ptsd Ptsd Claim Awaiting Dro W/local Hearing

[NSA-Saigon-ET]

Hi Folks,

I have been working on my appeal and wanted to post it for review and comments.

I have recently relocated and my C-file has been moved to Reno, NV from Houston, TX.

I have attached the document as a Word file.

-donald

PTSD-100%final1.doc

[john999]

Hire a lawyer! I have never heard of a vet getting SC'ed for PTSD without a C&P exam. Maybe the DRO will order an exam. I hate to think you are going to go to the DRO and get denied again because the VA says you don't have a DX of PTSD from the VA. How is the VA supposed to get an idea of degree of disability without an exam?

[NSA-Saigon-ET]

Hire a lawyer! I have never heard of a vet getting SC'ed for PTSD without a C&P exam. Maybe the DRO will order an exam. I hate to think you are going to go to the DRO and get denied again because the VA says you don't have a DX of PTSD from the VA. How is the VA supposed to get an idea of degree of disability without an exam?

I thank you for your input. To answer your question, I can cite the old regulations which would allow for an outside DX of PTSD by a competent doctor. The VA would accept that opinion even if it disagreed with the VA. I have been treated by the VA for PTSD since 2003 and have many qualified VA doctors that have dx me with PTSD. The only difference is that I have never been scheduled for a C & P by the VA for a claim.

So you see, while the medical center says I have PTSD and are treating me for it, the VA has been saying something different and has not played by their own rules.

I hope to change this by my appeal.

Now they may request a C & P this time around before they make a decision and that is fine with me.

At this point I do not need a lawyer to submit what I already have available. However, if it gets denied now then it will go to the BVA and I will need a lawyer.

Right now I need comments on what I have written before I presewnt it at my local hearing.

-donald

[carlie]

Comments on the content would be appreciated.

d

The veteran was treated for a head injury at Portsmouth Naval Hospital. The injuries sustained included a head injury with loss of lower teeth, multiple chin lacerations and loss of a section of lower jaw.

Do you have any residual disability from the injuries above that have been claimed or granted for SC

to include loss of teeth, scars, loss of section of lower jaw and perhaps TMJ ?

ANALYSIS

1. The veterans' NOD is based on the new evidence which was submitted to VA:

Keep in mind that all N&M evidence submitted has a huge impact on effective dates.

Under38 CFR 3.156 New and Material Evidence regulation,

The documents bulleted above are new and material evidence not seen by the VA. They list a current diagnosis of a chronic condition of PTSD. There is verification of the stressor event stated by the veteran which happened while in the service and was in the line of duty. A medical connection NEXUS of the condition and verified event has been provided by Dr. Glenn Boyd. These are all the conditions needed to qualify for a disability of rating code DC 9411 or PTSD.

What is the pedigree of Dr. Glenn Boyd ?

2. The only objection raised by the VA for the claim was the single issue of an unverified stressor event, in this case the alleged right foot injury.

Remember, in any claim for CUE - only the evidence of record at the time the prior decision was made, can be considered.

In the other letter you stated " The VA found an unclaimed alleged injury to the left foot and immediately awarded a 0% rating w/ EED of 1994."

It would be of interest to see the evidence they referred to and the narrative/reasons and bases section, that they used to support SC (even at zero percent) for the right foot injury.

However, this stressor event has now been verified with the new evidence submitted by the veteran in 2009 from the NPRC. This is proof positive that the stressor event did happen. The specific CUE is that the VA failed to use all pertinent evidence in its possession to make a correct decision on an issue. Since the VA had knowledge of the alleged stressor and so noted it for the record, it also had the document to verify it being stored at the NPRC. The result of the failure on the VA to utilize all the pertinent evidence for a correct decision was a denial of benefits to the veteran.This constitutes a clear and unmistakable error. The remedy would be a reversal of the decision since in this case, the only obstacle was the unverified stressor.

Furthermore, the veteran is also aware that regulation 38 C.F.R. 3.156 New and Material Evidence states in part, that this evidence due to its nature, can be used from the earliest submission of claims referencing that evidence. Therefore both the 2003 claim and the 1994 claim may make use of the verified right foot injury..

I would specifically refer to 3.156 c - for earlier effective dates.

They should have had those NPRC records and seems like they did not - unless they were referenced

and factored in for the right foot injury. I would check the evidence they used on that issue.

[NSA-Saigon-ET]

Hi Carlie,

Thanks for taking the time to review this for me.

Edited June 8, 2011 by NSA-Saigon-ET

[carlie]

You statement here

Keep in mind that all N&M evidence submitted has a huge impact on effective dates.

I am not sure what you are getting at , could you elaborate for me?

When something is either granted SC, assigned an evaluation percentage or an effective date

due to N&M evidence, the date of the N&M evidence, most times becomes the effective date

that the VBA will assign.

[carlie]

NSA,

I downloaded the attachments and on my little icon I can see printing on a page

but when I click to open it - the page is blank.

I do not know how to remedy this to read it.