Amc From Rater Back To Development?

[Josephine]

Hi everyone,

Just when I thought that I was getting somewhere, I found this out yesterday from the AMC. My claims file went back to Development from the Rater.

Is this perhaps why?

Remand by BVA

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

My claims file was returned to the medical center and was received back to the AMC on October 27, 2006.

This is what the two psychiatrist wrote:

Letter by Dr. C read

Letter by Dr. P read

No evidence to alter initial conclusion.

signed Dr. L

signed Dr. B

I sent in an objection to the AMC. [/b]

The two Psychiatrists did not follow the Remand of April 10, 2006 per 38CFR 19.8 & 19.9 and others rulings that are applicable.

·The two psychiatrists did not explain the etiology of their conclusion per the request of the remand by the BVA.

·How can anyone give weight to a report that does not reconcile etiology?

·The two psychiatrists did not give Dr. B. C. C, military treating physician any weight to his statement clarifying his treatment records of me, May 10, 2005. He has explained his SMR’s of vascular v tension headaches? This is a concept. If the cafergot did not work, the headaches were caused by anxiety thus prescribing a tranquilizer. Librium and thus referring me to Dr. F. D. Jxxxx to concur the treatment. Dr. J then referred me to Mxxx, Board Certified Psychiatrist, who recommended my discharge, not Captain Hxxxx, as stated by the two psychiatrist in their C&P April 12, 2005.

·Dr. Pxxxxx, Board Certified Internist, my physician of 29 years letter dated January 2006 was not given any weight.

·Dr. Mxxxxx, PhD, Psychologist Va. Medical Center C&P, October 19, 2004 was not given any weight.

·I object to all the unsubstantiated allegations authored by Dr. L Lxxxxx in the C&P examination of April 2005.

·

o - The records of Dr. G Sxxxxx dated 11/ 21/ 69 have been changed, as I have sent numerous copies to the BVA and the AMC. This was done with the purpose to deceive when Dr. Lxxxxx typed Gravida 3 Para 3, but the true records states Gravida 3 Para 2. She states that one medical records states, she is a Gravida 3 Para 3 and claims to only have two children.

o - No doctor has ever diagnosed or treated me for a personality disorder.

Dr. L. Lxxxxx in the C&P examination April 14, 2005 changed my military medical records of Dr. F. D. Jxxxx, Military Psychiatrist Naval Dispensary, Washington D. C. dated 3/12/64 and Dr. Mxxxx Board Certified Psychiatrist, Naval Dispensary, Washington D. C. dated 3/27/1964.

Dr. L. Lxxxxx as stated in the C&P examination April 14, 2005 – Two Psychiatric examinations, March 12, 2964 and March 27, 1964 noted her February visit in consultation because of headaches.

Dr. F. D Jxxxx, Psychiatrist U.S. Naval Dispensary, Washington D. C. - 3/12/1964

· This 19 year old, HN USN with approximate one-year continuous active duty was seen in psychiatric consultation because of headaches and mild nervousness and was referred by the medical officers.

Dr. Mxxxxx, Board Certified Psychiatrist U.S. Naval Dispensary, Washington D. C 3/17/1964

·The general nature of her complaints are the same. Recommends discharge.

Hypnosis used during a C&P examination was not addressed

· Reminder of your Clinic Appointment by The Sxxxxx Medical Center 4/4/2005

· Income Statement taken 4/12/ 2006

· No one allowed to be present during examination by two physicians 4/ 12/2005

· Letter by Nurse Qxxxxxxx of my state of being after C&P examination 4/12/2005

· Diagram of room for hypnotic C&P 4/12/2005

· Three and four letter sentences by Dr. Bxxx not addressed.

The Two Psychiatrist that held the 4/12/ 2005 C&P should have to follow these guidelines

Opinions should be provided based on the results of examination, a review of the medical evidence of record, and sound medical principles. All examination findings, along with the complete rationale for all opinions expressed, should be set forth in the examination report.

· I object as the two psychiatrists who held the C&P 4/12/2005 did not followed these guidelines, sound medical principles have not been used. No rationale for their decision.

The two psychiatrist are not going to abide by the remand. What happens next?

Anyone Know, What can I do to stop this nonsense?

Thanks,

Josephine

Edited November 25, 2006 by Josephine