Does this letter get any message across, or am I just wasting my time?
I sent this into the Appeals Management Center, as my claims file is in Washington remanded by the BVA.
I hope that I made some point on the second C&P diagnosis of Personality Disorder.
December 15, 2005
I receive a Supplemental Statement of the Case from xxxxxx with the decision:
Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability to include anxiety and depression is denied.
Paragraph 3.
That a veteran may have been treated for a particular condition while on active duty does not mean that the condition will automatically be considered service connected. In order to establish service connection, there must be evidence of a chronic disability or disease directly linked to military service.
Va. examination in October 2004 by xxxxx PhD, Clinical Psychologist, diagnosed an anxiety disorder and indicated that based on his review of the evidence and the information obtained from you during the examination, that it was “ more likely that she had some sort of psychiatric difficulty while in the service, and was judged to be unsuitable”. He stated it was unclear why “stressors” were not documented. He indicated you reported “no childhood psychiatric problems”, again making the “beginning of her troubles dating to service time more likely”.
*If you look at my pre-entrance examination, one can see the veteran was telling the truth to Dr. xxxxer. *
Why did the xxxxxxx Regional Office need another C&P Examination by a Board of Two?
CFR 1.14.3 Board of two (or three) examiners
Many claims involve complicated questions of causality, diagnosis, or relationship, or contrary opinions of previous examiners. The VSC or the BVA may request an examination by a board of two (or, rarely, three) examiners to resolve such questions. Two (or three) clinicians should examine the veteran, consider all the evidence, consult with one another, and submit a single report signed by both (or all three) containing joint diagnoses and addressing all of the questions asked. If differences cannot be reconciled, or questions cannot be answered, the report should clearly explain why.
During another examination in April 2006, a Staff Psychiatrist reviewed your entire file and stated that several inconsistencies were noted. He stated your symptoms were primarily consistent with a “personality disorder” and that it did not appear that you developed a chronic psychiatric disability while on active duty.
Furthermore, it was determined that your anxiety disorder was not caused or worsened by your time in service.
Personality disorders are considered “congenial or developmental” abnormalities. A personality disorder is characterized by pathological trends in personality structure and manifested by a lifelong pattern of behavior, rather than by symptoms characteristic of an acquired psychiatric disease. Because of its inherent or intrinsic nature, it is not considered a disease for which service connection can be granted.
* In making his decision xxxxxx relied upon the statement of the psychiatrist and failed the veteran by not ordering another C&P examination, as she requested for 8 months, as well as Ms. xxxx at Honorable Admiral Daniel Cooper’s Office, and only states that the veteran may disagree with the VA examination does not mean that the examination report is erroneous or otherwise inadequate for rating purposes. *
*The veteran never received a psychological examination in compliance with C.F.R &4.126. *
As to the diagnosed anxiety disorder, the evidence does not establish this condition developed or was permanently aggravated while you were on active duty.
Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).
In making this determination, we have given greater weight to the Board of Psychiatrist’s findings since this was done by a psychiatrist.
xxxxxx did not use all of the evidence to decide the veteran’s claim. xxxxxx used credentials to decide this claim, and not the evidence presented by the PhD Psychologist, Dr. xxxxx.
Dr. xxxxxx used the integrity of a physician with his compensation and pension examination of October 18, 2004. Dr. xxxxxxxx is trained in the field of mental and behavior features and attitudes of a person and the study and profession concerning behavior and the related functions and processes of both the mind and the body with expertise in memory, emotions, thinking, learning, perception, personality and speech and to focus particularly on how behavior and the mind relate to the social and physical environment and with the understanding, prevention, or solution of problems with the knowledge, techniques and skills to achieve these goals.
I shall quote to you this ruling again:
The application of, "as likely as not" itself is not speculation. The " as likely as not" standard equates to the statutory standard of the " approximate balance of positive and negative evidence", accepted by VA. to grant service connection. See 38 U.S.C.A. & 5107C.F. R. & 3.102.43.
The preponderance of the evidence supports granting the benefits sought on appeal. At the very least, an approximate balance of a claim is present to cause a reasonable doubt to exist. Therefore, I point to 38 C.F.R. & 3.102 which provides that when a reasonable doubt exist " regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant.”
I hereby certify that this information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
Question
Josephine
Hi,
Does this letter get any message across, or am I just wasting my time?
