Axis 1 - Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

[Josephine]

This claim of mine is over whelming me.

I know everyone is tired of hearing about my claim.

I just can't let them beat me out of my benefits.

I had my first C&P with a diagnosis of Generalized anxiety disorder with a more likely than not.

5 Months later a Board of Two Psychaitrist - Axis 1 - Anxiety disorder not otherwise specified

Decision- nothing bothered her in service.

Paragrah before the decision - she was taking librium and caffergot in service.

This to me is not a plausible statement. Why would I have been taking two coded drugs.

What are they saying about me with the Not Otherwise Specified??

I could wring that DRO niece of mine by the neck for not helping me.

I hope that she eventually makes it to the Appeals Court as she would like.

Thanks,

Josephine

[john999]

I think there are about 25 million vets still living. Just over 1% of them get 100% benefits. We are in special company.

[Josephine]

Hi there,

Since my first C&P was a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder with a more likely than not and unable to work since 1983.

This C&P was Never adjudicated

The second C&P by the Board of Two, 5 months after the first examination, was nothing bothered her in service with the Axis 1- Anxiety Not otherwise Specific and Axis 2 - Borderline Personality disorder. Only one doctor would sign the report the second doctor refused.

The RO ruling - we will go with the board of two, because they are a Board.

Thanks bunches!!

Josephine

Edited September 11, 2006 by Josephine

[Hoppy]

Patrick,

Are you sure the VA will not compensate a diagnosis with the NOS attachment. I have never heard of this. To the contray I did a lot of research in 1996 on BVA cases. The one I posted below I found as the first response today in to my search criteria on the BVA website. It is from 2005.

Hoppy

www.va.gov/vetapp05/files3/0518639.txt 98%

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 2004 RO decision which granted service connection and a 50 percent rating for bipolar disorder, effective February 1, 2000. In response to the Board's decision, the RO issued its May 2004 decision granting service connection and a 50 percent rating for bipolar disorder. The February 2004 Board decision restored service connection for depressive disorder NOS with psychotic features and assymetry of the lateral ventricles

www.va.gov/vetapp05/files3/0518639.txt - 5k - July 20, 2005

Edited September 13, 2006 by Hoppy

[Patrick428]

Hoppy,

From the decision it appears the BVA granted 50% for Bipolar Disorder. This BVA report must be a synopsis of the full decision as it specifies Bipolar Disorder, but does not say if it is Bipolar I or II.

Additiontionally, there are 33 specifiers for Bipolar I and II; none of which were indicated in the report.

Since only one mental health disorder can be rated regardless of the number one may possess (to avoid pyramiding), it seems to me that the Bipolar Disorder is the one that prevailed. If the RO came back and reinstated Depressive Disorder, NOS, then I would be leary of the reasons why that was done when the BVA granted 50% for Bipolar Disorder which is a more defined diagnosis that would not be disputed.

Secondly, a straight out Depressive Disorder NOS (311.00) would not be compensable because it is not specific, nor does it contain an "x" specifier. However a specifier of psychotic features was indicated and to me this suggests the veteran had Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features (296.3x) The "x" is the specifier such as (296.33) Major Depression without psychotic features or (296.34) Major Depression with Psychotic features. If the disorder had been designated as Depressive Disorder, NOS with Psychotic features, it would be inapporpriate to use because this diagnosis does not exist in DSM-IV.

I would venture to guess if one had the C-file it would likely read Major Depression with Psychotic features as a diagnosis, or the original Bipolar Disorder.

Patrick

[Hoppy]

Patrick,

The pasted portion is a brief description of the decision. The full decision was found just by typing NOS into the BVA "search decisions option" and selecting the year 2005. It was the first result. I guess my point is that if a diagnosis is supported by the DSM IV how can the VA not rate it unless there is a specific regulation preventing them from rating it such as the reg stating that personality disorders are not ratable. In all the my research I did not see a reg stating that NOS can't be rated. I do recall a reg that psychiatric diagnoses must conform to the DSM IV. It sure sounds like the BVA made the inappropriate rating at one point in time. In any event it just goes to show how technical psych diagnoses can get. I personally feel that they will service connect a psych condition if they feel you are disabled and it is the result of military service, and they will bend the diagnosis to fit into a service connectable condition. That's just my opinion. I have hung around a lot of "crazy" veterans who receive compensation.

[Josephine]

Hoppy,

From the decision it appears the BVA granted 50% for Bipolar Disorder. This BVA report must be a synopsis of the full decision as it specifies Bipolar Disorder, but does not say if it is Bipolar I or II.

Additiontionally, there are 33 specifiers for Bipolar I and II; none of which were indicated in the report.

Since only one mental health disorder can be rated regardless of the number one may possess (to avoid pyramiding), it seems to me that the Bipolar Disorder is the one that prevailed. If the RO came back and reinstated Depressive Disorder, NOS, then I would be leary of the reasons why that was done when the BVA granted 50% for Bipolar Disorder which is a more defined diagnosis that would not be disputed.

Secondly, a straight out Depressive Disorder NOS (311.00) would not be compensable because it is not specific, nor does it contain an "x" specifier. However a specifier of psychotic features was indicated and to me this suggests the veteran had Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features (296.3x) The "x" is the specifier such as (296.33) Major Depression without psychotic features or (296.34) Major Depression with Psychotic features. If the disorder had been designated as Depressive Disorder, NOS with Psychotic features, it would be inapporpriate to use because this diagnosis does not exist in DSM-IV.

I would venture to guess if one had the C-file it would likely read Major Depression with Psychotic features as a diagnosis, or the original Bipolar Disorder.

Patrick

Hi Guys,

If the Va was Not Seeking to deny me why did they do the following:

1. Send me for a C&P at their hospital by one of their doctors for an acquired psychiatric disorder and when they recieved a diagnosis of " Generalized Anxiety Disorder with a More than Likely than Not the Veterans Anxiety began in service, due to the fact that she was taking Librium for her nerves in 1964 and began treatment again in 1967 and has remained in treatment for the last 42 years. He also stated that I was unable to hold gainful employment since 1983 due to " Chronic Anxiety and High Stress".

2. The DRO did nothing with this examinaton, absolutely nothing!!

3. Within 5 months send me to the Board of Two and receive Axis 1 - " Anxiety Disorder not Otherwise Specified"; Axis 2. Borderline personlaity Disorder". Nothing Bother her in service, but explained no reasons why and how they came to their decision.

What in the heck was I taking Librium and Caffergot in service for?

4. The R.O office is aware that one of the doctors refused to sign the C&P, but went ahead and rated it and refused to give me another C&P, even though, I wrote to them 18 times for another C&P.

5. Decision- We place our greater weight with the Board as they are a Board.

Sorry that you did not like the C&P, but it was good enough for rating.

I have 42 years of records for treatment of Chronic anxiety disorder. Dr. S. graduate of Harvard Medical School for 11 years. Dr. K 9 months and Dr. P for 28 years and all the records state the same thing - treatment for severe anxiety and chronic anxiety. I have taken about 10 difffernent anti-anxiety medication.

The DRO should have adjudicated the first C&P, unless he didn't like the decision.

This claim has been pending open since 1978.

Thanks,

Josephine

Edited September 13, 2006 by Josephine