100% ptsd, rated SMC

[Rich p]

If you actually receive regular treatment for ptsd, Clemons Vs Shinseki 2009, is all that is needed to advance your claim. If it is a documented fact of record, Clemons requires a substantially complete adjudication. Missed evidence in your record fails Clemons and requires the VA to redress. Clemons put a higher requirement on the adjudicator. They didn't get it at first in my case, but I just pointed to a material fact, claimed great weight for my doctors statements, and presented Clemons. When from 50 to SMC, over six years. I hope this helps, the VA, DOJ, and our VSO's are way behind the curve on this. The decision came from the CCVA.

[broncovet]

Congratulations!  Is it possible for  you to  supply a link, or give a docket number to that great win, for other Vets?    As you may already know, MOST CAVC cases are public knowledge.  I do admit its unclear to me when/why some CAVC cases are "unpublished".  

Perhaps the "unpublished" cases have "sensitive issues" for example, issues of MST.   Of course, MST is not THE ONLY sensistive issue, there are many others. 

If yours is one of the ones with "sensitive issues" then I apologize in advance for asking you to post it.  

[Buck52]

Broncovet

I believe  Clemons vs Shinseki is referring to a miss diagnose or a wrong diagnose that would other wise give the veteran a lower rating and it would change things for the veteran

[Rich p]

On 6/29/2017 at 7:01 AM, broncovet said:

Congratulations!  Is it possible for  you to  supply a link, or give a docket number to that great win, for other Vets?    As you may already know, MOST CAVC cases are public knowledge.  I do admit its unclear to me when/why some CAVC cases are "unpublished".  

Perhaps the "unpublished" cases have "sensitive issues" for example, issues of MST.   Of course, MST is not THE ONLY sensistive issue, there are many others. 

If yours is one of the ones with "sensitive issues" then I apologize in advance for asking you to post it.  

My information was from the helpdeskvetsfirst.org, or the paralyzed veterans of American. 

[Rich p]

On 6/29/2017 at 7:43 AM, Buck52 said:

Broncovet

I believe  Clemons vs Shinseki is referring to a miss diagnose or a wrong diagnose that would other wise give the veteran a lower rating and it would change things for the veteran

Clemons state the VBA has a higher duty to narrow a claim filed with a mental health condition. In Clemons the veteran was claiming PTSD which the VA continued to deny. When the case arrived at the CCVA the secretary was ask if they noticed the veterans other mental health diagnosis. The court then claimed a mental health claimant in capible of narrowing their own claims, this require VBA to identify and address any and all material facts from the onset. VBA fails Clemons if a material fact exist in your record and has not been addressed in a statement of case. I still have 8 diagnosis in my record never addressed, still in appeal