ptsd New Ptsd Regs In Action

[Berta]

There are only a few cases so far that have been resolved at the BVA due to the new regs.

"Because the Board has found that the Veteran suffers from PTSD,

if the stressor or stressors upon which the diagnosis is based

is/are consistent with the nature of the Veteran's service,

service connection for PTSD will be granted. 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.304(f) (effective July 13, 2010). The June 2004 VA examiner

based his diagnosis on the Veteran's reaction to experiencing the

sounds of warfare to include rockets and flares. The Veteran's

official duties were clerical. These duties certainly would not

prevent him from hearing the frightening sounds of warfare while

serving in war-torn Vietnam. As such, the Board concludes that

the stressor upon which the diagnosis of PTSD is based is

consistent with the nature of the Veteran's service and is

sufficiently verified for the purpose of granting service

connection for PTSD under the currently applicable regulations.

Id. Consequently, service connection for PTSD is granted. Id.;

see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

ORDER

Service connection for PTSD is granted."

from: http://www4.va.gov/vetapp10/files4/1036275.txt

The new regs did not help this vet as he still needs proof of his stressor and the claim was remanded:

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp10/files4/1033945.txt

In this BVA case however :

“2. Evidence received since the February 1994 rating decision

shows that the Veteran has a clinical diagnosis of PTSD, and

includes new lay statements expressing that he had 'fear of

hostile military or terrorist activity', which under the amended

38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), along with evidence that he served in a

combat zone, serves to corroborate the occurrence of a stressor

event in service; relates to the unestablished fact necessary to

substantiate the claim of service connection for PTSD; and raises

a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.”

(I am stunned that he was denied in 1994)

“The Veteran reported participating in Operation Starlight in Chu

Lai in August 1965, including spending a night at a listening

post with a firefight occurring nearby. He also described

service in Da Nang in the spring of 1966, which included nightly,

and sometimes during the day, fire missions, many patrols/riding

in convoy through hostile territory, and seeing many dead

Vietnamese.

On the November 2004 VA examination PTSD was diagnosed; the

examiner stated, "The Veteran's stressors are vague in nature,

but if verified, sufficient to be etiologically linked to PTSD"

(emphasis added). The diagnosis of PTSD has therefore been

linked to the Veteran's stressors by a VA psychiatrist. Thus,

under the revised § 3.304(f)(3), service connection for PTSD is

warranted. “

“ORDER

The appeal to reopen a claim of service connection for PTSD is

allowed, and service connection for PTSD is granted on de novo

review.”

The BVA not only allowed the re open but granted the claim as to SC PTSD due to the new regs.

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp10/files3/1029305.txt

(Personal comment- Vague stressor's my BUTT!

My husband (USMC) was Ops Starlight-too- nothing was vague in Vietnam,in Spring 1966 near Danang and Chu Lai-it was often constant firefights---and these are all documented in Morning Reports ,historic accounts etc etc.I had to laugh at that one from the VA Psychiatrist who was probably in Medical school during the Vietnam war.)

(Another comment denied and unappealed in 1994!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hope he has a rep to consider a CUE claim here!!!)

I am concerned about something else too-

Is the retro for any PTSD claim awarded under the new regs going back to the actual date of the claim?

Or back to the July 13 2010 regulation date?

[john999]

That really means every guy who served in Vietnam could file a PTSD claim and get SC'ed if he has a DX of PTSD because everyone heard the sound of war even if they were in the middle of Saigon or offshore.

[Philip Rogers]

I would think it would only go back to the regulation change. The rule is whichever rule is more favorable and since this is a new rule, they should only go back to July 13, 2010, unless he can meet the previous rules requirements. jmo

pr

[LarryJ]

I've had 5 PTSD claims allowed, filed in the last couple months, and retro'ed back to the original claim date, all of which were originally claimed PRIOR to the "new" regs.

go figger

[john999]

Larry, you're a bad .............! Shut yo mouth, we talking about Shaft (Larry).

[Berta]

LOL-that was good

Larry- these were PTSD claims that had been pending before the new regs came into play- right?

[LarryJ]

LOL-that was good

Larry- these were PTSD claims that had been pending before the new regs came into play- right?

Well, actually, two were pending, three had been DENIED! yup, thas wat I sid, three had been denied......................................all I did was simply ask them on a 21-4138 to pay back to the ORIGINAL claim date..............and, they did. I almost had palpitations, and, in one instance, had to hug the guy and find himself a seat (it really gets to me, to see 60 year old men cry.............).