C & P s and the Backlog of claims

[Berta]

The backlog statistics are conflicting and horrible, but maybe the New Claims process will help-

 

https://www.stripes.com/news/inspector-general-finds-va-claims-backlog-greater-than-reported-1.546926

 

https://cck-law.com/news/va-claims-appeals-backlog/

 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/07/31/new-va-secretary-faces-400000-case-appeals-backlog-it-delay.html

I will be recommending, more and more here, how important it is to get an IMO/IME that follows the IMO/IME criteria here at hadit, because the DBQs do not provide for nexus statements and that is up to the veteran, in most cases, to provide.

I think this is grossly unfair- that vets need IMO/IMES, but 

Trying to fight back a lousy C & P exam without an IMO/IME can be stressful, time wasting, and not provide the nexus statement you need, which might only come from a non VA IMO/IME doctor.

I imagine many C & P exams do help get a higher rating for an established SC disability- but they cannot provide an inservice nexus,if that is what the claim needs.

We can't provide that type of nexus either- it would be found in your SMRS, maybe in your 201 files, and maybe  in properly prepared buddy statements , or maybe it is a Chronic presumptive, or an AO presumptive, or falls under the GWV regulations and that would be the Nexus.

To me, unless the claim is for a secondary disability to an established SC, or for a higher rating, then the DBQs might help a lot,  but other than that ,they seem very deficient for so many claims we see here, when the DBQ or C & P exam is attached to the post. And since the nexus will not be established, on a DBQ-that is up to the claimant to establish.

The new claims process might change all this- but how long will that take.......? We have the responsibility and 'duty' to assist ourselves by gathering all of the evidence we can think of to make the claim succeed.