NOD and DRO process

[Joe1766]

I recently received a rating on several disabilities 4 of which I have submitted as part of the NOD/DRO process.  When they review the claim does the DRO confine himself/herself to the issues that are listed on the NOD (4 items in question) or is it a de novo review of all the disabilities originally submitted?  I know that the DRO can downgrade a rating(s) as well which is concerning.......what is the risk/benefit analysis when it comes to submitting an appeal?

Edited July 10, 2016 by Joe1766

[Joe1766]

4 hours ago, broncovet said:

In response to the poster who posted about the DRO "rarely finding error", this is pure horse puckey and here is why.  If you look at the statistics from the BVA, in the chairmans report, you will find that, of those decisions which reach the BVA, well over half of these contain one or more errors which require at least a remand, if not a reversal.  

If those errors occur more than 50 percent of the time, then that is not "rare".  Perhaps the reason "HE" (the DRO) did not find errors, was because he repeated the same mistake doing the DRO" as was done initially.  Source: http://www.bva.va.gov/docs/Chairmans_Annual_Rpts/BVA2015AR.pdf

Specifically, the BVA found less than 20% of the denied decision to be correct, which means the rest had errors requiring remand or reversal.  See page 27 of chairmans report.  

Hello Broncovet.....I posted that comment, and when I read it I felt it was concerning hence part of the reason for my initial post.  Hopefully, the DRO quoted is the exception rather than the rule.  Comments that I have read regarding the DRO and RO is bad cop...bad cop scenario. 

Joe

[rootbeer22]

Navy4Life:

I now remember your story well now and hope you are getting the help you need and deserve? Before I took my first VA CP exam and I admit at that time I knew very little about the disability process, it was clear that I needed to find the VA CP Exam Guide. You can Google it and be able to find it. I read thru it and it was clear the like everything else, there is a clear set of rules and protocols for how the exam is supposed to be conducted. Also, there are the HIPPA Rules which provides a high degree of protections against your personnel medical information be shared incorrectly outside the appropriate channels. Also, there is a patient bill of rights that the VA has which apply as well. Lately, there have been some concerns about the Vendor sponsored CP exams in terms of continuity and their ratings decisions. Most of us Vets just want the exams to be conducted professionally according to the rules and with a high degree of transparency. For instance, many have a common feeling that if a vet goes to a specific CP Vendor clinic in my area that they will either be denied service connection or a lowballed rating? Well, as you said, medical information should only be heard by a very narrow group in the clinic that has a real need to know? Otherwise if cases and exams are lowered to the level of office related gossip in the CP Clinic which affects the perceived trust or credibility of a Vet, that talk can be very damaging to a rating outcome which may be very unfair? Like I've said before, I've had some CP exams (and other vets the same) that were way out of the scope of the requirements for a VA CP exam. For instance, the examiner did not properly consider pain in the range of motion measurement? But again, she should have been trained in the first place to do what is right?  Also, an examiner must look at all of the facts before they arrive at an opinion, but may of them sign off that looked at "all" of the patients records anyway but later we found that they made a decision without doing so? Because if they had done so, the same evidence that was already contained in the file would have resulted in either service connection or a higher rating on a contention...? 

So, what do we do...we keep learning, fighting and working towards a resolution that works for us in the future...but we never ever quit..

Good Luck and Godspeed Rootbeer22

[lfredrick123]

We sent in a timely NOD and Request for DRO Review. That is all that was available on the form, It is written  Decision Review Officer (DRO) Review Process or  Traditional Appellate Review Process as the options. We chose the DRO Review process. Hopefully this will get us to a hearing on the matter rather than them just reviewing the decision. Any suggestions? We are beyond the one year time period now. Or should we send a certified letter to them confirming the request and DRO Hearing.

[Navy4life]

I would do whatever I need to do in order for the NOD to be heard at a DRO HEARING. If you need to spell it out to the DRO then get your rep to have you fill out a VA21-4138 requesting that the DRO hearing be held regarding your NOD. THE last thing you want is a DRO to not have the opportunity to speak with you. The firms have changed since I filled mine out in 2014!!!

[Joe1766]

Nav4life & Broncovet.....sent the following e-mail to my VSO Rep....."We submitted an NOD on 4 issues that I disagreed with; will the DRO restrict himself/herself to those 4 issues alone or are all the prior claims be reviewed (de novo review)?  My hope is only the 4 issues we listed on the NOD will be evaluated.  Another question I have is how would I go about requesting an informal hearing with the DRO?  At the hearing with the DRO will you or someone from your office be able to present at the hearing?  Where are the hearings conducted?"  The VSO response....  "There is no one present for any hearing with the DRO, as it is not a hearing but a review of your claim.  If it makes it to the Statement of Case, then a hearing is requested….at which point you are able to be present before a BVA judge with a representative of TVC." 

Does this make any sense??????

Edited July 12, 2016 by Joe1766

[Navy4life]

Well I'm not sure what he is talking about. My DRO hearing was at the local VA office of appeals in Waco. My DAV rep was present. I was asked if I wanted a informal or formal. I chose informal. Now remember I asked for the hearing so I am entitled to it. Sounds like your rep is just opting for the DRO to review the contentions filed within the NOD. 

SECONDLY, you need to forget about your other contentions. The DRO COULD CARELESS. He is only reviewing what the original rater denied...the four contentions. 

I just looked at the NOD firm and it's been revised as of 9/2015. There are only two choices however in the 12A section I would have requested a DRO HEARING. Just because you chose DRO review process in section 9 I am not 100% sure that warrants a hearing.