The following is the Va Regional Office response to my Congrint regarding the VA developing to deny in my audio increase claim. The VA response challenges any common sense reading of their submission to the Congressman.
Dear Congressional Representative:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Mr. XXXXXXXXXX.
The VA examination for hearing loss on March 6, 2018 was consistent and sufficient as the Veteran had only claimed an increase in the left ear. The hearing loss examination ordered on July 24, 2018, was unnecessary, however it was ordered, and evidence received from it needs to be considered.
A request for clarification exam for the claim for entitlement to an increased evaluation for left ear hearing loss was requested April 11, 2019.
The reason it was requested is because the findings from March 2018 and the findings from August 2018 are significantly different and the examiner is asked to review and explain. That request is normal procedure when there is a significant disparity between the results in two sets of testing relatively close to each other.
Unfortunately when we requested the clarification in April 2019, that was not completed and so we again asked for the review and clarification in the July 8, 2019 deferral. For some reason VA ordered another hearing loss exam on July 10, 2019, but still did not request clarification about the two previous examinations.
Mr. XXXXX mentions the exam in August 2018 was highly probative but, for the claim for increase for an already service connected left ear, hearing loss probative value is not at issue. The Veteran refers to the third exam in his letter as “development to deny”, which is not the case, but it was wrong to get another exam and for that we apologize for the confusion and inconvenience. What we requested in April 2019 was clarification and this clarification has not been received. We are following up on that request now. Once this clarification is received, the Veteran’s claim for increase will be reviewed.
Here is my response to the congressional Representative regarding the Regional response to their inquiry. The bold are my annotations regarding the real facts that I inserted into their response.
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Mr. XXXXX
The VA examination for hearing loss on March 6, 2018 was consistent and sufficient as the Veteran had only claimed an increase in the left ear. {The hearing loss exam on March 6, 2018 was for a different claim that was completed with a decision date of 23 March 2018 and was considered "final and binding". Several issues were awarded and several were denied in this previously rated claim. Within this claim, I notified the VA that they did not rate my diabetes disability contention even though I submitted private treatment records the day I submitted the claim. Lo and behold, Manchester discovered "late flowing evidence" regarding this "final and binding" claim and tried to "fix" the diabetes omission by creating an EP 020 claim to rate this omission. As part of this EP 020 claim, the Memphis Regional Office, during review of the claim cited several mistakes made by Manchester. Attached is a copy of the Memphis directive to Manchester. Because Manchester had my private medical records in their possession when they rated my claim, but did not use them in their decisions, this created problems in the adequacy of the C&P exams used to rate the claim. Additionally, Memphis told Manchester that they did not request all VA medical records that may pertain to my claim and they must do so. The Memphis concern was correct and Manchester was missing available VA medical records due to their error. Because Manchester did not provide all medical records to the examiners to review in determining my previous claim, this raised serious C&P exam adequacy issues because the ENTIRE medical file must be reviewed by the examiner in an adequate C&P exam. The Manchester fix to this was to follow the directive of Memphis and send me out for new C&P exams for rerating my hearing, eyes, and several arthritis and leg pain issues. They put all of these contentions as "increases" in the new EP 930 claim. Because the examiners now had access to all my medical records, this solved potential exam adequacy issues for non-availability of records. VA Manchester never gave you this background which is germane to the entire situation.}
