ptsd "cursory Denial"

[Berta]

Thanks to ASKNOD, I learned the BVA has posted their second quarter 2013 decisions. Yippee.

BVA decisions, whether awards ,remands, or denials, provide a wealth of info as to how the BVA thinking process works.

I was surprised at how many DIC claims popped up in the second quarter of 2013.

There have been some fairly new lawyers at the BVA over the past few years. It is interesting to see how they weord their narratives and this one sure caught my eye.

Widows often do not have an easy time with DIC claims.

The BVA in this recent decision stated:

“Subsequently, the only adjudicatory action performed by the RO/AMC with respect to the heretofore unadjudicated issues of entitlement to DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 and entitlement to service connection for PTSD, testicular cancer, and lung cancer, for accrued benefits purposes, was to summarily deny these claims in a very brief and perfunctory manner, without any depth of consideration of the evidence, in a May 2011 supplemental statement of the case.”

Tell me about it..........I feel the AMC is useless.

Then again, that statement could apply to MANY veteran's claims at AMC too.....

The entire passage is here.

“At this point in the history of the claim, the Board notes in its review of the claims file that the agency of original jurisdiction did not yet adjudicate the issues of entitlement to DIC under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 and service connection for PTSD, lung cancer, and testicular cancer for accrued benefits purposes in the first instance. Notwithstanding this, after the Court remanded the case to the Board, the Board remanded the case to the RO/AMC in February 2010, identifying on the cover page of the remand that in addition to the claims for cause of death and DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318, the issues on appeal also included entitlement to DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, and entitlement to service connection for PTSD, testicular cancer, and lung cancer, for accrued benefits purposes. In its action paragraph, the Board remand instructed the agency of original jurisdiction to develop and "readjudicate the (aforementioned) claims. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the RO/AMC should provide the appellant. . . a supplemental statement of the case." (See Board remand of February 16, 2010, page 5, action paragraph 3.) Subsequently, the only adjudicatory action performed by the RO/AMC with respect to the heretofore unadjudicated issues of entitlement to DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 and entitlement to service connection for PTSD, testicular cancer, and lung cancer, for accrued benefits purposes, was to summarily deny these claims in a very brief and perfunctory manner, without any depth of consideration of the evidence, in a May 2011 supplemental statement of the case. When the Board remanded the case once again in October 2011, the RO/AMC performed an identical cursory denial of the 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 and accrued benefits claims in an October 2012 supplemental statement of the case. “

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp13/Files2/1311404.txt

This claim was first denied in 2000, went to the BVA, then to the CAVC, then the CAVC vacated the BVA decision and has been on the AMC/RO hamster wheel ever since,now on remand again. 13 years

I have no idea what merits this DIC claim has and the widow filed under three potential entitlements: direct SC death, Section 1318 death, and Section 1151 death.

I don't know if her POA even advised her to get an IMO.

I guess my point here is, this is outright BS and the BVA correctly described the lack of proper adjudication by the RO and AMC here.

With no accountability at the RO and AMC level over this stuff, the backlog will Never end.

This part bears repeating:

“summarily deny these claims in a very brief and perfunctory manner, without any depth of consideration of the evidence, in a May 2011 supplemental statement of the case.”

We all MUST make sure all of our pertinent evidence is clearly listed on the Evidence List in VA decisions and then referred to in the narrative of RO/AMC decisions.

If the VA ignores probative evidence we have sent to them, they have committed a clear and unmistakable error under 38 CFR 4.6.

This was good too:

“the RO/AMC performed an identical cursory denial of the 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 and accrued benefits claims in an October 2012 supplemental statement of the case. “

Cursory:

cur·so·ry (kûrs-r)

adj.

Performed with haste and scant attention to detail: a cursory glance at the headlines.

From online Free Dictionary

These are strong statements coming from the BVA but only regard this 13 year old DIC claim.

But I imagine these statements could apply to MANY of us , who were denied in such a careless way.

I wish the BVA could pressure these VAROs into doing what they are well paid to do.

[broncovet]

Yes, I agree Berta. I read ask nod, too. He is the expert on hep c claims, no one knows them like him. I saw him at hugfest in Indiana.

I also agree that NOT JUST 1151 and DIC claims are summarily denied:

“summarily deny these claims in a very brief and perfunctory manner, without any depth of consideration of the evidence, in a May 2011 supplemental statement of the case....

The VA does this to most Vets, not just 1151 and DIC widows.