Jump to content



Search



Advertise Here

 

Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  Tbird : (23 October 2014 - 05:07 PM) Correction Jan 20. 2015 Will Be Hadit.com's 18 Year Anniversary
@  Tbird : (23 October 2014 - 11:38 AM) Jan 20, 2015 Will Be Hadit.com's 19 Year Anniversary, That's Amazing.
@  britton : (23 October 2014 - 08:14 AM) I Got It Tbird Thank You
@  Tbird : (22 October 2014 - 05:26 AM) Britton Sent You A Pm
@  britton : (21 October 2014 - 10:05 PM) Tbird, I Sent A Donation To Hadit Via Pay Pal...i Hope You Got It?
@  raven316 : (21 October 2014 - 01:59 PM) Glasses
@  iceturkee : (20 October 2014 - 06:50 AM) Good Luck Plum
@  Notorious Kelly : (19 October 2014 - 06:32 AM) I Wish You All The Best With That, Plum!
@  me.plum : (18 October 2014 - 01:09 PM) Hearing For Bva 11-19 At 8:30 Wow!!! Thanks Everyone!!!
@  Tbird : (18 October 2014 - 12:30 PM) Buckeye46 Thank For Contributing Our Fund Raiser
@  Notorious Kelly : (17 October 2014 - 02:11 PM) Impressive Site, Kimmy. I Bookmarked. Thanks! :)
@  Kimmy : (17 October 2014 - 08:31 AM) I Recently Discover The Site. It Is Very Detailed With Info On Conditions And Ratings.
@  Kimmy : (17 October 2014 - 08:28 AM) Has Anyone Here Been To This Site? Http://www.militarydisabilitymadeeasy.com/
@  Tbird : (17 October 2014 - 08:06 AM) Snake Eyes Thank You For Remembering Us. Congratulations On Your Retro.
@  Snake Eyes : (16 October 2014 - 07:04 PM) Thinking Of Donating A Portion Of My Retro On Next Claim. Smaller Amount Coming Beginning Of November. Thanks For The Good Work!
@  britton : (13 October 2014 - 06:13 AM) Hi There T Bird Shout Backatcha
@  Tbird : (13 October 2014 - 06:04 AM) Britton Ahoy There Matey Give You A Shout Out Back
@  Tbird : (13 October 2014 - 06:00 AM) Thank You Michael M For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign
@  Tbird : (13 October 2014 - 05:57 AM) Thank You Elliot K For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign
@  Timothy11 : (12 October 2014 - 05:58 PM) Retro Pay

- - - - -

Personality Disorder,


This topic has been archived.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

#1 Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember

 
Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 04 October 2005 - 03:21 PM

More than a few of us have been classified with personality disorder by the military or the VA Examiner. I have been wondering how they determine one with one and how do they guage it's severity, so that they could differentiate it from a mental disorder.

I found it hard to believe that I had a personality disorder, since it was never noted prior to enlistment, nor during my psychological tests at enlistment, nor the absence of anything saying I had it during service, nor was it noted on my re-enlistment physical, and nor was it noted during my three month hospitalization after my psychotic episode.

It's strange to note that my so called personality disorder was only noted by the VA Examiner and has not been noted anyware in my medical records since and not in any of the last two plus years, in which I have been under treatment for associated disorders to my psychotic episode, for which the VA continues to deny as nothing new or material to my personality disorder, Still further to fail to address the psychotic episode as a mental disorder.

I have had my ups and downs while in the service, but I was never repermanded or had Capt. Mast for anything. My regular evaluations are average to above average, I went from Seaman Apprentice to Hospitalman Third Class in the first half of my first enlistment and was selected one of two endividuals to attend a specialty school in my unit, I was also recommended for an additional specialty school and advancement upon completion to Hospitalman Second Class. Somehow I don't see this as a servicman with a personality disorder that was unfit for duty or the reason for my psychotic episode.

I know I'm rambling along, but I have run out of things to do for my claim, while the VA does their thing, but to wonder how the VA could consider such an opinion, taking into the consideration besides the ups and down in my limited career, that my superiors thought well enough of me to recommend my request for re-enlistment and pass the re-enlistment physical too and to recommed advancement to the next high rate upon completion of this advace school.

I just wish their is a way to tell where your claim is in the stack of all the other claims. Something that tells you are number two or three in a stack of a dozen, something besides we have your claim and nothing new to report.

AAAHHHHHH!!!!!

Jim S. :unsure: :rolleyes: :unsure:

Edited by Jim S., 04 October 2005 - 03:25 PM.


Advertise Here

 

#2 jimlane1949

 
jimlane1949

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts
 

Posted 04 October 2005 - 05:29 PM

More than a few of us have been classified with personality disorder by the military or the VA Examiner. I have been wondering how they determine one with one and how do they guage it's severity, so that they could differentiate it from a mental disorder.