The hearing loss examination ordered on July 24, 2018, was unnecessary {as above, it may have been required due to incomplete records used in the previous hearing exam and the cure was to do a new C&P exam once the records were placed in the C-file.}, however it was ordered, and evidence received from it needs to be considered. A request for clarification exam for the claim for entitlement to an increased evaluation for left ear hearing loss was requested April 11, 2019. {When I saw this request for clarification in the VA eBenefits system, I called the contractor, VES, and requested information regarding this clarification request. VES told me, which I confirmed at multiple sources at VES, that VA Manchester told them to ignore the request for clarification. VA told them that they had everything they needed and it was "good to go". What VA Manchester did not tell you was that it was not completed because VA Manchester told VES not to do the clarification. The reason it was requested is because the findings from March 2018 and the findings from August 2018 are significantly different and the examiner is asked to review and explain. That request is normal procedure when there is a significant disparity between the results in two sets of testing relatively close to each other. Unfortunately when we requested the clarification in April 2019, that was not completed {At VA Manchester request based on information provided by VES.} and so we again asked for the review and clarification in the July 8, 2019 deferral. For some reason VA { A reason is required for any C&P exam; this supports my contention for "develop to deny".} ordered another hearing loss exam on July 10, 2019, but still did not request clarification about the two previous examinations. {This sentence is incongruent with the previous sentence. The previous sentence states they requested review and clarification on 8 July, but then goes on to state the VA ordered a new exam on 10 July, "but still did not request clarification". It appears VA Manchester wants to have it both ways.}
Mr. XXXXX mentions the exam in August 2018 was highly probative but, for the claim for increase for an already service connected left ear, hearing loss probative value is not at issue. {Probative value is always an issue in the comparison of exams between 2 different examiners. The experience and capability of one examiner may be clearly superior to another. My review of the experience, education, and training of the examiner for VES and the examiner for VA Boston showed the the VES examiner's was far superior to the examiner who conducted hearing exam at VA Boston in the previous claim.} The Veteran refers to the third exam in his letter as “development to deny”, which is not the case, {This statement appears to be an opinion not based on a foundation of fact. They had everything to rate the claim, yet ordered a new exam. This is the essence of developing to deny.} but it was wrong to get another exam {Because that would be development to deny.} and for that we apologize for the confusion and inconvenience. What we requested in April 2019 was clarification and this clarification has not been received. {Because they told VES not to provide it and everything was" good to go".} We are following up on that request now. Once this clarification is received, the Veteran’s claim for increase will be reviewed.
Question
pointer123
The following is the Va Regional Office response to my Congrint regarding the VA developing to deny in my audio increase claim. The VA response challenges any common sense reading of their submission to the Congressman.
Dear Congressional Representative:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Mr. XXXXXXXXXX.
The VA examination for hearing loss on March 6, 2018 was consistent and sufficient as the Veteran had only claimed an increase in the left ear. The hearing loss examination ordered on July 24, 2018, was unnecessary, however it was ordered, and evidence received from it needs to be considered.
A request for clarification exam for the claim for entitlement to an increased evaluation for left ear hearing loss was requested April 11, 2019.
The reason it was requested is because the findings from March 2018 and the findings from August 2018 are significantly different and the examiner is asked to review and explain. That request is normal procedure when there is a significant disparity between the results in two sets of testing relatively close to each other.
Unfortunately when we requested the clarification in April 2019, that was not completed and so we again asked for the review and clarification in the July 8, 2019 deferral. For some reason VA ordered another hearing loss exam on July 10, 2019, but still did not request clarification about the two previous examinations.
Mr. XXXXX mentions the exam in August 2018 was highly probative but, for the claim for increase for an already service connected left ear, hearing loss probative value is not at issue. The Veteran refers to the third exam in his letter as “development to deny”, which is not the case, but it was wrong to get another exam and for that we apologize for the confusion and inconvenience. What we requested in April 2019 was clarification and this clarification has not been received. We are following up on that request now. Once this clarification is received, the Veteran’s claim for increase will be reviewed.
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely
Manchester, NH Regional Office
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my response to the congressional Representative regarding the Regional response to their inquiry. The bold are my annotations regarding the real facts that I inserted into their response.
