Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Ptsd "deferred"

Rate this question


eganusn

Question

Good Afternoon all,

I was recently upgraded from 30 to 50% last month for some other conditions.

However, the PTSD that I filed under the "new" regulations have been "deferred".

On the docs submitted to me to explain the deferrment, it notes "Eligibility to treatment for

PTSD".

I submitted the documents back on 2/9/11, regarding dx of PTSD while in service, along with

other evidence tying my SC for it (I was denied by the VA for SC in 1997), and also had my

QTC on 3/14, but the VA stated on the docs that my claim for PTSD was deferred because

they need additional information.

So I truly don't get the deferral; I have complied with the VA giving them everything they need to make a decision, had the examination, so what other "information" would they need?

My guess is that the examiner gave me a low GAF score that could possibly put me in the 100% category, and that the original contention of SC versus Service aggravated is essentially in my favor, and so the raters and decision makers were basically caught with their pants down.

I base some of my guesses on the fact that the examiner was not supplied with all the information that I gave the VA some time ago, and she was surprised as well (the VA did not supply her the original dx notes that I had while on active duty). Her assesment at the beginning of the exam was for service aggravation, but she did note after my evidence was supplied that it was a pretty clear cut case of service connection.

In any case, has anyone here been in this situation as well? And what was the resolution?

Thanks ahead of time for any help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

I was recently upgraded from 30 to 50% last month for some other conditions.

However, the PTSD that I filed under the "new" regulations have been "deferred".

On the docs submitted to me to explain the deferrment, it notes

"Eligibility to treatment for PTSD".

The comment I'd like to make is that since your SC'd percentage hit 50 percent,

that alone meets your eligibility requirements, to receive treatment and meds

for any and all medical conditions (except dental) you need, through VA without any co-payments,

even if the conditions are not SC'd.

Carlie passed away in November 2015 she is missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I submitted the documents back on 2/9/11, regarding dx of PTSD while in service, along with

other evidence tying my SC for it (I was denied by the VA for SC in 1997), “

If that was a documented diagnosis in your SMRs then it appears to me that you might be able to use this reg to your advantage, if you succeed in the current PTSD claim.

Sec. 3.156 New and material evidence.

Also more info is available here if you search under 'newly discovered service records.'

Unless there was some other reason for the PTSD denial in 1997, then I assume the VA did not consider the inservice diagnosis when they denied.

Veterans who succeed by utilizing Sec. 3.156 gain retro comp back to the denied claim filing date.

I posted some examples here as to how it works. It is all here somewhere.

Do you still have the denial from 1997 and VA's exact wording as to their reason and bases to deny PTSD SC??

If so can you tell us here exactly how they stated the older denial?

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carlie and Berta, thanks for responding.

Carlie, yeah, when I saw that in the docs, I was wondering what they meant "eligibility to treatment" since I am at the 50% mark. Like I mentioned in first post, I think its a "delaying" tactic.

Berta, I have posted on several threads regarding my PTSD in the recent past, and the reason for the denial once I got out was the Navy was because of a little known rule to deny anyone with under 8 years of service, this despite being diagnosed in service and even then I hid it for over a year after I started having symptoms. I found out over 2 years ago, why I was denied by the VA, and that was because they didn't have any of the medical information that I actually hand walked into the VA HQ in

DC, so I opened up my case once again based upon that, as well my stressors fitting into the new rules category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, almost forgot to mention, Berta, I was denied originally for "existed prior to service" based upon a dr. who wrote up my med board, and totally disregarded the original diagnosis I had from a different doctor, who at the time I had my med board, was "not available".

The VA only had my med board in the c file, not the diagnosis notes, which paints a completely different picture from the med board docs. The original denial and nod afterwards, stated "no evidence of in service diagnosis".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why every vet needs a complete copy of their SMRs.

That way, even if VA has them too but overlooks something, the veteran can send them a copy , highlighted as to the specific diagnosis and treatment in service.

These days the military requires newly discharged not to leave the service without them.

An SF 180 can be filled out on line at the NARA web site to obtain SMRs and 201 (personnel) files.

There is a form to print out, copy, sign and mail to NARA,which they associate with the on line request and will send the documents (or you will get letter advising if they are at the VA already)

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eganusn, How long after you filed your "hardship" did it take for claim determination? It would HELP several of us to know this.

Thnx

Why arrive at the grave relatively unscaithed, rather than to skid in sideways yelling "Holy Crap! What a Ride!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Vicdamon12 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • ArmyTom earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • kidva earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • kidva went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • kidva earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use