Examiners Will Not Follow The Remand By The Bva.

[Josephine]

7. 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

The examiners have written back no evidence to alter conclusion.

Signed Dr. L and Dr. B.

What next when the examiners will not follow the remand by the BVA.

Does anyone know what will happen next?

Thanks,

Josephine

Edited November 3, 2006 by Josephine (see edit history)

[Josephine]

John,

I have been having trouble getting on the site.

I called the AMC and they said they had complete jurisdiction over my file and not Huntington. Said they could order a new C&P if needed.

I wasn't expected much from the two crooked psychiatrist. If you have been following my post, you know the circumstance as which they received that C&P.

If anyone knows different, please let me know. Do not wish to be tied up for years, for those two psychaitrist will never answer the remand.

Josephine

[Josephine]

7. 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

The examiners have written back no evidence to alter conclusion.

Signed Dr. L and Dr. B.

What next when the examiners will not follow the remand by the BVA.

Does anyone know what will happen next?

Thanks,

Josephine

Edited November 3, 2006 by Josephine (see edit history)

[Josephine]

Terry,

I don't understand. It is my understanding that the AMC in Washington is handling the complete claim from the appeal to the final decision.

I don't believe that the R.O has anything to do with my claim as of December 15th 2006 when it was sent to the BVA and then remanded to the AMC

Josephine

[Josephine]

Hi and Sorry,

My response just keeps posting.

Thanks,

Josephine

Edited November 4, 2006 by Josephine (see edit history)

[Josephine]

Thanks,

It posted 3 times.

Josephine

Edited November 4, 2006 by Josephine (see edit history)

[Josephine]

Josephine, I think the Presiding VA over Huntington is the VA Regional Office in Louisville Ky.

Your VSO can find out.

Hi,

I am back on.

When this C&P was turned in to Huntington R. O, I immediately sent a rebuttal to the Medical Center and the R. O.

I pointed out to them all of the errors, the changing of the wording of my private and military records.

I also brought evidence forward of the legalities of this exam. If you have followed my post, you are aware of the circumstance of the exam.

I ask Huntington for 9 months for another C&P, They always stated it is the DRO'S decision.

I received an answer with their denial of benefits.

I sent all of this information to the BVA and have also supplied the AMC with the same info.

I picked up the New Opinion - C-File Read - No new evidence to change Conclusion.

I immediately faxed again, all the information, as to why this C&P is not legal.

I called the AMC today and they said that they had complete juridiction of the claim.

They stated they can order new C&P'S. Is this true or is there more that I need to do.

I ask for the doubt law to be put into place.

I have the More Likely than Not - from Va. Medical C&P Examiner.

Letter from my Military Treating Physician - clarifying all the notations that he has made in my SMR's and what role he had in my early discharge and that he sent me to the two psychaitrist at the Naval Dispensary for treatment, which lead to my early discharge. He clarified the medication that are within those SMR'S.

Letter from my Physician of 29 years that my anxiety and depresssion have their origin in service.

I have a buddy letter

3 letters from my Pastor, that knew me before and after service.

Letter from husband and two daughters.

A letter from a friend that has known me for 50 years - the before and after.

My Question does the AMC have complete Jurisidiction of my file?

[Josephine]

Terry,

If you can follow me, my claim is a strange one.

I received a Statement of the Case from the Roanoke R. O. The DRO sent me a Form 9 and the statement - THIS IS NOT MY FINAL DECISION AS I am sending you for a C&P. .

The results of this C&P More Likely than Not.

Before I received this decision I had to get the form 9 turned in.

When those results came in, my niece signed off, and my file was transferred to Huntington W.Va.

The Huntington Regional office ordered the examination by the two Psychiatrist.

When I call the Roanoke Office, they tell me that they have no jurisdiction over my file.

I have no contacts with Huntington W. Va

Which Regional Office would I contact?

Josephine

[Guest jstacy]

Josephine, I think the Presiding VA over Huntington is the VA Regional Office in Louisville Ky.

Your VSO can find out.

[Hoppy]

Josephine,

Just my armature attempt to stop the C&P insanity. Imo’s C&P’s; they are all the same to me. Just another doctor’s opinion about something that three doctor have already written opinions about.

I am no attorney. However, I have been involved in numerous law suits in my life time as a plaintiff. If this were in civil court or if at some point it winds up in federal court there is an issue called "doctor shopping". This occurs when the defence or plaintiff seeks medical opinions until they get one they like.

In your case you had a favorable C&P. The RO ignored it and scheduled a C&P a with aboard of two. Then the RO decided the board of two was adequate and denied your claim. Later the BVA tells the RO that the issue of etiology was not adequately resolved by the board of two. It goes back to the board of two and they decide that they did the best they could and the etiology issue stands; one says in-service and the other says not the result of service. Consider that the BVA could have made an award or a denial and chose not to. The remand could have requested another C&P. Instead the BVA remanded the case back to the board of two. I would argue that because the BVA did not think there was sufficient evidence in the file to award the case or deny it, then the claim is in equipoise. The fact that the board of two could not resolve the equipoise problem cements your claim in equipoise and another C&P is in fact "doctor shopping".

Where does the RO get the authority to schedule another C&P when in fact the BVA had the option of scheduling another C&P and chose not to. The fact that the board of two could not resolve their differences is not a reason two schedule another C&P. Under labor law when the plaintiff doctor and the defence doctors disagree there is only one more doctor’s opinion sought and it is final. At this point you got an initial report that favored you. The RO sought a report from a board. The board report is in equipoise because there is a difference of opinion. My assessment is that you won both battles based on the benefit of the doubt rule. Thus, there is no argument between the defence and the claimant. Thus, if this were labor law there would be no legal justification to seek another medical opinion. Seeking another opinion to answer the etiology question would be doctor shopping.

[Josephine]

I agree that is exactly what I am doing.

Josephine

Edited November 4, 2006 by Josephine (see edit history)