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Mr. XXXXX
The VA examination for hearing loss on March 6, 2018 was consistent and sufficient as the Veteran had only claimed an increase in the left ear. { The hearing loss exam on March 6, 2018 was for a different claim that was completed with a decision date of 23 March 2018 and was considered "final and binding". Several issues were awarded and several were denied in this previously rated claim. Within this claim, I notified the VA that they did not rate my diabetes disability contention even though I submitted private treatment records the day I submitted the claim. Lo and behold, Manchester discovered "late flowing evidence" regarding this "final and binding" claim and tried to "fix" the diabetes omission by creating an EP 020 claim to rate this omission. As part of this EP 020 claim, the Memphis Regional Office, during review of the claim cited several mistakes made by Manchester. Attached is a copy of the Memphis directive to Manchester. Because Manchester had my private medical records in their possession when they rated my claim, but did not use them in their decisions, this created problems in the adequacy of the C&P exams used to rate the claim. Additionally, Memphis told Manchester that they did not request all VA medical records that may pertain to my claim and they must do so. The Memphis concern was correct and Manchester was missing available VA medical records due to their error. Because Manchester did not provide all medical records to the examiners to review in determining my previous claim, this raised serious C&P exam adequacy issues because the ENTIRE medical file must be reviewed by the examiner in an adequate C&P exam. The Manchester fix to this was to follow the directive of Memphis and send me out for new C&P exams for rerating my hearing, eyes, and several arthritis and leg pain issues. They put all of these contentions as "increases" in the new EP 930 claim. Because the examiners now had access to all my medical records, this solved potential exam adequacy issues for non-availability of records. VA Manchester never gave you this background which is germane to the entire situation.}
The hearing loss examination ordered on July 24, 2018, was unnecessary {as above, it may have been required due to incomplete records used in the previous hearing exam and the cure was to do a new C&P exam once the records were placed in the C-file.}, however it was ordered, and evidence received from it needs to be considered. A request for clarification exam for the claim for entitlement to an increased evaluation for left ear hearing loss was requested April 11, 2019. {When I saw this request for clarification in the VA eBenefits system, I called the contractor, VES, and requested information regarding this clarification request. VES told me, which I confirmed at multiple sources at VES, that VA Manchester told them to ignore the request for clarification. VA told them that they had everything they needed and it was "good to go". What VA Manchester did not tell you was that it was not completed because VA Manchester told VES not to do the clarification. The reason it was requested is because the findings from March 2018 and the findings from August 2018 are significantly different and the examiner is asked to review and explain. That request is normal procedure when there is a significant disparity between the results in two sets of testing relatively close to each other. Unfortunately when we requested the clarification in April 2019, that was not completed {At VA Manchester request based on information provided by VES.} and so we again asked for the review and clarification in the July 8, 2019 deferral. For some reason VA { A reason is required for any C&P exam; this supports my contention for "develop to deny".} ordered another hearing loss exam on July 10, 2019, but still did not request clarification about the two previous examinations. {This sentence is incongruent with the previous sentence. The previous sentence states they requested review and clarification on 8 July, but then goes on to state the VA ordered a new exam on 10 July, "but still did not request clarification". It appears VA Manchester wants to have it both ways.}
Mr. XXXXX mentions the exam in August 2018 was highly probative but, for the claim for increase for an already service connected left ear, hearing loss probative value is not at issue. {Probative value is always an issue in the comparison of exams between 2 different examiners. The experience and capability of one examiner may be clearly superior to another. My review of the experience, education, and training of the examiner for VES and the examiner for VA Boston showed the the VES examiner's was far superior to the examiner who conducted hearing exam at VA Boston in the previous claim.} The Veteran refers to the third exam in his letter as “development to deny”, which is not the case, {This statement appears to be an opinion not based on a foundation of fact. They had everything to rate the claim, yet ordered a new exam. This is the essence of developing to deny.} but it was wrong to get another exam {Because that would be development to deny.} and for that we apologize for the confusion and inconvenience. What we requested in April 2019 was clarification and this clarification has not been received. {Because they told VES not to provide it and everything was" good to go".} We are following up on that request now. Once this clarification is received, the Veteran’s claim for increase will be reviewed.
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Manchester, NH Regional Office
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
1
1
Popular Days
Jul 20
2
Jul 21
2
Jul 22
1
Top Posters For This Question
kanewnut 1 post
vetquest 1 post
Richard1954 1 post
pointer123 1 post
Popular Days
Jul 20 2019
2 posts
Jul 21 2019
2 posts
Jul 22 2019
1 post
Popular Posts
kanewnut
What an A-hole!!
4 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now