Full Article at: Marine Corps suicide rate nears record level
November 14, 1:45 PMLA Military Headlines ExaminerMark Nero
"The suicide rate in the U.S. Marine Corps is nearing an all-time record, but still remains below the per-person rates in the Army and civilian populations, USMC data shows.
There have been 42 confirmed or suspected suicides in the USMC through Oct. 31 of this year, the same number as there was in all of 2008, according to the Corps' Personnel and Readiness Division.
The Marine Corps has about 208,000 troops, which makes 2008's suicide rate 16.8 per 100,000 troops. In comparison, among the Army's 1.1 million troops, the 2008 suicide rate was 20.2 per 100,000 troops. The civilian population' suicide rate was 19.5 per 100,000 people.
But the Marine Corps suicide level has inched up each year the past few years: in in addition to the 42 Marines who killed themselves in 2008, 33 Marines committed suicide in 2007 and 25 in 2006, according to Corps data."
Saturday, November 14, 2009
When VA Does Not Cite to Medical Evicence, Colvin v. Derwinski
We came across this older posting on the "“Top 10” Court Cases for Advocates", it makes a good point when they point out that VA and BVA may often make a determination that an in-service injury was “acute, without chronic residual disability.” I've seen this phrase used a lot.
This is similar to what was pointed out in our negative evidence posting, a conclusion which may or may not be referenced to any medical evidence. If there is not cited medical evidence, even if they do cite to evidence, make sure that it is correctly cited/quoted and not their [VA's] own unsubstantiated medical conclusion.
See the excerpt below citing to Colvin v. Derwinski
Full Article at:
THE VETERANS ADVOCATE PDF file
A Veterans Law and Advocacy Journal
VOL. 19, NO. 1-6
January - June 2008
"VA Can’t Base Denial on its Own Medical Judgment
Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991)
Colvin stands for a now deeply embedded and fundamental principle of veterans law-the VA may use only independent medical evidence to support its benefits decisions. The VA may not use the medical opinion or judgment of the VA rater or BVA Veterans Law Judge to support a decision.
For many years prior to Colvin, VA decisions were based on the findings of VA physicians who were part of the decision-making process. A doctor employed by VA would not only provide the medical opinion that would be used to decide the claim, he or she would participate in deciding whether to grant or deny benefits.
This practice of having VA doctors play a decisionmaking role was ended by Colvin.
The Court held that:
If the medical evidence of record is insufficient, or, in
the opinion of the BVA, of doubtful weight or credibility,
the BVA is always free to supplement the
record by seeking an advisory opinion, ordering
a medical examination or citing recognized medical
treatises in its decisions that clearly support its
ultimate conclusions . . . . This procedure ensures
that all medical evidence contrary to the veteran’s
claim will be made known to him and be part of
the record before this Court.
Colvin, 1 Vet.App. at 175.
But advocates must watch out . . . even though the formal procedure of having a VA doctor play a decisionmaking role stopped after Colvin, VA raters and BVA Veterans Law Judges persist in relying on their own medical judgments to decide claims. For example, the VA and BVA may often make a determination that an in-service injury was “acute, without chronic residual disability.” However, the degree of injury and whether any disabilities resulted from the injury are medical assessments that the VA and the Board are not competent to make unless there is independent medical evidence to support that conclusion. This means that in many cases the VA’s determination that an in-service injury was acute and did not result in chronic disability may violate Colvin.
Another common problem is that the VA may dismiss favorable medical evidence of record without citing to medical evidence in the record or medical literature to support its rejection. A good rule of thumb based on Colvin is that if there is a VA-made medical conclusion-not directly based on a medical examination report, advisory opinion, or medical literature- the conclusion may be erroneous because the VA has no independent medical support for its findings.
Decisions containing unsupported medical conclusions should be appealed."
This is similar to what was pointed out in our negative evidence posting, a conclusion which may or may not be referenced to any medical evidence. If there is not cited medical evidence, even if they do cite to evidence, make sure that it is correctly cited/quoted and not their [VA's] own unsubstantiated medical conclusion.
See the excerpt below citing to Colvin v. Derwinski
Full Article at:
THE VETERANS ADVOCATE PDF file
A Veterans Law and Advocacy Journal
VOL. 19, NO. 1-6
January - June 2008
"VA Can’t Base Denial on its Own Medical Judgment
Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991)
Colvin stands for a now deeply embedded and fundamental principle of veterans law-the VA may use only independent medical evidence to support its benefits decisions. The VA may not use the medical opinion or judgment of the VA rater or BVA Veterans Law Judge to support a decision.
For many years prior to Colvin, VA decisions were based on the findings of VA physicians who were part of the decision-making process. A doctor employed by VA would not only provide the medical opinion that would be used to decide the claim, he or she would participate in deciding whether to grant or deny benefits.
This practice of having VA doctors play a decisionmaking role was ended by Colvin.
The Court held that:
If the medical evidence of record is insufficient, or, in
the opinion of the BVA, of doubtful weight or credibility,
the BVA is always free to supplement the
record by seeking an advisory opinion, ordering
a medical examination or citing recognized medical
treatises in its decisions that clearly support its
ultimate conclusions . . . . This procedure ensures
that all medical evidence contrary to the veteran’s
claim will be made known to him and be part of
the record before this Court.
Colvin, 1 Vet.App. at 175.
But advocates must watch out . . . even though the formal procedure of having a VA doctor play a decisionmaking role stopped after Colvin, VA raters and BVA Veterans Law Judges persist in relying on their own medical judgments to decide claims. For example, the VA and BVA may often make a determination that an in-service injury was “acute, without chronic residual disability.” However, the degree of injury and whether any disabilities resulted from the injury are medical assessments that the VA and the Board are not competent to make unless there is independent medical evidence to support that conclusion. This means that in many cases the VA’s determination that an in-service injury was acute and did not result in chronic disability may violate Colvin.
Another common problem is that the VA may dismiss favorable medical evidence of record without citing to medical evidence in the record or medical literature to support its rejection. A good rule of thumb based on Colvin is that if there is a VA-made medical conclusion-not directly based on a medical examination report, advisory opinion, or medical literature- the conclusion may be erroneous because the VA has no independent medical support for its findings.
Decisions containing unsupported medical conclusions should be appealed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)