I sent this into the Appeals Management Center, as my claims file is in Washington remanded by the BVA.
I hope that I made some point on the second C&P diagnosis of Personality Disorder.
December 15, 2005
I receive a Supplemental Statement of the Case from xxxxxx with the decision:
Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability to include anxiety and depression is denied.
Paragraph 3.
That a veteran may have been treated for a particular condition while on active duty does not mean that the condition will automatically be considered service connected. In order to establish service connection, there must be evidence of a chronic disability or disease directly linked to military service.
Va. examination in October 2004 by xxxxx PhD, Clinical Psychologist, diagnosed an anxiety disorder and indicated that based on his review of the evidence and the information obtained from you during the examination, that it was “ more likely that she had some sort of psychiatric difficulty while in the service, and was judged to be unsuitable”. He stated it was unclear why “stressors” were not documented. He indicated you reported “no childhood psychiatric problems”, again making the “beginning of her troubles dating to service time more likely”.
*If you look at my pre-entrance examination, one can see the veteran was telling the truth to Dr. xxxxer. *
Why did the xxxxxxx Regional Office need another C&P Examination by a Board of Two?
CFR 1.14.3 Board of two (or three) examiners
Many claims involve complicated questions of causality, diagnosis, or relationship, or contrary opinions of previous examiners. The VSC or the BVA may request an examination by a board of two (or, rarely, three) examiners to resolve such questions. Two (or three) clinicians should examine the veteran, consider all the evidence, consult with one another, and submit a single report signed by both (or all three) containing joint diagnoses and addressing all of the questions asked. If differences cannot be reconciled, or questions cannot be answered, the report should clearly explain why.
During another examination in April 2006, a Staff Psychiatrist reviewed your entire file and stated that several inconsistencies were noted. He stated your symptoms were primarily consistent with a “personality disorder” and that it did not appear that you developed a chronic psychiatric disability while on active duty.
Furthermore, it was determined that your anxiety disorder was not caused or worsened by your time in service.
Personality disorders are considered “congenial or developmental” abnormalities. A personality disorder is characterized by pathological trends in personality structure and manifested by a lifelong pattern of behavior, rather than by symptoms characteristic of an acquired psychiatric disease. Because of its inherent or intrinsic nature, it is not considered a disease for which service connection can be granted.
* In making his decision xxxxxx relied upon the statement of the psychiatrist and failed the veteran by not ordering another C&P examination, as she requested for 8 months, as well as Ms. xxxx at Honorable Admiral Daniel Cooper’s Office, and only states that the veteran may disagree with the VA examination does not mean that the examination report is erroneous or otherwise inadequate for rating purposes. *
*The veteran never received a psychological examination in compliance with C.F.R &4.126. *
As to the diagnosed anxiety disorder, the evidence does not establish this condition developed or was permanently aggravated while you were on active duty.
Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).
In making this determination, we have given greater weight to the Board of Psychiatrist’s findings since this was done by a psychiatrist.
xxxxxx did not use all of the evidence to decide the veteran’s claim. xxxxxx used credentials to decide this claim, and not the evidence presented by the PhD Psychologist, Dr. xxxxx.
Dr. xxxxxx used the integrity of a physician with his compensation and pension examination of October 18, 2004. Dr. xxxxxxxx is trained in the field of mental and behavior features and attitudes of a person and the study and profession concerning behavior and the related functions and processes of both the mind and the body with expertise in memory, emotions, thinking, learning, perception, personality and speech and to focus particularly on how behavior and the mind relate to the social and physical environment and with the understanding, prevention, or solution of problems with the knowledge, techniques and skills to achieve these goals.
I shall quote to you this ruling again:
The application of, "as likely as not" itself is not speculation. The " as likely as not" standard equates to the statutory standard of the " approximate balance of positive and negative evidence", accepted by VA. to grant service connection. See 38 U.S.C.A. & 5107C.F. R. & 3.102.43.
The preponderance of the evidence supports granting the benefits sought on appeal. At the very least, an approximate balance of a claim is present to cause a reasonable doubt to exist. Therefore, I point to 38 C.F.R. & 3.102 which provides that when a reasonable doubt exist " regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant.”
I hereby certify that this information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
Josephine
Edited by JosephineLink to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
Popular Days
Jan 31
2
Top Posters For This Question
Pete53 1 post
Josephine 1 post
Popular Days
Jan 31 2007
2 posts
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts