On An Ssoc, Is The Va Required To Provide Reasons And Bases?

[lotzaspotz]

Please refresh my memory. We received four separate SSOC's in the mail yesterday. A couple reference a Board remand, the others were still at the RO level, and had been denied. I filed an NOD on those, and I did not ask for a DRO review, but they evidently conducted one anyway that took almost two years to complete. The appeals had been stacked up at the RO waiting for a decision on IHD, a new claim, that had recently been granted at 10%. Then they all hit the house on the same day. On one, I challenged the examination, which was endocrinological in nature, but was conducted by an anesthesiologist. Might as well have been done by a podiatrist, allergist, or ophthalmologist. That issue was never addressed in the decision. These decisions looked like they had been thrown together quickly to get them out of the RO.

As expected, they didn't reference any supporting evidence for the decisions, just perfunctory statements saying the equivalent of "because we said so, that's why." So, before I start tearing these decisions to shreds linguistically-speaking, I need to remember if reasons and bases are required in an SSOC or just the SOC, because they were not there. Looks like I know how I'll be spending this weekend!

[FormerMember]

A Supplemental Statement Of the Case (SSOC) is nothing more than a very brief 'de novo' review of your answer(s) to a SOC. It entails a glossing over of your rebuttal. If they feel nothing you submitted in rebuttal was material or could form the basis for a revision of the decision, then they politely reaffirm your denial and send it to the Form 8 in-basket. The short answer is no. I have yet, in all my SSOC answers, ever received a change of heart. Every one of them has basically said, 'We looked at what you wrote and we have not changed our minds'. It might as well be a form letter, but it is valuable to use as a platform to rebut their rationale from the SOC for one simple reason. On appeal, it gets much more attention. If it forms the bedrock principle of your contentions and successfully overcomes their logic for denial, it was time well spent. Remember always- you must get all evidence in to the BVA before the ruling. You cannot add to it on appeal to the CAVC. They close the books and rule on what's in the Record Before the Agency (RBA). Always build your case as if you were fully well planning on it having to go to the Court.

a

clear prop

[Berta]

Great points ASKNOD!

Often a SSOC is just basically a copy and paste deal.

I love the reference to the I-8.

This is a form VA uses to check off Yes to many questions they should check no to.

A big time waster like the 646 can be.

"Remember always- you must get all evidence in to the BVA before the ruling. "

So true~!

Only one of my claims went to the BVA ( well 2 did but I withdrew one years ago ,as it had become a moot issue because the RO awarded on a different basis, after the BVA transfer.

)

and for the more recent claim, I sent the BVA everything probative that I felt might mysteriously disappear from my C file ( past experience taught me to do that).

I had asked them( the RO) to CUE the first decision on that claim ,and the SSOC , and they did, giving me a double DRO review but that was an exercise in futility because it was the same DRO for both reviews and they still ignored my IMOs. I would have handled that all much differently these days.

I have shaped my current CUE claim, at the RO now about 2 years with a 'specialist',(whatever that means)

solely for the BVA.

The BVA can read.

Also the BVA is comprised of paralegals and lawyers. So They LOVE evidence and the more probative, the better.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Berta

[lotzaspotz]

The SSOC's did not address any of my arguments contained in the rebuttals to the original denials. They also did not list the additional evidence I sent in the last time with my NOD, all found in my husband's service medical records, which they purported to have reviewed in the first place. The appeal for tinnitus was a CUE for an EED based on my husband's active duty hearing tests and also complaints on record for "ringing in his ears." He was an air traffic controller with the type of radio that plugged directly into the ear canal, so there was no buffer, plus he obviously worked near flight lines his entire career. I also found a VAMC audiology consult that clearly stated my husband had service connected hearing loss and needed to file a claim (which we had already done at that point, but is still denied).

I expected this, so I'm not surprised. Should I just refer to my previous rebuttals, with dates, or should I file the paperwork again with the Board?

Edited August 2, 2014 by lotzaspotz

[lotzaspotz]

Taking a closer look at the SSOC's, it's the usual stuff. Denied due to lack of treatment instead of focus on symptoms. Denied due to no formal diagnosis, but again exhibiting symptoms, then all that being interpreted as a lack of evidence equivalent to negative evidence, again in the face of symptoms. Then, when reading the Board's Remand discussion and subsequent instructions, I find that the examiner didn't answer the main question, whether my husband's elevated B/P readings in service could have presented the onset of the later diagnosed hypertension (my husband's been taking steroid meds for hypoadrenalism since having a pituitary brain tumor removed in 1993). The examiner, an anesthesiologist (called the BS flag on that one, also not addressed), just said no new evidence, look back at the SOC for details, but the SOC didn't answer the question either. Never even mentioned the drug names, or the word "steroid," "prescriptions" or anything of that nature. Alex and Berta, you're both so right. The SSOC is merely a regurgitation of the SOC, the tail wagging the dog. As least I can recognize it when I see it.

Do you guys know the VA has centralized the mailing system to two locations for the entire country? You will now either fax or mail your stuff to Newnan GA or Janesville, WI. These entities are being called "Evidence Intake Centers." I don't know if this is in effect for initial claims filing or if it's just for appeals. Of course, the fact being that Louisiana is closer to Georgia, I'm required to mail this response to Wisconsin. One more opportunity to lose our stuff, only now, they'll do it out of state.

[RUREADY]

lotzaspotz, not trying to hijack the tread but I must add this I got the same thing in my SSOC a lot of bull shit

not addressing anything and they still wont send mines to BVA 4 years sitting sending some bull crap letter

that don't answer anything. I HAVE been contacting anyone that will listen to me. So I ask IRIS why they wont send

it to BVA the response was they were waiting for my POA to send a form 646 before they certify it to BVA. My POA

said he turn this form in 2012 . This place in Newman GA I was told it takes up to 75 days before they get the records

SO I call the 202# and this week and was told they were just getting records since 2-2014. But it takes 75 days most

I have put some fire in my attorney after he seen the response from ""iris" he was mad as heck lying on him.

So he said today he will be filing a "WRIT" and I hope it helps. Also the 202 # is on it to so maybe the DRO will

send it to the Board soon.

[RUREADY]

I will never do the "DRO" route again with any claim my first time and last. jmho

what a waste on time been with dro since 2010 no movement just "NO INFORMATION RECIEVE"