|
2411 B Charles Boulevard Greenville, North Carolina 27858 or Post Office Box 154 Greenville, North Carolina 27835-0154 |
Phone:
(252) 757-3977 Fax: (252) 757-3420 email: hughcox@hughcox.com |
North Carolina Bar Number
6567 Department of Veterans Affairs Accreditation number 8925 |
|
|
|
The information contained in this website is general legal information and not legal advice on any legal subject. It is no substitute for the services of a
competent professional attorney experienced in these matters. This information is subject to change at any time due to new legislation or new court cases.
Updated
C-File Request (June 27, 2015) This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request includes the Newnan, Georgia and Janesville, WI Cover Sheet plus
the request for ALL pages of the C-File either in paper form or digital media on
CD or DVD containing Adobe Acrobat PDF. Many Regional Offices will not send the
veteran the entire C-File unless requested under the FOIA.
Click
here for Hugh Cox's PTSD Guide and Form
Click
here for reasons NOT to use the VA PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire
Click
here for Hugh Cox's Guide to RO Tactics
Click
here for veteran's Essential Report Notes of each medical visit
The veteran's filling in this medical visit form caused a Court remand in Scott v. Shinseki, 08-1014 (2010) because the veteran noted that that the VA exam did not include an EKG even though the VA alleged that the EKG took place. See citation below:
"Based on the medical examiner's report, the
examination was performed in two parts on two different days, January 23, 2004,
and February 20, 2004. The report references an EKG result from February 20,
2004; however, Mr.
Scott stated in a sworn written statement
dated October 8, 2004, that he did not have an EKG test on that day. R. at 1261,
1304-05. The Court notes that the actual EKG results are not contained in the
record, only what purports to be an interpretation of the test results. See
R. at 1311.
The Board decision does not address Mr.
Scott's sworn statement that the test was not
conducted other than to say: "The veteran contends that he was not treated
fairly during the examination . . . ." R. at 16. The Secretary also does not
directly respond in his brief to Mr.
Scott's argument that the EKG result
referenced by the VA medical examiner could not be his, and was likely that of
another patient. The Secretary's brief merely reiterates the Board's
characterization of the statement: "Appellant . . . indicated in a statement of
record that he was treated badly by Dr. Troutman at his examination."
Secretary's Br. at 9. Then, the Secretary goes on to say: "[T]he Board did
consider and address Appellant's allegation in the decision and concluded that
the test results were 'generally consistent' with others of the record." Id.
Neither the Board nor the Secretary has addressed Mr.
Scott's assertion [*8] that
an EKG was not performed on February 20, 2004, as the VA examiner's report
states.
. . .
Because the Board did not discuss Mr. Scott's allegation in assessing the probative value of the February 20, 2004, medical examination, the Board failed in its duty to provide adequate reasons or bases for nonetheless relying on the medical examination report, and its obligation to determine whether VA has satisfied its duty to assist Mr. Scott by ensuring an adequate medical examination is provided."