Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  arng11 : (26 November 2014 - 11:30 AM) Everyone Enjoy The Holidays And Be Safe.
@  eagle1012004 : (26 November 2014 - 10:10 AM) Have A Happy Thanksgiving All!!!
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:54 PM) Tbird Accepted To 2015 Conference: V-Wise: Another Entrepreneurship Project Of The Whitman School Of Management Http://ow.ly/ej9Qg
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:13 PM) Arng11 Thank You For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign.
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 02:57 PM) Thank You Ms T For Starting This Web Site For All Veterans, You Helpd Me And My Family And I'll Be Forever Gratful To You & Hadit.com
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:19 AM) Thank You All For Helping With The Funding The Site. It Is Really Helping!
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:18 AM) Britton Pm Me And I. Can Check This Out For You
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 06:44 AM) What Does ''you Missed Your Quota For Postives Votes Today'' Mean??
@  coriemboh : (19 November 2014 - 08:29 AM) Hold Time For Peggy Was Approximately 1 Minute. That Was 17 Minutes Ago. They Really Need To Change This Hold Music.
@  Tbird : (17 November 2014 - 02:42 PM) Stretch Thanks For The Extra Contribution To Our Fundraiser This Month.
@  maxwell18 : (16 November 2014 - 09:04 PM) I Still Have To Bitch About The Navy Hosp Cutting My Meds By 2/3 On My Norco. I Contacted Customer Service Or What Ever You Want To Call It Who In Turn Contacted The Navy Hosp Pensacola Commander Who In Turn Did Nothing. Thanks To All The People That Are Affair Of There Jobs And I Feel That Medical Malpractice Should Come Into Place. I Guess Just Do What Ever They Want To Because They Can, But Don't Give A Sh T For The Vets That Suppose To Being Supporting From All The Military  organizations. This Is Not The Way They Have Been Trained And Promised To Do. 
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:26 AM) Delayed Onset Tinnitus - Ref To Va Training Letter 10-028 - Link - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/single-Judge-Application-Va-Training-Letter-10-028-Delayed-Onset-Tinnitus/
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:03 AM) Here's A Good Tinnitus Link To Check Out From M21-1 Change Dated Jan 10,2014 - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/tag/section-B-Duty-Military-Occupational-Specialty-Mos-Noise-Exposure-Listing-Fast-Letter-10-35-Tinnitus-Hearing-Loss-Vbms-Rating-Decision-Tools/
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:08 AM) "rolled" Not Ruled! :)
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:07 AM) Thanks. I Have Seen The Fast Ltr 10-35 And Have Seen Cases Where The Va Has Apparently Agreed That Tinnitus Can Have Delayed Onset. I Did Not In Looking Over The Fast Ltr See Where They Had Ruled 10-028 Into That. And, I Am Not Sure In The Vas Issuance Of ‘policy’ Type Letters How They Might Roll In Previous Instructions Into Newer Ones. Maybe There Is Some Intranet Traceability Capability? I Was Just Curious As There ‘appeared’ To Be Conspicuous Absence Of That 10-028. I Am Assuming 10-028 Was Written In 2010. But It May Be I Should Not Assume Anything.
@  carlie : (15 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Asiadaug - You Might Be Looking For Fast Letter 10-35, Http://www.hadit.com/forums/topic/40962-Va-Fl-10-35/ Also Check Out This Link To Links For Delayed Onset Tinnitus - They All Refer Back To Fast Letter 10-35, Https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=Chrome-Instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=Utf-8#q=Tinnitus, Delayed Onset, Va Fast Letter
@  Tbird : (15 November 2014 - 07:50 AM) Asiadaug Searched All Over For Va Training Letter 10-028 But No Luck So Far.
@  Asiadaug : (15 November 2014 - 02:12 AM) Several Cases I've Run Across Mention Va Training Letter 10-028 With Apparent Discussion About Delayed Onset Of Tinnitus. I Have Been Unable To Locate That Trng Ltr. Any Suggestions?
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Stretch Thanks For Contributing To Our Fundraising Campairg
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 04:01 AM) Atomicwidow Thank Your For Donating To Our Funding Campaign.

