Cfile Depression Diagnosis Sufficient For Claim?

[cowgirl]

question; recent depression claim submitted; is it possible that last VA pysch C-File diagnosis "major depression" GAF 61 if I recall, sufficient? Or as I suspect is a new C+P more probable? Claim, stressor letter and several official supporting documents in. Would IMO help sway or should I hold still for a short while? .thanks.cg

[cowgirl]

So Nexus is (connector to today) for example, if reported while on military duty and in SMR/official records,

A. assault that continues to depress,.

B. freinds lost to tragic death, continues to depress'

C. humanitarian assignment, continues to depress

D. supervisor harrassement, continues to depress, ETc, Etc

Thanks, hope it all works out.IMO is my next step, gotta keep exposing the bad stuff to get SC eh? sad isnt it ? cg

[Berta]

Basically -that is it-

if an inservice event, accident, death etc- caused an inservice vet anxiety, depression etc-

then -based on medical evidence from SMRs -showing they had these problems, got treatment for it, etc, and also with documented proof of the event- the VA will-with this evidence- service connect.

Nexus is a link to service-

Personal Assaults have records, the death of a friend in service can be proven,

harassment from supervisors- this statement usually has no value to the VA at all-

but if the vet made an "outcry" -a legal term meaning they immediately reported a stressful harassment situation to a doc or CO who could document it-then that is documented evidence to support it.

A witness statement also from someone who VA can associate as being in your unit at the same time and place of an undocumented event-and decribe their witnessing of the event also is evidence to use to support a nexus.

[john999]

When you have a secondary condition to a service connected condition the nexus connecting the two is the main hurdle. If you have in-service diagnosis and treatment and current disability that one is pretty easy. It is when you get down the road a few years and try to connect current disability to service and the SMR's are silent on the issue. That is when it becomes harder except in presumptime diseases. Even in AO claims the the makes the statement that the SMR's were silent on the DMII or cancer you now have due to AO exposure.

[cowgirl]

Berta, thanks for the feedback and encouragement regards nexus, I think it get it and can breath a bit better regards "probable" service connection of items in my stressor letter.Funny how I see things clearly with some explanations than others. Doc says "be specific, less long winded". I try to be clear, but have to add kindness to my requests, thats just me. Meanwhile, I struggle to learn unfamiliar VA lingo and legal terms. Takes time to change. Doc reminds me "events change people". Filing this claim, feel like I published my "changed" history book for the VA, reliving parts of it. Doc says "focus on the next thing". So I prioritize, schedule IMO, apply for SSDI, keep tabs with VA and pray for "changed" history book royalities. Professors say victors get to write history, hmm....cg

[cowgirl]

When you have a secondary condition to a service connected condition the nexus connecting the two is the main hurdle. If you have in-service diagnosis and treatment and current disability that one is pretty easy. It is when you get down the road a few years and try to connect current disability to service and the SMR's are silent on the issue. That is when it becomes harder except in presumptime diseases. Even in AO claims the the makes the statement that the SMR's were silent on the DMII or cancer you now have due to AO exposure. [/quote

Edited January 19, 2009 by cowgirl

[Berta]

Cowgirl-

"Professors say victors get to write history"

You must have the same professors I have-(USMC) they are right!

There is a lot to be said for pursing anything towards Victory! We are all writing history for successive generations of veterans by fighting for our claims-

I say pursue a claim relentlessly until you succeed. For yourself and the other vets yet even to be born----

Also cowgirl make sure you use the Relative Equipoise Doctrine-remind VA of it:

38 USC 5107 (

38 CFR 3.102 4.3 (2005)

When there is proximate balance of evidence equally for and against the claim, under this doctrine the vet should succeed. Failure to explain its lack of application is error on VA's part and can be challenged.This failure doesn't raise o level of CUE (damn it) but it can be challenged in a NOD.

Caffrey V Brown, Gilbert V Derwinski

The VA doesn't like long renditions-

because they dont have time to read it all- I should talk- I send them long renditions sometimes because you have to explain it all like they are ten years old.

But even if you have to edit anything- save what you wrote in the first place - I think sometimes as miserable as a claim can be- it helps us get maybe some relief to put it all down on paper.

PS the smiley doo dad was supposed to be 2005-this happens to me sometimes-with that little thing.