Examiners Will Not Follow The Remand By The Bva.

[Josephine]

John,

I called the AMC and they said that they had total jurisdiction over my claim and could order another C&P if needed.

Is this true?

Does anyone know. You have been following my post and I am sure you are aware of the circumstance of that particular C&P. I didn't think that they two crooked psychiatrist would give anyone their etilogy for any new evidence or that examination.

Thanks,

Josephine

[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