ptsd Contacting Senator

[Papa]

I know there has been many posts regarding this subject, but when I ask my Law Firm whether or not it would help, they said it could not hurt. I have a claim that was started 2-16-2010. I have a request for an increase in PTSD since 8-2010, I have an appeal for my Parkinson's Disease, which I'm getting 30%. The C&P was a disgrace. Now, would it help to contact my Senator or not, and what would you tell him? My stuff is in Houston.

Papa

[jbasser]

Papa. come back home for a couple of months and contact Chandler or Rodgers. Houston is the main problem.

J

[broncovet]

I had one of those "bad" C and P exams, too. It was like this guy was paid big bucks to say I was trying to game the system. At first, I tried to "refute" the exam, but the doc would not budge. This C and P exam was in conflict with all the others, including my doc of 10 plus years who said the opposite.

While the "bad" C and P exam was mentioned in a denial, I appealed based, in part, on a faulty C and P exam. I ripped the exam in my NOD. First, I stated the doc did not give his qualifications to opine on my conditions, so how can anyone base their decision on this opinion? He could have had a phd in World History, trying to opine on my bent knee syndrome, so his opinion could not be probative. Next, I looked over the DBQ and questions, and saw how he answered them, making sure I refuted his answers, to include that he based his opinion on a 20 minute exam, where more qualifed docs based their opinions on 10 years of exams, as well as my medical history, which he did not review.

While my later benefit award did not "mention" this defective exam, it seemed to have worked anyway.

Basically, what I did is follow the 6 P's. The first five are "Proper Preperation Prevents Poor Performance", and the 6th is Persistence.

I looked up the regs on defective exams, did CAVC searches, etc. I knew where my "attack" point was, and I attacked it relentlessly, with all I had.

I also cited my 3 other docs exams, all of who knew me much better than 20 minutes, and all who had offered a more Veteran favorable opinion.

I further nailed them for not giving a "reasons and bases" as to why this unfavorable exam was exclusively used, and why the decision did not mention why the other exams were not considered. The VA has to give a "reason and bases" as to why they reject apparently favorable evidence.

It eventually worked, and the bad C and P exam "went away" and has not raised its ugly head again.

I will scream like a stuck pig if they ever bring that exam up again...you see, they awarded me benefits after that exam, and remember, the VA has to consider "all evidence of record" before rendering a decision.

[Berta]

Any Congressional Inquiry (to include letters to Senators) can add months to claim.

Congress cannot award a claim, but a strong IMO should.

[broncovet]

Since you have a law firm, your best advice is to consider strongly their opinion(s), reminding you that their paycheck, as well as yours, depends on the outcome. In other words, "because they have a dog in the fight", they are just as interested in the outcome as you are.

Remember, these lawyers are not necessarily smarter than you, but they probably do have better information. They probably subscribe to Lexis Nexis, which is a massive data base of decisions. They can use key words and look up what happened to similar Vets at the CAVC federal courts, etc.

You can be assured the best of the best lawyers use this..you know the Ken Carpenters, Catrina Eagle, Stichman, and the like who have won VA claimants serious money.

I agree with Berta. While the VA maybe used to "worry" about congressional inquires, the VA has found out they are essentially meaningless. The VA has a department where they deal with congressional inquiries, and mostly, they just respond to the congressman's office to the effect

"we are working diligently on your Veterans claim. Rest assured the VA is going to award this Veteran every benefit allowed under the law. While we do apologize for the delays, you can be assured we will get to your Vets claim as soon as possible""..blah blah blah..and back your claim goes to the bottom of the pile. They probably could just use a telephone recording or "excuse number" rather than say all that.

[deanbrt]

"I agree with Berta. While the VA maybe used to "worry" about congressional inquires, the VA has found out they are essentially meaningless. The VA has a department where they deal with congressional inquiries, and mostly, they just respond to the congressman's office to the effect

"we are working diligently on your Veterans claim. Rest assured the VA is going to award this Veteran every benefit allowed under the law. While we do apologize for the delays, you can be assured we will get to your Vets claim as soon as possible""..blah blah blah..and back your claim goes to the bottom of the pile. They probably could just use a telephone recording or "excuse number" rather than say all that.

In the end I think my senator did make a difference but that was after I had won at BVA. The first contacts were similar to the above. I would contact them when you are running out of other options. As already written, a good IMO that specifically refutes the examiner is key. You are counterbalancing their assertions and the benefit of the doubt goes to the veteran.

[tanker2]

just when i feel helpless it is blogs like these that bring a fresh breath of air to me. by this i mean we have an huge arsenal at our disposal to overcome any objection

so long as we just keep reaching out. thanks papa