I found it hard to believe that I had a personality disorder, since it was never noted prior to enlistment, nor during my psychological tests at enlistment, nor the absence of anything saying I had it during service, nor was it noted on my re-enlistment physical, and nor was it noted during my three month hospitalization after my psychotic episode.

It's strange to note that my so called personality disorder was only noted by the VA Examiner and has not been noted anyware in my medical records since and not in any of the last two plus years, in which I have been under treatment for associated disorders to my psychotic episode, for which the VA continues to deny as nothing new or material to my personality disorder, Still further to fail to address the psychotic episode as a mental disorder.

I have had my ups and downs while in the service, but I was never repermanded or had Capt. Mast for anything. My regular evaluations are average to above average, I went from Seaman Apprentice to Hospitalman Third Class in the first half of my first enlistment and was selected one of two endividuals to attend a specialty school in my unit, I was also recommended for an additional specialty school and advancement upon completion to Hospitalman Second Class. Somehow I don't see this as a servicman with a personality disorder that was unfit for duty or the reason for my psychotic episode.

I know I'm rambling along, but I have run out of things to do for my claim, while the VA does their thing, but to wonder how the VA could consider such an opinion, taking into the consideration besides the ups and down in my limited career, that my superiors thought well enough of me to recommend my request for re-enlistment and pass the re-enlistment physical too and to recommed advancement to the next high rate upon completion of this advace school.

I just wish their is a way to tell where your claim is in the stack of all the other claims. Something that tells you are number two or three in a stack of a dozen, something besides we have your claim and nothing new to report.

AAAHHHHHH!!!!!

Jim S. :unsure: :rolleyes: :unsure:

Jim, I did some digging and have some information on Personality Disorder. A definition I found states Personality disorder is a set of traits that combine to negatively affect your life. and they have a wide range of causes and some are easier to treat than others. I will list ten traits and you can research them for what they mean
1. Paranoid
2..Schizoid
3. Schizotypal
4. Anti-Social
5. Borderline
6. Histrionic
7. Narcissitic
8. Avoident
9. Dependent
10. Obessive-Compulssive.
There are tests that are administered by either a pyschiatrist or a psychologist that attempt to identify neagative traits. A test is scored and if any neagative traits are identified, a person could conceivably be diagnosed with a personality disorder. Remember, it is critical that this type of testing be done by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist. I hope this helps some because this type of a problem can be very difficult if someone places a label on you who are not qualified to do so.

Jim Lane

#3 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22262 posts
 

Posted 04 October 2005 - 05:46 PM

When the VA sees an opportunity not to pay a vet with a emotional/mental disorder they diagnose you with a personality disorder. I think during the Vietnam era if you were not psychotic it was common for the VA and military to hang a personality disorder on the vet. The only way to fight that is to get medical evidence to refute the diagnosis. I think I was lucky because I filed for a claim within one of service, otherwise, I would have had a fight on my hands.

#4 Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember

 
Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 05 October 2005 - 12:15 AM

I've read what all of you have said and pointed out. The first that continues to jump out at me, is that the VA Examiner used the same evidence in my records as the medical board used to come to their diagnosis. To my knowledge and going by what is present in my medical files, I was never given any such psych test by the VA Examiner, but I was tested during my hospital stay while in the service.

Wouldn't the VA Examiner have to rebutt the findings of those tests by the Navy Dr's/psychiatrist, in order for the VA to use the alternative diagnosis as fact? Since they didn't offer any new evidence to support their alternative diagnosis theory, It only seems right that they should have done so.

By the way, which catagory of personality disorder does an inadequate personality associated with inadequate educational experience fit into?

I had applied for benefits within one year of service, and I have been fighting the same VA insistance that nothing new or material to support a change in their decision of a personality disorder, even when I submitted in a later claim, that questioned the validity of the VA examiners diagnosis and in part supported my claim of a psychiatric disorder and most certainly a depression disorder since my episode in the service.

An error occured in how my claim was adjudicated and I hope my latest claim will finally bring this out into the open for someone to see. I honestly believe it is just a matter of time and whether I have to take it all the way to the COVA for it to been seen.

Jim S.

#5 Hoppy

 
Hoppy

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
 

Posted 05 October 2005 - 10:35 PM

I've read what all of you have said and pointed out. The first that continues to jump out at me, is that the VA Examiner used the same evidence in my records as the medical board used to come to their diagnosis. To my knowledge and going by what is present in my medical files, I was never given any such psych test by the VA Examiner, but I was tested during my hospital stay while in the service.

Wouldn't the VA Examiner have to rebutt the findings of those tests by the Navy Dr's/psychiatrist, in order for the VA to use the alternative diagnosis as fact? Since they didn't offer any new evidence to support their alternative diagnosis theory, It only seems right that they should have done so.

