Up Date On Post Imo Against Two Psychiatrist

[Josephine]

Remand states- After the above development has been completed, the veteran's claims file should returned to the board of VA psychiatrists who participated in the April 2005 examination for clarification of the provided opinion. They should be requested to review the record and reconcile their opinion as to etiology in light of the evidence added since their examination of the veteran, including the May 2005 statement of Dr. B C. C and the January 2006 statement of Dr. M P.

This is what the two psychiastrist wrote as an answer to the remand of the BVA. I picked up a copy today.

C- File read

After review of the May 2005 letter of Dr. B. C. and the January Letter of Dr. P. The board finds no additional evidence that would alter the initial conclusion.

Did they follow the remand??

Letter by Dr. B. C. My Military Treating Physician and this is all in my SMR'S

May 15, 2004

To whom it may concern:

_________ Formerly ---- , has requested that I write documenting my care of her during the period of

February and March, 1964, at the U.S ___ She was an enlisted person and I was a general Medical Officer, practicing at that facility. The question she has asked me to address is whether I helped her obtain a discharge from the Navy.

_____________ has provided from her medical records as well as recent letter to me, which is undated. My evaluation of her on 2/20/64 and a follow up visit on 2 / 27/ 64 are available. Two Psychiatric consultations are also available for review. The first performed on 3/12/64 by DR. J and the second performed by Dr. M. Finally the letter by our C.) recommends an Honorable Discharge by reason of unsuitability. My understanding is that the discharge occurred shortly thereafter.

After phone discussion with ____, I did remember her as an enlisted person at the ______ with whom I had worked on occasion. My workup of 2/20/64 concluded that she had tension versus vascular headaches and I added a tranquilizer to her headache medicine for anxiety. The note from 2/ 27/ 64 documents that the lab test were normal and I recognize my personal shorthand in my notes that I often used for a counseling session. After 40 years I do not remember whether I started the process discharge, but suspect I may have been supportive. She had seen a Navy Psychiatrist on 3/12/64 with no indication of further workup or return. Two weeks later she saw another psychiatrist to whom I frequently referred patients who needed special understanding and sensitivity. While there is no documentation that I referred her, the fact that she saw Dr. M scarcely two weeks after with no worsening of condition does suggest to me that I may have sent her for the evaluation relative to discharge.

Both C H and Dr. M comment on ----- immaturity and that she was uncooperative in her duties. After she reminded me and recalled specific instances. I did recall that she baby - sat in our home on multiple occasions with our two children ages 2 and 1. I know that my wife and I would have not allowed her to stay with the children if there had been any question of her suitability. The ___ staff was close knit and I would have likely been made aware of any poor behavior on ______ part.

While my memory does not allow me confident documentation of my role in her discharge there is circumstantial evidence that her story is credible and I hope that you will give her case every consideration..

C. M.D.

Thanks bunches!

Josephine

Edited November 2, 2006 by Josephine (see edit history)

[Hoppy]

Josephine,

I sounds like the board agreed to disagree with each other. This does not meet the request of the remand to reconcile etiology. How anybody can give weight to a report that does not reconcile etiology is beyond me. The bottom line is the way to win the claim is to get a report that favors service connection. I know the first report did favor service connetion. At this point 2 out 3 doctors who wrote reports favor service connecton.

Maybe somebody can find cases where to doctors refused to agree. That is the problem with a board of two. There is no tie breaker. The BVA remands I have seen usually require a board of three. It would be nice if you could force them to resolve the problem by citing the benefit of the doubt rule rather than seeking more doctors to resolve the problem. I wonder if you can claim doctor shopping if they schedule more exams rather than grant SC based on the benefit of the doublt rule.

[Josephine]

Hoppy,

I appreciate your posting for me.

This is the way that I see that it stacks up.

Dr. M. Va. Medical Center PHD Psychologist with a More Likely than Not

Dr. P. Board Certfied Internist of 29 years - result of service

Dr. C. Treating Military Physician has clarified his records that are easy to read from the SMR's as he wrote them.

The Board of two will not follow the remand. They will not explain their etilogy, because their complete C&P is based on lies and there is no rationale.

I am sending a fax to the AMC with my complaints.

I did call Dr. C tonight. I haven't spoke to him for almost 2 years. Said that he sure would fire the two psychiatrist, if they were on his staff.

Oh, well.

Looks like the Court of Appeals for me.

Josephine

[Ricky]

I agree with Hoppy. Looks like a benefit of the doubt call to me.

[Hoppy]

Now that I think about it I did have one claim where one report said that my condition was the result of military service and another that said it was the result of post service employment. I thought that the report that said it was the result of post service employment was totally bogus if not plain fraud. The DRO awarded service connection citing that neither of the reports presented evidence that out weighed the other thus benefit of the doubt was applied. I was actually pissed that he did not say that there was no report citing post service onset and that the prior decision that there was a report that indicated post service onset was based on an incompetent or fraudulent actions of prior adjudicators. The report showing post service onset was for a different and unrelated condition. The report indicating onset in the military was based on review of the SMR and the diagnosis established by the SMR had no known cure. In any event I was SC'd with the benefit of the doubt rule by the DRO.

[Josephine]

Hoppy,

I faxed my 3 page fax to AMC. They said they may have to sent the claims file back to the two for the etilogy.

Hoping they don't. I would like for them to just make a decision. I quoted the doubt law to them.

If I should end up in the Court of Appeals, at least, I can finally have a lawyer.

Josephine