owe me plenty of cash.I sent copy of it to the H VAC and to BVA Chairman Terry in response to letters I received from these entities.

The inherent nature of the VA, in my opinion as an advocate, is what should be amended before any proposed rule could possibly benefit veterans or reduce the backlog."

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=VA-2009-VBA-0023

to add here:

( I was angry when I wrote this comment.and still am.

I worked at a vet center and most of the vets I know have PTSD so I know what it is and what it is isn't.SOmeone here took issue with me when I said the word "wannabee" in a prior post.BVut they are few and far between and really dont get very far with the VA anyhow.

This proposed regulation has to be READ OVER very carefully.

Can you imagine some 90 wonder, hired by the VA due to the backlog, who might never have been in the Mil at all -judging whether a stressor raises to the level of a ratable stressor or complies with the criteria in this reg?

The VA has a PTSD criteria for stressors and I posted it here before more than once.The new reg appears to make it easy for combat vets or any vet who served in a war zone to gain PTSD diagnosis and succeed in their PTSD claim.

It "appears" that way until you read it over and over again.

In my opinion this regulation wont make a dent in the backlog ( the Sec's rationale for considering this new reg) and many vets are going to find that it won't work for them.

What gets me ois so much is missing from the reg -and of course I never got any answers to my public comment questions.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Berta

[LarryJ]

I still say, and will continue to say, until proven otherwise by the very VA that wrote this regulation, that we, as veterans claiming PTSD, that those veterans MUST "pass muster" with a VA psychiatrist or board-certified psychologist or a contract VA psych/psychologist. So, your claim is STILL gonna have to be supported by a C&P, by an analysis by the VA psychiatrist/psychologist, to determine whether YOUR "claimed stressor" rises to the level that the VA has set, to be an "approved stressor/event". Annnnndd, what do you DO when the VA says "denied, veteran's claimed stressor does not qualify as a stressor in OUR opinion? The "New Regulation" does not even mention what the VETERAN'S rights are (appeal, DRO, BVA, etc.), not a WORD about what WE can do to reverse this ONE psychiatrist or psychologist opinion.

I don't like it.

I tink dat der's fishes dat ar rottening some ver in Danemark, as my Grandpa would say.

This deal was way TOOOOO good sounding for the Veteran (And, just remember who came up with this deal.......................The VA, right? RIGHT!).

I'm gonna turn in some claims, REALLY GOOD CLAIMS and wait and see what happens. I could turn some in with IMO that the veteran has gotten and paid for on their own, but, I can't do that with a clear conscience. I can't ask a veteran to spend what little money they have left on an IMO, seeing as how the VA has stated that only their psychiatrist/psychologist's word is good when determining PTSD.....that they are right, right out of the chute. How can I turn around and send one of my vets out to spend money on an IMO that is NOT EVEN GONNA BE CITED IN THE SOC AS EVIDENCE?

SO, we wait.

And, I don't like it.

There's implications here that I don't like.

BTW, did I say anything about the fact that I don't like it?

Somebody, ANYBODY, with the VA, do y'all wanna help out an old hardhead jarhead? Then, like Ricky used to say, "LUCY, you got some 'splainin' to do."