By the way, which catagory of personality disorder does an inadequate personality associated with inadequate educational experience fit into?

I had applied for benefits within one year of service, and I have been fighting the same VA insistance that nothing new or material to support a change in their decision of a personality disorder, even when I submitted in a later claim, that questioned the validity of the VA examiners diagnosis and in part supported my claim of a psychiatric disorder and most certainly a depression disorder since my episode in the service.

An error occured in how my claim was adjudicated and I hope my latest claim will finally bring this out into the open for someone to see. I honestly believe it is just a matter of time and whether I have to take it all the way to the COVA for it to been seen.

Jim S.

Jim, I am responding to this post and another post this evening. I work on your questions quite a bit. You have good questions and I have always been of the opinion that the VA jammed you.

At the time of your diagnosis of personality disorder in 1970 the diagnosis was considered by many psychologists as having no objective basis. Thus when the DSM IV was published many changes were made in the criteria for the diagnosis. This I am paraphrasing from my readings in the DSM IV. I started studing psychology in 1970. I have read every DSM printed. I had 147 quarter units toward a BS at UCLA when I quit school in 1986.

Military psychologists and doctors threw around the diagnoais of personality disorder for the purpose of expalining behavior that was not main stream. These diagnosis were made after short 20 min. interviews. They did this specifically because it was not service connectable. My source on this is a long standing VA employee. As I said before there was another hadit member who worked for the VA who posted that the VA "Hated like anything to service connect veterans who were discharged for personality disorders or immiturity".

The rest of this post is some thing I wrote for another subject I am pasting it below.

Jim,

I agree that all of those things should have been done. It appears that your claim was denied as the result of the adjudicator interpreting the C&P exam as replacing the military diagnosis. I agree that the statement by the C&P examiner that he did not fully agree is ambiguous. The problem occurs that the decision was not appealed and became final. When you go to the VA does the computer show the claim as re-opened or is it the original 1972 claim date and shown as being closed?

At this time what do you do? I went through the same problem on one of my many claims. Submitting new and material evidence can reopen a claim. That is what I did and the claim was reopened. I am not sure what a denovo review is. If it part of the standard appeal process and your claim was not appealed then they would still require new and material evidence. As far ac CUE goes I am also not knowledgeable of CUES. I do recall that the failure to review medical reports available at the time of the decision can be a CUE. The failure to properly interpret the medial reports or to properly apply the law may be reason to appeal yet not sufficient to be a CUE. In your case I am of the opinion that replacing the in service diagnosis withy a personality disorder diagnosis was not proper. This is because it does not sound like the C&P examiner addressed the issue as to when the personality disorder first manifest symptoms. Although, personality disorders usually manifest symptoms prior to the age of 18, there are cases that do not manifest until later in life. Thus, the only way the adjudicator could have used the C&P examiners report to replace a diagnosis established in the military would be based on clear and convincing evidence. When a diagnosis is established in the military and a diagnosis of a condition that developed post service an assessment that the current symptoms are caused by the post service condition can only be used if the evidence is clear and convincing. It sound like the adjudicator used preponderance of evidence. That is the wrong evidentiary standard.

When you submit letters arguing that what they did was wrong on a closed claim may not get you any where. They are looking for medical evidence. Your opinion is not considered medical evidence. You do have a strong argument that at this time a new medical report either submitted by you or as the result of them scheduling a new C&P exam is in order. This is due to the fact that the DSM IV changed criteria justifying the use of personality disorders. Also the fact that the personality disorder could have been caused by the in service condition and subsequent discharge was not addressed by the C&P examiner. This is especially relevant because at the time of the original denial personality disorders were considered as being developmental. And lastly the symptoms you experienced in the military could have been symptoms of conditions that are known to develop over a long period of time.

When I was discharged in 1970 I was diagnosed with Chronic allergic condition, knee condition and personality disorder. Upon discharge I went to the VA and submitted a request to service connect the knee condition and the allergic condition. Without even requesting that the personality disorders be considered the VA adjudicated a claim for the personality disorders and denied it, citing that personality disorders were considered developmental.

Currently, many personality disorders are considered to be secondary to other psychiatric conditions. Thus the medical field has changed their perception of the condition and new medical investigation is justified. There was also the perception as far back as the 60s the giving people a medical discharge for a psychiatric condition could spawn ongoing adjustment conditions for the veteran post service. As a result people with personality disorders were give administrative discharges rather than medical discharges. There was a bupers instruction or department of defense code justifying the administrative discharges.

