VoteVets cost increase disability rating for wounded vet

VA Denies Iraq War Veteran's Disability Claim; Cites VoteVets Membership
Brandon Friedman


Vet Voice

Jun 13, 2008
June 12, 2008 - The VA rejected an Afghanistan veteran's disability claim for PTSD last month, citing his membership in VoteVets.org as a reason for the denial.


Staff Sergeant Will King retired from the Army in late 2003, after serving in both the first Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. As one of the first troops into the Afghan theater after 9/11, Will had been awarded a Bronze Star after participating in fierce fighting in the Shah-e-Kot Valley in March 2002. I know, because I was there with him.

As the months turned to years after his retirement, however, Will started having problems as the Iraq War dragged on. Depressed and unable to sleep, he thought it might be PTSD. Because, as those who study PTSD know, this is perfectly normal: The symptoms of PTSD frequently have a delayed onset that can take months or years to fully materialize. That's why, in April 2007, Will filed a claim with the VA for combat-related PTSD. The VA eventually agreed with Will and diagnosed him with mild PTSD. But Will felt like his condition was worse than that. And to boot, he thought it was getting worse. So Will appealed, and filed another disability claim with the VA in November 2007: He felt his symptoms were serious enough to warrant an increase in his disability rating from "mild" to "moderate."*

Unfortunately for Will, the VA denied his claim six months later, in May 2008. And while I won't challenge the VA's ultimate decision (I'm not a doctor), I find it repulsive that they cited Will's membership in VoteVets.org as a reason to deny his claim.

go here for more
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/ArticleID/10373

I am the last person to defend the rules of the VA or how they process claims but in this case, I have to do it a little bit anyway. I doubt being a member of VoteVets cost Staff Sergeant Will King an increase. I'm not saying it didn't but given their track record and reading denials for many, (ok too many) years, this is not something unusual for them to do.

They hear doctors tell them to get a hobby, do some volunteer work, get some exercise, all so that they are not just sitting around. These suggestions the doctors make, all make sense and they do in fact help the veteran to live a better quality of life. A hobby, exercise and especially volunteer work, do not come with a set schedule they have to live up to everyday and the veteran can do these things as the day permits. Take a bad night of nightmares and no sleep that drains them of all energy or bad flashbacks have the same kind of effect on them and bingo, you have a no show at work and you also have someone who is fired. With the "non-committal" aspect, it depends on the day if they can do it or not. I haven't heard of volunteers being fired from organizations for not showing up. How can you fire someone working for free and donating a couple of hours a week? This is the problem with the VA when they use "facts" of the veteran's life to add into the reason they are denying the claim.

If Staff Sgt. King had volunteered for the VA itself, they would have used that for a reason to deny the increase in the rating.


This is part of a decision and it shows how the VA works out claims

In a July 2004 statement, the veteran indicated that he was
unable to function socially. He could not be in crowds, and
was very anxious. He claimed that he was totally disabled
socially due of PTSD.

On July 2004 VA examination, the veteran reported that he
cannot stand people and hates groups or crowds. He reported
extreme anxiety, and that he was unable to sit still or
relax. He frequently started projects and could not complete
them, because he became very anxious and moved on to other
tasks. He had no close friends, as he does not trust people.
He was hypervigilant, and sat with his back to the wall when
in a restaurant. He reported flashbacks and sleep
disturbances with frequent nightmares. He stated that he was
unable to exhibit emotion. He reported intrusive thoughts.
He avoided watching television or discussing current events
relating to war. Mental examination revealed that he was
fully oriented. His verbalizations were largely relevant and
goal directed. He was extremely anxious during the
interview, with constant movements. He exhibited difficulty
with concentration. He acknowledged longstanding depression.
He denied suicidal or homicidal ideation, intent or plan. He
denied delusions, hallucinations or having special powers.
There was no evidence of underlying thought disorder. Severe
PTSD was diagnosed. The examiner noted that the veteran
continued to experience significant difficulties with
interpersonal relationships, emotional numbing, and anxiety.

At the January 2006 Travel Board hearing, the veteran
testified that other than the hobby of flea marketing, he did
not do anything else. That was the only time he felt
comfortable, because he felt he was in control.

On March 2006 VA examination, the veteran reported that he
would occasionally go out to dinner with friends; he did a
fair amount of socializing when he went to the flea markets.
He indicated that he had a great relationship with his
daughter who lived with him along with her two children. At
times they could be overwhelming, and he would then retreat
to the cellar to relax. On a day to day basis he tried to
keep busy. He had done fine occupationally, but was now
retired. He complained that he could not relax and was tense
and restless. Medications helped somewhat, but he continued
to feel nervous. His sleep remained "lousy". He reported
hypervigilance. The only thing that relaxed him was going to
flea markets. On mental status examination the veteran was
described as appropriately dressed and groomed and in no
acute distress, although somewhat edgy. He smiled and
laughed occasionally, but generally seemed to have a
restricted affect. He denied suicidal or homicidal ideation.
He was alert and oriented. His speech was normal. His
thought processes were clear, coherent, goal directed, and
logical. His thought content was free of obsessions,
compulsions, delusions or hallucinations. His judgment and
insight were felt to be intact.

