Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
VSO Training: Mental disorders, SMC, game changer case law
Rate this question
-
Similar Content
-
Landmark Decision for Special Monthly Compensation Calculations
By Tbird,
- 38cfr3.350
- barry v mcdonough
- (and 2 more)
- 0 answers
- 140 views
-
- 0 replies
- 130 views
-
- 0 comments
- 324 views
-
- 0 replies
- 330 views
-
- 0 comments
- 947 views
-
Question
broncovet
http://www.purpleheart.org/ServiceProgram/Training2010/Tuesday Training Outline NVLSP.pdf
Short summary:
If VA said you have a genetic defect, if you have PTSD or depression and are seeking an EED, or if you are seeking SMC read the above.
1. If you have a mental disorder, the VA does not require self diagnosis for a claim date. Applying for something else, and being treated by VAMC for a mental disorder, should suffice for the effective date.
2. Special cases:
Clemons vs Shinseki: and Beverly v. Nicholson: These cases reaffirmed Roberson mandate, and made it even stronger for PTSD/depression victims, making it easier to get an EED. 1. “Appellant did not file to receive benefits only for a particular diagnosis, but for the affliction his mental condition, whatever that is, causes him.” 2. Vet’s “claim for benefits based on PTSD encompassed benefits based on an anxiety disorder and/or a schizoid disorder b/c evidence developed during processing of claim indicated that the symptoms for which [he] was seeking VA benefits may have been caused by an anxiety and/or schizoid disorder”
I like the term "MAY" because that means the Veterans is given a very broad benefit of the doubt, this is much wider than just "equipose", its "may have been caused." This NEVER flies with other issues. The Veterans xx condition "may have been caused" by military service always means a denial with anything other than mental disorders. The Veteran still needs a regular nexus, but if his mental condition prevented him from applying, and his VSO did it later, then this should be an EED.
Davidson vs Shinseki: . CAVC & VA were wrong to conclude that “a valid medical opinion” was required to establish nexus.
Polovick v. Shinseki i. Vet claimed SC for malignant glioma, a cancer not listed on presumptive list
Stefl & Polovick mean: i. Possible for vet to win SC for disability claimed as due to herbicide exposure under a theory of direct service connection ii. Gives advocates ideas re: how to win these claims iii. What does it take to win?
Quirin v. Shinseki – VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 82-90 a. There are differences between a congenital defect, and a congentital disease. A congenital defect is static, ie, you were born without a left arm. A congenetial disease, however, can be "aggravated" by military service.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
1
1
1
Popular Days
Dec 19
4
Dec 21
1
Top Posters For This Question
Vync 2 posts
john999 1 post
broncovet 1 post
ArNG11 1 post
Popular Days
Dec 19 2015
4 posts
Dec 21 2015
1 post
Popular Posts
broncovet
http://www.purpleheart.org/ServiceProgram/Training2010/Tuesday Training Outline NVLSP.pdf Short summary: If VA said you have a genetic defect, if you have PTSD or depression and are seeking an E
ArNG11
Love this post and reference. It breaks down the mandatory responsibility that the VA has in developing a claim. It is quite clear that they fail miserably at this unique and pretty well spelled out
john999
If military experience makes a personality disorder worse you still don't get compensated, but you can have medical mental disorder superimposed on a PD. People with PD's get PTSD just like anyone e
4 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now