I think it is very important for your case to plead your case with a psychologist or a psychiatrist and get a current diagnosis and a GAF score. Submit these report to reopen the claim. Personality inventories such as the MMPI etc. could diagnose a personality disorder. However, it does not indicate when the disorder onset. As I said before the idea that the C&P examiner could have used your subjective recollection of events in the military for the basis of his personality disorder diagnosis is totally bogus and also prohibited by current M21 adjudication procedures. It is not a question of whether or not they used the same reports to come up with two different diagnoses. It is a question of what justification the C&P examiner used for his diagnosis. It sounds like he pulled it from a place where the sun does not shine.

In any event it does not appear that you appealed the original denial and you have to get the claim re-opened. The VA might be prohibited from re-adjudicating a claim that was closed on the same evidence that was used for the original denial. This is why they are asking you for new and material evidence. What I am saying is battle the CUE and submit the new medical evidence FROM A DOCTOR at the same time, if possible.

#6 Hoppy

 
Hoppy

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
 

Posted 05 October 2005 - 11:44 PM

Dear Happy

That was the best writting on personality disorder and its consequenses on VA benifits I have read.
I would like to add on thing from my personal experence.

I was listed as a personality disorder when the MMPE reports showed schizoid. after 22 years I decided to fight the VA on the basis they never performed a C&P. In my case the request for a C&P was in and of it self treated as a new re open of an old claim. So the VA would not give me a C&P unless I submitted new and material evidence. I argued the C&P never having been performed was in and of itself new and material. I went up to the BVA and BVA found denial of C&P violated my due process. Even when the BVA ordered the C&P VA refused to comply. Eventully I got the C&P and my 100%.
This vet to get around all the red tape the VA has instore for him. May be best to get an IMO on his issues. If the C&P is what he needs to prove SC. He will be fight years and years just for the VA to give him one.

Terry Higgins

Terry

That is very interesting. What year did the BVA consider the denial of a C&P as violation of due process?

When I filed my claim for angioedma, I had tons of medical journal info, I found favorable BVA decisions, I found lots of failures in the duty to assist and I wanted to fight my claim on this level. Both Clark Evans and Alex told me to get current medical reports and to rely on medical principal rather than rely on citing the VA's failures. That is what I did. That is what re-opened my claim and the new report is what the adjudicator citied when awarding SC.

#7 Wings

 
Wings

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12762 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 12:19 AM

Wanted to add this reg. to the mix ... ~Wings

4.127 Mental retardation and personality disorders. Mental retardation and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries for compensation purposes, and, except as provided in 3.310(a) of this chapter, disability resulting from them may not be service-connected. However, disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon mental retardation or a personality disorder may be service-connected. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)


P.S. I do agree with Hoppy, the best way to fight a diagnosis of P/DO is with current medical evidence.



See also

4.125 Diagnosis of mental disorders. (a) If the diagnosis of a mental disorder does not conform to DSM-IV or is not supported by the findings on the examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis. (b) If the diagnosis of a mental disorder is changed, the rating agency shall determine whether the new diagnosis represents progression of the prior diagnosis, correction of an error in the prior diagnosis, or development of a new and separate condition. If it is not clear from the available records what the change of diagnosis represents, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner for a determination. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

#8 Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember

 
Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 04:52 AM

Hoppy, Wings: I hear what you are saying about and IMO and a Nexus to a current diagnosis, but it is not as easy as it sound in this neck of the woods. Those mental health professionals that have the expertise are either not interested in spending time going thru the hundreds of pages of medical history, service records and other sources of records pertenent to my claim or they are just too expensive for my limited budget can afford.

You got to understand that my reasoning ability wasn't firing on all cylenders back then and I had no idea I could appeal past the VARO level. I didn't know other than that they denied my claim and my appeal. Appealing to the BVA and COVA were not something I knew anything about until about two or three years ago. I truely was amazed how much I learned in such a short time after learning about this forum site.

I'm hoping for a C&P exam request, for if it is cunducted according to the work sheet for Mental disorders, I would hope it would show a nexus of my current problems with that which happened to me while in service.

Waiting has caused my Anxiety disorder to kick up a few notches and my sleep problems have also been agravated. As you might not, the time of this post is around 03:45 a.m.

good night/good morning

Jim S. :rolleyes:

#9 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22262 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 06:39 AM

Jim

I think an IMO is the only way you are going to get that personality disorder changed. You are just spinning your wheels without one. The doc does not have to review all your records. He just has to say he has done it. An IMO completely rewrote my diagosis and got me TDIU. The VA accepted every word from the IMO and just turned my claim around. They don't even mention personality disorder anymore.