Photo

New Ptsd Regs


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
17 replies to this topic

#1 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29047 posts
 

Posted 20 September 2010 - 07:36 AM

This is GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




NOVA petitions the Court because the rule, as revised, established an arbitrary requirement that under certain conditions only Department of Veterans  Affairs ("VA") examiners can corroborate a stressor which a veteran claims caused his or her Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD").
Contrary to law, the Secretary failed to provide any basis for such a fundamental change to the longstanding acceptance of diagnoses  from qualified private examiners, and indeed there is no such basis. The Secretary thus exceeded his authority and promulgated an arbitrary rule elevating the opinion of a VA examiner over a private examiner.  This action threatens to harm vulnerable claimants who are being privately treated for PTSD but who are unable to persuade a VA-appointed examiner of the merits of their claim.

http://www.vawatchdo.../nf092010-1.htm

#2 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
 

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:05 AM

This is GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Berta,
Exactly what we've been in disagreement with, since the new reg came out.
Hopefully this part of the change will now get squashed.

#3 LarryJ

 
LarryJ

    Hadit.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3214 posts
 

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:19 AM

Exactly!

#4 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29047 posts
 

Posted 30 November 2010 - 02:19 PM

I just heard that PVA is also challenging these new regs----YIPPEE!!!!!

if a veteran has a bonafide PTSD diagnosis from a real doctor -ooops I mean a private non- VA shrink-
and their claim is consistent as to the stressor stuff in the new regs-
or proven any other way ( PH ,CAR, CIB on DD 214)etc

and then some VA shrink says they DONT have PTSD- this independent diagnosis (with full medical rationale) should stand as probative evidence and be weighed by the VA accordingly and then warrant Benefit of Doubt. (meaning the veteran DOES have PTSD).

This part of the reg has got to be changed.(I call them new PTSD regs but,in essense, the new 'regs' are in fact an amendment.

They should be amended again.They deny valid PTSD vets claims -coming under the new criteria- to rise to the level of Relative Equipoise - and that means they are crapping on our rights under 38 USC.

#5 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29047 posts
 

Posted 01 December 2010 - 09:42 AM

I think this is one of the most important legal issues veterans have today-the new PTSD regulations.

This is updated info from Rich Cohen of NOVA-he graciously just sent me the consolidated petition adding PVA and also Veterans of Modern Warfare , and National Veterans Legal Services Program to the petition filed with the Court on November 19th 2010.

This is a Biggy.

Attached Files



#6 Pete53

 
Pete53

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21895 posts
 

Posted 01 December 2010 - 02:53 PM

What I don't like is the new way is that it mandates the VA to say yes and outside medical opinion and other evidence may not count.

I am glad it is challenged but I see mostly more confusion and delays coming from this.

I remember when the PVA challenged AMC doing claims from the start what a mess that made.

#7 jbasser

 
jbasser

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6283 posts
 

Posted 01 December 2010 - 05:02 PM

Stay tuned, this one is going to get interesting..

#8 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29047 posts
 

Posted 02 December 2010 - 08:54 AM

I raised these issues in comment I made in Sept to the proposed regs-

It is stunning to me that VA has limited the ability of many PTSD veterans to prove their claims by a blatant rejection of private records or what appears to be a rejection even before the fact-of an IMO that could help the veteran's claim.I see this as potential discrimination against some veterans and a potential threat to any veteran if VA decides to use solely VA diagnosis for any disability they have.

In part my Federal Register comment stated:

"The proposed amendment to the PTSD determinations does recognize the inherent nature of warfare, as well as exposure to hostile and terrorist activities. It does not recognize however the inherent nature of the VA claims process."


"If a VA psychiatrist or.psychologist etc makes a finding that in their opinion the veteran has PTSD but not from a service connected cause, or event,would that veteran be able via appeal to have the right to a JSRRC verification process?"

"If a veteran had an independent medical opinion from a mental health provider with PTSD expertise-
would any nexus statement from this private provider be rejected? And if so why?"

"PTSD veterans have been denied-many times over the last 4 decades-in some cases because VA said their rendition of their stressor did not raise to the level of a stressor as defined by VA."

"Could they re-open those claims providing this potential amendment as evidence of new and material evidence?"

"Prior to the VCAA many veterans with PTSD were denied because the VA said their claim was “not well grounded”?
Could they re-open those claims providing this potential amendment as evidence of new and material evidence?"

These questions are still unanswered ones and the new regulations have yet to have any assessment from vet orgs etc as to whether they are truly helping these claims move faster and resulting in proper PTSD awards.

You are right John-
more to come on this one

#9 OEF 21B

 
OEF 21B

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
 

Posted 02 December 2010 - 12:37 PM

I hope this passes! I have a PTSD diagnosis from a civilian MD Psychiatrist, but my C&P examiner (psychologist) stated that I had many PTSD symptoms, but none were "severe" enough to warrant a full diagnosis of PTSD. The C&P examiner did Service Connect me with Anxiety Disorder NOS... so that was a positive for me.

