Essentials of evaluative rating.
This rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. For the application of this schedule, accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations are required, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition. Over a period of many years, a veteran’s disability claim may require reratings in accordance with changes in laws, medical knowledge and his or her physical or mental condition. It is thus essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history.
Service-Connected Disabilities:
http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/benefits_book/benefits_chap02.asp
http://www.vba.va.gov/vba/benefits/factsheets/
Compensation and Pension Service:
http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/
Service connection may be granted for a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).
Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).
However, the absence of a documented disability while in service is not fatal to a claim for service connection. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). When a Veteran does not meet the regulatory requirements for a disability at separation, he can still establish service connection by submitting evidence that a current disability is causally related to service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159-60 (1993).
The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181 (1992). Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; every item of evidence does not have the same probative value.
In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded to the Veteran.
Good info all, but it doesn’t answer my question. Civilian car-accident, mugging, and rape victims (among countless others) will have access to exactly the same medical/psychological services (particularly where PTSD is concerned) as military veterans—necessarily diluting such service to vets while removing a perk (free lifetime medical care) that ought be extended exclusively to vets. And the chances for fraud are at least as great among the civilian population as in the military. But that’s just part of my beef with Obamacare.
But, as lark contends (do see STOLEN VALOR!), there’s already more than enough fraud extant in the whole PTSD chimera to gut VA funding. Yes, the criteria you cite seem fair enough, but the application of that criteria is slipshod, and claims—by the thousands—are exaggerated if not outright fraudulent. And this new ruling, if eventually successful, will only increase the fraud which, to me, is just another drain on the services owed, and owed exclusively, to combat veterans.