#10 Wings

 
Wings

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12762 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:09 AM

4.127 Mental retardation and personality disorders. Mental retardation and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries for compensation purposes, and, except as provided in 3.310(a) of this chapter, disability resulting from them may not be service-connected. However, disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon mental retardation or a personality disorder may be service-connected. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)


It's hard for me to understand this regulation: what exactly does "superimposed" mean??? In modern psychiatric nomenclature, the term used most often, I believe, is "co-occuring". What do you guys think??? ~Wings


#11 Pete53

 
Pete53

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21866 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:36 AM

If you have been diagnosed with a Personality Disorder chances are good that it is a mis diagnosis. The symptoms of personality disorder are often used as a quick catch all but are actually very specific and there always is the chance that a person can actually have a personality disorder along with a compensatable service connection.

If you read about personality disorders you will learn that they suffer common traits and in fact if a soldier has an honorable discharge is almost proof that they do not have a personality disorder.

#12 Hoppy

 
Hoppy

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 09:06 AM

4.127 Mental retardation and personality disorders. Mental retardation and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries for compensation purposes, and, except as provided in 3.310(a) of this chapter, disability resulting from them may not be service-connected. However, disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon mental retardation or a personality disorder may be service-connected. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
It's hard for me to understand this regulation: what exactly does "superimposed" mean??? In modern psychiatric nomenclature, the term used most often, I believe, is "co-occuring". What do you guys think??? ~Wings

Wings,

Co-occuring. In medicine there is great debate about cause and effect. In conditions that involve development of secondary conditions doctors used to throw around cause and effect rather loosely. Saying that one caused the other. In more recent years they have refrained from establishing cause and effect. They merely cite that the conditions mutually occur.

It would be interesting to find out when the code allowing superimposed personality disorders to be service connected was added to the adjudication process.

#13 Wings

 
Wings

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12762 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 10:15 AM

Wings,

Co-occuring. In medicine there is great debate about cause and effect. In conditions that involve development of secondary conditions doctors used to throw around cause and effect rather loosely. Saying that one caused the other. In more recent years they have refrained from establishing cause and effect. They merely cite that the conditions mutually occur.

It would be interesting to find out when the code allowing superimposed personality disorders to be service connected was added to the adjudication process.



Hoppy, The VA's medical language is often archaic! Co-occuring is the modern terminology and conforms to the DSM IV.

See where the VA must use the Manual:

4.125 Diagnosis of mental disorders. (a) If the diagnosis of a mental disorder does not conform to DSM-IV or is not supported by the findings on the examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis. (b) If the diagnosis of a mental disorder is changed, the rating agency shall determine whether the new diagnosis represents progression of the prior diagnosis, correction of an error in the prior diagnosis, or development of a new and separate condition. If it is not clear from the available records what the change of diagnosis represents, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner for a determination. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

I'm not sure when this particular code was added, but there were substantial ammendments in 1996.

Posted here http://www.haditvete....com/127152.htm

[Federal Register: October 8, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52695-52702]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08oc96-10]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 4
RIN 2900-AF01

Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Mental Disorders

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.


#14 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22262 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 10:35 AM

Some personality disorders are really traits and characteristics of major mental disorders that have not manifested themselves. Like schizoid personality disorder which is sort of pre-schizophrenia. The medical profession likes to jump on the personality disorder of the day such as borderline personality disorder. One of the main things about personality disorders is that the person with the disorder does not experience anixiety about it. You can really tell when a doctor is fishing for a personality disorder diagnosis. Of course, most of us were banged up with that label before we knew to be on our guards, and while we believed that most doctors had ethics beyond serving their masters.

#15 Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember

 
Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 12:59 PM

Guys, Gals: Wings I hope you don't mind being called a gal?

It would seem that the VARO in their mixed since of how the regulation reads, they use the statement that the VA examiner after reviewing my records, that in his opinion at the present time, that I presented myself as one with a personality disorder, inadequate type, associated with inadequate educational experience.

They used half of the regulation of (4.124 a) to apparrently support their findings, but they never addressed part (b.). since they apparently were comparing apples and oranges and instead of coming up with apple pie with orange juice or fruit salad, they threw out the apples and used the oranges instead. They were supposed to tell why they didn't present them seperately as apple pie and orange juice or as fruit salad or that the apples were bad and could not be used leaving only orange juice. LoL :unsure:

Jim S. :rolleyes:

Hoppy, The VA's medical language is often archaic! Co-occuring is the modern terminology and conforms to the DSM IV.

See where the VA must use the Manual:

4.125 Diagnosis of mental disorders. (a) If the diagnosis of a mental disorder does not conform to DSM-IV or is not supported by the findings on the examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis. (:unsure: If the diagnosis of a mental disorder is changed, the rating agency shall determine whether the new diagnosis represents progression of the prior diagnosis, correction of an error in the prior diagnosis, or development of a new and separate condition. If it is not clear from the available records what the change of diagnosis represents, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner for a determination. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

I'm not sure when this particular code was added, but there were substantial ammendments in 1996.

Posted here http://www.haditvete....com/127152.htm

[Federal Register: October 8, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52695-52702]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08oc96-10]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 4
RIN 2900-AF01

Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Mental Disorders

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.


