ptsd Submit VA Form 21-0781 PTSD for Anxiety????

[MikeHunt]

Situation is, a private clinician wrote a statement connecting my service with anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified that DID include 'Traits' of PTSD and depression in that diagnosis.

eBenefits listed the aforementioned form as needed, eventhough I'm not claiming PTSD. Full tile: STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM FOR SERVICE CONNECTION FOR POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

I'm concerned as to why a PTSD form is required, and what's going to happen if I DO fill it out, and what if I DON'T- Context is, I'm deeply suspicious of the VA's development machine, and believe me, I have every right to be- Please don't ask.

The logic behind the clinician's connection was mostly on situations, not isolated events the form is asking for- Like "Servicemember Death", If that makes sense.

I don't want to go off topic, but they never actually sent a physical letter to me- two weeks later now, in other words, the only info I received was from eBenefits.

 

Thanks- I'm just not seeing justification for this form in references I can find in their M21-1 manual

 

[Tyr]

Incorrect.

 

Best of luck to you

[Berta]

I mentioned here a few times over the years that vets should not lock themselves into a PTSD claim. However in your case it seems the VA is trying to lock you into a PTSD claim.

This recent BVA decision shows how to avoid that….of course the BVA is smarter than the R0s and the bad part is how long it takes to get a BVA decision.

“The Veteran avers that he currently has a psychiatric disorder related to his military service. An essential element of a claim for service connection for a mental condition is medical evidence diagnosing the disorder. A diagnosis of a mental disorder must be established in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a), which simply mandates that, for VA purposes, all mental disorder diagnoses must conform to the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association 's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). The claims file reflects that the Veteran has been diagnosed with (in conformity with the criterion set forth in the DSM-5) and treated for anxiety and depressive disorder. (See November 2014 private medical report, July 2013 VA medical examination, and August 2011 VA medical examination).

 

A second element of a claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred. The Veteran avers that during his military service he suffered a brain injury. VA has conceded this injury, and the Veteran is current service connected for the residuals of TBI.

 

A third element of a claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition requires medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. In an August 2011 VA medical examination report, the clinician opined that the Veteran's anxiety and depressive disorder are as likely as not related to his in-service head trauma.  Additionally, in a November 2014 private medical assessment, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's service-connected TBI more likely than not aggravates his major depressive disorder.

 

In light of the Veteran's in-service incurrence, the objective clinical medical evidence as a whole, and his credible and competent statements in support of the claim, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise regarding service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety disorder and depressive disorder, and will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). All the elements necessary for establishing service connection are met and the Veteran's claim for service connection for anxiety and depressive disorder is granted.”

 

In part the decision states:

 

“In an October 2010 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for depression, concluding that the Veteran's claimed condition was not related to his military service. In April 2011 the Veteran submitted a statement contending that his current mental disabilities are related to an in-service injury. A VA examination was provided in August 2011, confirming a diagnosis of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder for the Veteran. In a July 2013 decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claim to reopen the claim for service connection for depression.”

This is the good part:

 “The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). As such, giving the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that the Veteran's April 2011 statement in regard to his mental disability must be construed as a notice of disagreement; effectively preserving his appeal as it was received within one year from the October 2010 denial. Therefore, the issue has been recharacterized as shown on the title page and encompasses all reasonably related acquired psychiatric 

disorders, to include anxiety and depressive disorder.”

 

The veteran had also claimed PTSD and was denied by the RO ( but he had a TBI- and that was SCed)

 

 

 

The BVA denied PTSD as well as the VARO did twice but BVA awarded what they had re characterized:

 

“ORDER

 

Entitlement to service connection for anxiety disorder and depressive disorder is granted.

 

Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is denied.”

 

The comp is the same amount for all MH issues.

 

https://www.va.gov/vetapp16/Files6/1646800.txt

 

 

Clemons V Shinseki:

 

https://asknod.org/2011/09/27/cavc-clemons-v-shinseki-2009-not-an-m-d/

let me know if that link doesn't work......

Alex’s (Asknod) description of this CAVC decision gets right to the  point.

http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Clemons-5581.pdf

 Mike- lots to read here but I think you can whip out Clemons V Shinseki and stop their BS in it's tracks.

I haven't figured out exactly how to do that yet but I hope others take the time to read Clemons and see how the BVA applied it here and add their opinions.....

 

 

 

                              

 

[Gastone]

You've done all you can do at this point, easier said than done, sit back relax and wait for the Decision. Second guessing MH Conditions is like chasing your tail.

Semper Fi

[Berta]

To add comment to Dr Bash's suggestion:

In 2005 my RO refused to read and consider my initial IMO from Dr. Bash.I paid for another one and they also refused to read that one, that expanded on the first one.I didn;t consider CUE under 38 CFR 4.-I had used CUE to get a double DRO review - same DRO for both..she told my former vet rep she couldn't read his opinion...and it was Never listed as evidence.My dumb rep said well I did get you a posthumous C & P exam set up and I said if she cannot read my IMOs how can she read a C & P result.His second IMO was to knock down their bogus C & P exam.They ignored both IOS at that point.

I tried one more approach( my idea to have his opinions printed on the RO toilet paper rolls and /or send them Pizzas with the IMos stuck onto the inside of the pizza box didnt seem like good ideas) so I wrote to then Secretary Mansfield asking him to send my IMos to my VARO under his letterhead so that maybe they would read and consider them. Secretary Mansfield did that. They STILL refused to read them.

Long story- I was willing to wait it out because I know the BVA can read. The BVA did read my IMOs and all other probative evidence and awarded. Craig Bash was livid about this whole thing. He sent me a copy of a letter letter from Mansfield when he was having problems with the ROs ,stating how important his opinions were and that they were appreciated by the VA because A few R0s were stating the veteran had opinions from "that radiologist",in their decisions,which got to the BVA , and CB got pissed off .Rightly so.

"That radiologist" knows more about medical issues and VA case law than they do.

He did ask me to send my Congressman a letter about my experience but I had three Congressional letters on a different matter that my VARO had blatantly lied about,in writing, to my Congressman and my 2 Senators.

It is VA case law and regulations that,in addition to probative evidence, are the best weapons we have in the VA's war of the words. It is a pain in the butt to try to understand some of the legalize stuff in 38 USC/CFR/M21-1MR but our motto here "Knowledge is Power" is truly the way to get what we deserve.

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeHunt]

Denied. Didn't get the letter yet.