A very common question asked by veterans of the United States who seek compensation for disability for injuries and disabilities incurred in military service is: what is the “de novo” review that the VA offers me when I give my notice of disagreement and should I use it?
Honestly, I can’t think of a scenario in which a US veteran challenging the Regional Office’s refusal to receive a disability benefit from the Regional Office VA will not request a DRO review.
To understand why I am saying this, it is helpful to understand the process of challenging the decision of the VARO (VA Regional Office) about refusing to compensate people with disabilities to a US veteran.
After the veteran’s application is rejected by the VA Regional Office (regardless of whether it was partially or completely rejected, the US veteran must challenge this decision if he or she wants to continue to use this benefit.
To begin the process of challenging the VARO Ratings decision, the first step is for the Veteran to send a written notice of disagreement (also known as "NOD") to the VA regional office. After a US veteran registers NOD at the Regional Office of the VA, this office will usually send the veteran a form in which there is some language about holding “appeal elections.” The VA Regional Office will ask the Veteran to choose a traditional appeals process or a review of what is called a “Decision Review Defendant” (which I call DRO). The VA will give the veteran 60 days to file an appeal for an election to VARO.
Now, this is the process to get the ball to roll on-call decisions VA Ratings. What is a DRO process, how is it different from a BVA or traditional, attractive, and why do I say that it should always be used by a veteran?
First, DROs are high-demand examiners who have the right to provide the requested benefits to the Veteran based on the same evidence that was used in the initial assessment decision. The DRO will review the evidence “de novo” (this means, in a nutshell, fresh eyes and without respect for the initial decision of VA Ratings).
Secondly, the DRO is a senior and much more experienced representative of claims from the VA, who probably saw more statements, knows the law better and whose job is not only that the Veteran receive a “non-confessional” solution, but also to protect the AA from cost and bad decision times from Junior Claims claims reviewers.
Thirdly, the DRO will consider the case without respect for the decision of the VA Rating. In some situations, the Veteran may ask to meet or talk to the DRO.
Fourth, the DRO process has a good chance of being successful, and if it is successful, it will be much faster than contacting the BVA, where waiting for a hearing can be 500-600 days or more. I was told that at the recent CLE in Veterans, without any convincing evidence supporting the statistics, that 2% of the initial claims are negatively withdrawn by the DRO VA process. In a VA country, 2% is an incredibly high success rate (believe it or not).
Fifth, even if the DRO agrees with the decision of the initial ratings (or makes a decision that is favorable, but not entirely correct), you can still contact the BVA. Thus, the veteran does not lose the ability to challenge the VA Ratings solution, has a 2% chance that the VARO solution is canceled, it is often not necessary to enter any new documentation and sometimes can directly communicate with DRO. What's not to love about the DRO process?
Let me give you a good example of success using the DRO process. In a recent appeal, I applied for a Vietnamese veterinarian with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the VA initially rejected the veterans ’claim. The position of the IA was that there was no evidence that the veteran was diagnosed with PTSD. This conclusion was absurd: the VA was actually diagnosed by a veterinarian with PTSD, the diagnosis was in his statement, and the VA doctors already concluded that this veteran PTSD was a direct result of his military service.
On behalf of the veteran, we turned to DRO for help. Over the course of several months, the veteran was rated by a local VA medical center and received an impairment rating for his PTSD. After about 30 days, the Veteran received past money payment from the VA and will continue to receive benefits for his now-serviced PTSD.
Without a DRO, this veteran had to wait at least one or two years to argue with an officer of BVA HearingS, who was eligible for PTSD. Even if the veteran had convinced the official BVA listener, this requirement would most likely be sent back to the VA regional bureau to assess the impairment and further develop the record. This process could take years without having invested a single payment to the veteran.
While the DRO process does not guarantee veterans that they will win their demands, the DRO process can be a really good chance for the veteran to receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and, as a rule, faster!
This process works for VA, as they are able to more effectively reduce the backlog of claims.
This process works for a BVA Hearing Officer who is allowed to resolve the remaining disputes (for example, the effective date of the arbitration award or the appropriate percentage for impairment, etc.),
In short, I cannot think of reasons not to request a review of the DRO solution of the initial VARO rating.