Edited by Jim S., 06 October 2005 - 01:02 PM.


#16 Wings

 
Wings

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12762 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 01:33 PM

Jim, Gal is fine. I think the reference to fruit salad was a great way to express the VARO's "reasons and bases" - a little of this, a little of that . . . Come to think of it, the taste is more akin to fruit cake :rolleyes:

The VA has gots to learn to use the DSM when decideing mental disorders!!

#17 Hoppy

 
Hoppy

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 02:47 PM

Hoppy, The VA's medical language is often archaic! Co-occuring is the modern terminology and conforms to the DSM IV.

See where the VA must use the Manual:

4.125 Diagnosis of mental disorders. (a) If the diagnosis of a mental disorder does not conform to DSM-IV or is not supported by the findings on the examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis. (:rolleyes: If the diagnosis of a mental disorder is changed, the rating agency shall determine whether the new diagnosis represents progression of the prior diagnosis, correction of an error in the prior diagnosis, or development of a new and separate condition. If it is not clear from the available records what the change of diagnosis represents, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner for a determination. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

I'm not sure when this particular code was added, but there were substantial ammendments in 1996.

Posted here http://www.haditvete....com/127152.htm

[Federal Register: October 8, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52695-52702]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08oc96-10]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 4
RIN 2900-AF01

Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Mental Disorders

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.


Wings,

Citing the exact code on the use of the DSM IV is appreciated. I have referred to this requirement often. I no longer have an organized file for all these codes. I used to have it on a previous computer. As time goes on it appears as though the clarity of the codes codes get more favorable for the veteran in that you can understand what your up against. It is just a question if the adjudicators resist change. Terry mentioned that the BVA remanded his case to the RO to schedule a C&P exam and the RO ignored the BVA.

Guys, Gals: Wings I hope you don't mind being called a gal?

It would seem that the VARO in their mixed since of how the regulation reads, they use the statement that the VA examiner after reviewing my records, that in his opinion at the present time, that I presented myself as one with a personality disorder, inadequate type, associated with inadequate educational experience.

They used half of the regulation of (4.124 a) to apparrently support their findings, but they never addressed part (b.). since they apparently were comparing apples and oranges and instead of coming up with apple pie with orange juice or fruit salad, they threw out the apples and used the oranges instead. They were supposed to tell why they didn't present them seperately as apple pie and orange juice or as fruit salad or that the apples were bad and could not be used leaving only orange juice. LoL :unsure:

Jim S. :unsure:

Wings,

Oh yea, the condition I have called angioedema is still listed in the VA rating schedule as angioneurotic edema. Angioneurotic edema as a diagnosis was dropped from the DSM IV. Also when I go to the VA medical center they still use angioneurotic edema with an ICD 9 code #. My primary doctor told me he has never heard of angioneutotic edema. He probaply graduated med school recently. He knows what angioedema is.

#18 Hoppy

 
Hoppy

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 03:04 PM

Hoppy, Wings: I hear what you are saying about and IMO and a Nexus to a current diagnosis, but it is not as easy as it sound in this neck of the woods. Those mental health professionals that have the expertise are either not interested in spending time going thru the hundreds of pages of medical history, service records and other sources of records pertenent to my claim or they are just too expensive for my limited budget can afford.

You got to understand that my reasoning ability wasn't firing on all cylenders back then and I had no idea I could appeal past the VARO level. I didn't know other than that they denied my claim and my appeal. Appealing to the BVA and COVA were not something I knew anything about until about two or three years ago. I truely was amazed how much I learned in such a short time after learning about this forum site.

I'm hoping for a C&P exam request, for if it is cunducted according to the work sheet for Mental disorders, I would hope it would show a nexus of my current problems with that which happened to me while in service.

Waiting has caused my Anxiety disorder to kick up a few notches and my sleep problems have also been agravated. As you might not, the time of this post is around 03:45 a.m.

good night/good morning

Jim S. :rolleyes:


Jim,

When I first found hadit (maybe 7 years ago) and figured out what bogus denials I had rec'd I developed a huge sleep disorder. I was on pins and needles for two years. My friends got tired of hearing me bad mouth the VA. I was denied without the benefit of a C&P exam. Hang in there. Learning and discussing things on hadit had a way of getting me frustrated and relieved at the same time. LL ( don't know if he is still around) and Alex had different ideas about my chances of success. The interaction between their posts was most educational. The reason I hang around here and make posts is because hadit was a great cite for me and I hope it is for more veterans over time.

#19 Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember

 
Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:09 PM

All my claims and appeals were acted upon rather quickly considering what I have heard about others claims. My last claim was determined within about three months even though I withdrew the claim for consideration. That was the De Novo Review Claim that they treated like a new claim with new and material evidence.

The De Novo Review Claim was asking the VARO to review my previous claims for possible errors in the adjudication process. Right off hand I can't tell what rule it is, but the VARO has the authority to review a previously decided claim for errors of evidence or errors in how that evidence was ruled on. But apparently the VARO doesn't know what it can or can not do.

#20 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22262 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:19 PM

Sometimes they will give you the MMPI which is a psychological inventory that compares your answers on about 500 questions with those of people who have various mental disorders including personality disorders.
I did the MMPI for some college couselor many years ago and after he got the results he did not want to see me anymore. I think I came out as a psychopathic deviant with the same profile as someone on death row, ha ha.

#21 Wings

 
Wings

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12762 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 09:07 PM

Is anyone else having problems reading this thread of messages?! It seems like the first post should come up first, and then the conversation should follow - but with all the quoting and reverse threads, I can't make heads or tails of the natural order! I know Jim S. posted first! Is it me??? ~Wings

#22 Hoppy

 
Hoppy

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 10:21 PM

Is anyone else having problems reading this thread of messages?! It seems like the first post should come up first, and then the conversation should follow - but with all the quoting and reverse threads, I can't make heads or tails of the natural order! I know Jim S. posted first! Is it me??? ~Wings

Wings,

It might have something to do with the reply button on each message. When you reply to a message by clicking on the reply button on that message it might put it as a response to that message rather than follow the string in the chronological order of the posts. Thats my guess. :rolleyes:

#23 Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember

 
Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 06 October 2005 - 11:40 PM

I tried to print out what it is that happens, but it got so confusing, that is why the original post should be what you see at the top of the thread of replys. At least then you will always know right from the beginning what the original post was about.

I think it will clear up a lot of confusion if the original post appears at the top of the first page and not at the end of the last page. Also if you plan to post a reply, it would be better to use the Quick reply, unless you want to bring notice to something someone said in the thread. then use the Reply button for that particular response.

At least this way, things work more like we are occustom to, top to bottom, page one and so on, rather than in reverse. bottom to top or last page to first.

Jim S.

#24 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22262 posts
 

Posted 07 October 2005 - 06:45 AM

Jim

You need to get it through your head that you need new medical evidence to get the personality disorder thing thrown out and get SC for a mental condition. Save your nickles and dimes and get an IMO. I have been through this personally and a medical opinion is what it takes to get the VA to change or add a mental condition to the personality disorder. You can argue with these bastards till the cows come home. One of the major signs of personality disorder is the inability to learn from experience.

#25 Pete53

 
Pete53

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21866 posts
 

Posted 07 October 2005 - 06:54 PM

I agree with John. If the VA says you have a personality disorder you need a Doc to prove them wrong.

#26 jriverman

 
jriverman

    E-3 Seaman

  • Seaman
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts
 

Posted 07 October 2005 - 07:08 PM

Can somebody, in simple terms, explain the difference between a personality disorder and other mental problems and tell why the VA does not compensate personality disorder. Also, is there a listing of what mental problems can be compensated and what ones can't.
Jay Riverman

#27 jimlane1949

 
jimlane1949

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts
 

Posted 07 October 2005 - 07:51 PM

The VA uses the ICD 9 because they can bill anICD 9 code and not the DSM4 code. This ican be confusing because the DSM4 is used to diagnosis mental disorders and is not used for billing purposes. ICD9 and DSM4 may differ and private providers and hospitals use an ICD9 code which is closet to a DSM4 code although they may be different. Since the VA is billing private insurance companies they have to use the ICD 9 code or they don't get their money. If they ICD9 code is not compensatable the better for the VA.

:( sorry about the spelling in my post, should've used spell check
Jim Lane

#28 Hoppy

 
Hoppy

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
 

Posted 07 October 2005 - 08:02 PM

The VA uses the ICD 9 because they can bill anICD 9 code and not the DSM4 code. This ican be confusing because the DSM4 is used to diagnosis mental disorders and is not used for billing purposes. ICD9 and DSM4 may differ and private providers and hospitals use an ICD9 code which is closet to a DSM4 code although they may be different. Since the VA is billing private insurance companies they have to use the ICD 9 code or they don't get their money. If they ICD9 code is not compensatable the better for the VA.

My point was that the VA uses archiac diagnostic terms not currently listed in the DSM. If I had the ICD in front of me I could show you three different conditions with the same ICD code #. The VA chooses to use the archiac terms that match their archiac rating schedule.

Can somebody, in simple terms, explain the difference between a personality disorder and other mental problems and tell why the VA does not compensate personality disorder. Also, is there a listing of what mental problems can be compensated and what ones can't.
Jay Riverman

Jay Riverman,

I do not think there is a simple explanation for the different mental conditions. However, the VA does not usually service connect personality disorders because they usually are the result of childhood experiences. Personality disorders can be secondary to other mental conditions. When the other condition is service connected then the personality disorder that is secondary to it can also be service connected. The rating schedule itself might be considered a listing of such ratable conditions. I think there is a link to the rating schedule on hadits main page.

#29 Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember

 
Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 08 October 2005 - 12:32 AM

Can somebody, in simple terms, explain the difference between a personality disorder and other mental problems and tell why the VA does not compensate personality disorder. Also, is there a listing of what mental problems can be compensated and what ones can't.
Jay Riverman



It's a 30 plus yr old question I have been trying to get an answer for from the VARO, since their was a well documented mental disorder already diagnosed, why then when their Examiner adds the personality disorder to the mix, the two weren't look as one supperimposed on the other. Why instead did they say their was a diagnosis change without properly supporting a change in diagnosis as they were supposted to do.

It was very simple and easy to answer, if they had ruled that it was a personality disorder superimposed on a mental disorder, they would have had to SC and pay compensation. Since they say it was a personality disorder and not a mental disorder, they can rule it as a constitutional or developtmental problem and not a disability for which SC can be attached or compensted for.

Also so that they can continue to deny the claim, because their is no argument or evidence that is new or matrial to support a personality disorder as SC. Completely ignoring the original diagnosis of the mental disorder made while veteran was in the service and for which he was medically discharged for.

So unless you can prove that the personality disorder is a part of or as the results of a Mental disorder, your claim will probably have a problem in getting approved.

Jim S. :(

#30 Hoppy

 
Hoppy

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
 

Posted 08 October 2005 - 12:46 AM

It's a 30 plus yr old question I have been trying to get an answer for from the VARO, since their was a well documented mental disorder already diagnosed, why then when their Examiner adds the personality disorder to the mix, the two weren't look as one supperimposed on the other. Why instead did they say their was a diagnosis change without properly supporting a change in diagnosis as they were supposted to do.

It was very simple and easy to answer, if they had ruled that it was a personality disorder superimposed on a mental disorder, they would have had to SC and pay compensation. Since they say it was a personality disorder and not a mental disorder, they can rule it as a constitutional or developtmental problem and not a disability for which SC can be attached or compensted for.

Also so that they can continue to deny the claim, because their is no argument or evidence that is new or matrial to support a personality disorder as SC. Completely ignoring the original diagnosis of the mental disorder made while veteran was in the service and for which he was medically discharged for.

So unless you can prove that the personality disorder is a part of or as the results of a Mental disorder, your claim will probably have a problem in getting approved.

Jim S. :(

Jim,

What are you doing up this late, I am watching Letterman. On that diagnosis of depression that I was unaware of. I told the doctors that I had sleep problems and went into rage rather easily. They often asked me if I was depressed. I always answered the question by saying NO, I do not get depressed, I get pissed then I get even. Two times I had doctors get up and run out of the room when I was talking to them. I guess they thought I was getting ready to go off the deep end.

#31 Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember

 
Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 08 October 2005 - 01:04 AM

Hoppy: I'm always up this time. for some reason my sleep meds don't kick in until around 2 am do you want to go to chat?

Jim S.

#32 rigo

 
rigo

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
 

Posted 18 October 2005 - 03:12 AM

When the VA sees an opportunity not to pay a vet with a emotional/mental disorder they diagnose you with a personality disorder. I think during the Vietnam era if you were not psychotic it was common for the VA and military to hang a personality disorder on the vet. The only way to fight that is to get medical evidence to refute the diagnosis. I think I was lucky because I filed for a claim within one of service, otherwise, I would have had a fight on my hands.



#33 rigo

 
rigo

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
 

Posted 18 October 2005 - 03:45 AM

[i][size=5][font=Georgia] The VA instead of rating my PTSD, used the diagnosis of Personality disorder to deny my claim. The VA denied my claim several times using this diagnosis of Personality disorder until I submited a medical study that stated that personality disorder was so intertwine with PTSD that it was almost imposible to separate them. After that, they continue denying my claim for other reasons. Personality disorder could never be considered service-connected because, it has his onset in adolescence and early adulthood. Hope this helps

#34 carlie

 
carlie

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

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22178 posts
 

Posted 18 October 2005 - 12:18 PM

In reading the regulation below, wouldn't it be possible to get SC for
a personality disorder secondary to SC for Seizures and Brain Trauma
IF a qualified professional provided a nexus ?
carlie


4.127 Mental retardation and personality disorders.

Mental retardation and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries for compensation purposes, and, except as provided in 3.310(a) of this chapter, disability resulting from them may not be service-connected. However, disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon mental retardation or a personality disorder may be service-connected. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

[53 FR 22, Jan. 4, 1988, as amended at 61 FR 52700, Oct. 8, 1996]




Advertise Here