Now I'm just waiting for the RO to finish gathering their information and send my claim to the decision phase...



I just heard that PVA is also challenging these new regs----YIPPEE!!!!!

if a veteran has a bonafide PTSD diagnosis from a real doctor -ooops I mean a private non- VA shrink-
and their claim is consistent as to the stressor stuff in the new regs-
or proven any other way ( PH ,CAR, CIB on DD 214)etc

and then some VA shrink says they DONT have PTSD- this independent diagnosis (with full medical rationale) should stand as probative evidence and be weighed by the VA accordingly and then warrant Benefit of Doubt. (meaning the veteran DOES have PTSD).

This part of the reg has got to be changed.(I call them new PTSD regs but,in essense, the new 'regs' are in fact an amendment.

They should be amended again.They deny valid PTSD vets claims -coming under the new criteria- to rise to the level of Relative Equipoise - and that means they are crapping on our rights under 38 USC.



#10 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29047 posts
 

Posted 02 December 2010 - 01:34 PM

PTSD is an anxiety disorder and as long as the Anxiety disorder was service connected, this should garner you an award.

This concerns me greatly:

"I have a PTSD diagnosis from a civilian MD Psychiatrist, but my C&P examiner (psychologist) stated that I had many PTSD symptoms, but none were "severe" enough to warrant a full diagnosis of PTSD"

I wonder what the heck they meant by a "full" diagnosis.

The severity of PTSD symptoms is how PTSD is rated.

Did they give a medical rationale for their statement?

Still, it looks like your claim will succeed as long as there is a service nexus for the anxiety.

#11 OEF 21B

 
OEF 21B

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
 

Posted 02 December 2010 - 02:58 PM

Hi Berta - The VA examiner did not include the fact that I had panic attacks 2-3 times a week and very high anxiety almost every day for over a year and a half and he minimized my wife's "buddy statement" about how I've stopped going to a Bible study with three guys because they laughed at my when I panicked when hearing fireworks at a ball game. He also stated that my T-Score of 63 on the MMPI-2 did not warrant a full diagnosis even though I had MANY (although in HIS opinion) mild symptoms of PTSD.

His write up of the C&P exam didn't follow the "Best Practices" format for an initial evaluation of PTSD and he didn't even recognize my two bronze stars (no "V" device, but for meritorious service) as "combat awards". He stated that he didn't see any "combat awards" but did not that I had the Afghanistan Campaign Medal... There are many inconsistencies within the report where he contridicts himself such as stating that my occupational and social symptoms are "mild and transient" then later states that "the veteran's symptoms are partially managed on medications."

His last statement in the Summary & Conclusions & Function Imparment section was: "While the veteran does report significant subjective distress in relation to his reported symptoms, he outwardly shows only limited functional ipairment related to these symptoms." He didn't even mention my buddy statements from my wife, employer, and another service member stationed with me in Afghanistan... kind of made me feel like he believes that I'm just lying about all of my symptoms to get a check. :angry: Thankfully, my civilian psych has me on Lexapro and Xanex to help me get through the day, otherwise, I'd be sitting at the house and still trying to get out of bed!

Anyway, there's nothing I can do except wait and see how the RO rates me. Based on the VA examiner's C&P write up, I'm expecting SC-0% to SC-10%. Based on how my work life and home life have been affected, I feel that I'm around at least 30% to 50%...

I've been working with a friend that worked for the VA and he read my report and advised me to wait and see what the final rating is, then if it's low, to NOD it and state all of the inconsitencies in the C&P report.

Thanks for the reply!

OEF 21B

PTSD is an anxiety disorder and as long as the Anxiety disorder was service connected, this should garner you an award.

This concerns me greatly:

"I have a PTSD diagnosis from a civilian MD Psychiatrist, but my C&P examiner (psychologist) stated that I had many PTSD symptoms, but none were "severe" enough to warrant a full diagnosis of PTSD"

I wonder what the heck they meant by a "full" diagnosis.

The severity of PTSD symptoms is how PTSD is rated.

Did they give a medical rationale for their statement?

Still, it looks like your claim will succeed as long as there is a service nexus for the anxiety.



#12 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22329 posts
 

Posted 02 December 2010 - 04:07 PM

If the VA wants to insist that a vet have every single PTSD symptom then nobody can get SC'ed for it. I don't trust the VA to be the arbitrator of who has and who does not have PTSD since they have a financial interest in the outcome.