In August 2006, R. J. T., Ph.D., a VA psychologist noted that
the veteran's use of flea marketing was not employment. He
indicated that the veteran's dissociative activity was to
organize and catalog his wares, and that he eagerly awaited
for his daughter and her children to move out of his house so
that he can reorganize it (viz., prepare it in case of enemy
attack).

May 2004 to October 2006 Vet Center records show ongoing
outpatient group therapy for PTSD.

On April 2007 VA examination, the veteran reported that he
continued to struggle with anxiety and depression. He
indicated that as soon as the weather broke he would go to
the flea markets again. He felt at peace at the flea
markets. From time to time he walked to the local fire hall,
which was a block and a half away from his house, and
socialize there while drinking a cup of coffee. He also
socialized at the flea market; he related well to people
there, and did not think about the war. The examiner noted:

"It is a very unusual presentation in that it was
described in a previous report that he dissociates, I
did not really pick up a dissociative episode and I
believe this term has been used figuratively anyway, but
it rather sounds like he goes to relax there and almost
strikingly so".

The veteran stated that he does go out to eat occasionally.
He stated that he was afraid to make friends, although he had
the capacity to make friends. He continued to complain of
recurring nightmares. The examiner noted that on the last
examination the veteran displayed a restricted affect,
although on this examination he did not endorse the same
degree of effectual restriction, as he indicated affection
for his daughter and that he had feelings for his wife when
she was alive. He continued to complain of sleep
disturbances, irritable feelings and hypervigilance. On
mental status examination it was noted that the veteran
appeared anxious throughout the evaluation, twiddling his
thumbs and moving in the chair back and forth constantly. He
was alert, oriented, and a reliable historian. He exhibited
good eye contact. His speech was normal, although at times
pressured. He denied suicidal or homicidal ideation. His
thought process was clear, coherent, goal directed and
logical. His thought content was free of any obsessions,
compulsions, delusions, or hallucinations. There was no
evidence of any major concentration or memory disturbances.
His judgment was good. The examiner noted that the veteran's
current severity of PTSD appeared to be in the moderate to
severe range.

Regarding the 70 percent criteria, the examiner noted that
the veteran was not employed (as he was retired), however he
did do a hobby/job which he seemed to enjoy. He stated that
he was not totally occupationally disabled as he was
"working" selling items on a regular basis in the flea
market. Regarding social impairment, he indicated that there
were deficiencies in family relations, judgment at times,
thinking and mood. He noted that the veteran denied suicidal
ideation, and that there were no obsessional rituals. It was
noted that the veteran's judgment and thinking were mildly
compromised; and that his mood was anxious in the moderate
range. He indicated that the veteran did not have obsessive
rituals that interfered with routine activities, nor did he
have intermittent illogical incoherent obscure cognition. He
stated that the veteran did have anxiety, but it was not
considered to be near continuous; in fact, the veteran
reported that when he was flea marketing he did not feel
anxious, but actually felt at peace. The examiner noted that
there was some inability to function independently, although
he noted that the veteran largely remained independent in
functioning. He noted that the veteran had significant
problems with impulse control and irritable outbursts from
time to time. The veteran did not exhibit spatial
disorientation, and was appropriately dressed and groomed.

The examiner noted that the veteran's PTSD caused some
impairment in areas such as work, school, family relations,
judgment, thinking and mood. He opined that the impairment
as completely debilitating. He described the PTSD symptoms
as functionally impairing in particular areas, with some
areas moderate and others severe.
go here for more
.txt">http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files2/0810616.txt

You can read more decisions here
http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/va_search.jsp?SQ=vt_vetapp08_ext&RS=1

With the VA it's all about facts. Anything you tell them will go into a claim file. What you tell your doctor goes into how he/she treats you but what you tell the VA is part of the process they use to either approve your claim/increase, or deny it.

It is not that VoteVets should have known better but it's more about doing this and seeing it all for all these years. Some of the cases the Board of Appeals takes on makes my head spin. They are not all about PTSD claims. They cover every claim that does not satisfy a veteran's claim. I've seen some pretty strange findings in claims but they are always cut and dry and state every fact they know. It's not just because the Staff Sgt. was involved with VoteVets, but that he is involved at all goes into the decision. Sometimes it works against the veteran and at other times it just gets mentioned. It depends on what the denial is based on and depends on clinical findings. If they did deny the increase based on being involved with VoteVets, I'll be shocked.
Senior Chaplain Kathie Costos
Namguardianangel@aol.com
www.Namguardianangel.org
www.Woundedtimes.blogspot.com
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation." - George Washington