#13 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
 

Posted 02 December 2010 - 04:49 PM

Anyway, there's nothing I can do except wait and see how the RO rates me. Based on the VA examiner's C&P write up, I'm expecting SC-0% to SC-10%. Based on how my work life and home life have been affected, I feel that I'm around at least 30% to 50%...

I've been working with a friend that worked for the VA and he read my report and advised me to wait and see what the final rating is, then if it's low, to NOD it and state all of the inconsitencies in the C&P report.

Thanks for the reply!

OEF 21B



OEF 21B,
I agree with your friend - just wait for now.
The very first step is to get service connection granted.
The second and third steps are the right percentages and the right effective dates.

You can't argue percentage granted or effective date prior to the
disability being SC'd.

#14 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29047 posts
 

Posted 03 December 2010 - 07:59 AM

Yes- I agree with Carlie and John.


When did you file this claim?

I think you might fall into the new PTSD criteria here at hadit.

If so the VA has to consider the new criteria.

"I have a PTSD diagnosis from a civilian MD Psychiatrist, but my C&P examiner (psychologist) stated that I had many PTSD symptoms, but none were "severe" enough to warrant a full diagnosis of PTSD"

I raised this type of stuff with Congressman Filner some time ago- (Chairman H VAC) and have continued to
look into this-

The new PTSD regs do not allow evidence from an independent Mental Health provider to even be considered by the VA under the new regs.


My Dec 1 post here shows veterans advocates are taking action to correct what I firmly consider to be a major violation of our rights in 38 USC, perpetrated by the wording of the new PTSD regs.


"I think this is one of the most important legal issues veterans have today-the new PTSD regulations.

This is updated info from Rich Cohen of NOVA-he graciously just sent me the consolidated petition adding PVA and also Veterans of Modern Warfare , and National Veterans Legal Services Program to the petition filed with the Court on November 19th 2010.

This is a Biggy.
Attached File(s)

* Attached File NOVA consolidation PTSD regs.pdf (49.62K)
Number of downloads: 14 "

#15 OEF 21B

 
OEF 21B

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
 

Posted 03 December 2010 - 10:02 AM

Yes- I agree with Carlie and John.


When did you file this claim?

I think you might fall into the new PTSD criteria here at hadit.

If so the VA has to consider the new criteria.


Hi Berta - I filed my claim on 30 August 2010. I did not even have a diagnosis of PTSD when I filed the claim. I went to a civilian MD Psych on 18 Oct 10 (two days before my PTSD C&P on 20 Oct 10 at the Dallas VAMC) and he Dx'd me with MDD, PTSD, and Anxiety Disorder. I will say that the civilian MD Psych's Dx wasn't exactly "by the book" according to the DMS-IV critera, so that may also have been an issue, but his medical credentials should prove that he's not some fly-by-night-quack that's just handing out psych evaluations.

I am going to another civilian Psych that specializes in PTSD Dx and have another evaluation just to make sure that I have a valid "DMS-IV approved" diagnosis and will send that down to the VARO to add to my packet. I also have my first MH appointment with the VA on the 14th of December and will add that to my packet as well. From what I can tell on eBenefits, my case is still in the development phase and they are trying to vailidate my statements of panic attacks while I was in Iraq by my medical records at various Troop Medical Clinics.

Thanks for the reply!

OEF 21B

#16 OEF 21B

 
OEF 21B

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
 

Posted 03 December 2010 - 11:38 AM

OEF 21B,
I agree with your friend - just wait for now.
The very first step is to get service connection granted.
The second and third steps are the right percentages and the right effective dates.

You can't argue percentage granted or effective date prior to the
disability being SC'd.


Hi Carlie - Does the VA consider when the symptoms started for back-pay consideration?

I thought that if I'm SC'd and an award is made, that the "effective date" is the date that I submitted my claim... in my case, that would be 30 Aug 10. I stated that my symptoms first started in the fall (Aug/Sep 2008) during my last OEF tour on my claim.


Thanks,
OEF 21B

#17 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
 

Posted 03 December 2010 - 11:41 AM

As I posted, I would just wait for the decision.
Then if you have questions on effective date assigned or percentage
they could be answered. No way to accurately answer without a decision.
JMHO

#18 OEF 21B

 
OEF 21B

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
 

Posted 03 December 2010 - 11:53 AM

As I posted, I would just wait for the decision.
Then if you have questions on effective date assigned or percentage
they could be answered. No way to accurately answer without a decision.
JMHO


Thanks! Still patiently waiting... :rolleyes: