DVA’s doctor game fails the pub test

Dear Editor,

Veterans should not have to guess which doctors the Department of Veterans’ Affairs will count.

A recent veterans Facebook group post showed a veteran being told DVA could not establish a treating practitioner relationship with Zed3 Psychiatry for permanent impairment evidence, even though Zed3 had assisted earlier in the claim process.

If that earlier evidence was acceptable, DVA should explain what changed.

This is not about one provider. It is about a larger DVA habit: turning clinical judgement into administrative process, then leaving veterans to work out which pathway the department prefers.

DVA is entitled to seek independent medical examinations. It is entitled to question weak or incomplete reports. But if a veteran provides evidence from a qualified doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist or specialist, DVA should judge that evidence on its merits.

If the doctor is not qualified, say so. If the report is incomplete, say so. If the evidence does not meet the required test, say so.

What should not happen is a quiet drift toward department-preferred assessment pathways, where veteran choice exists on paper but is weakened in practice.

DVA and its predecessors were not created more than a century ago to make government files and processes neater. They grew from the repatriation principle that Australia carries an obligation to those it sends to serve.

My simpler formulation is this: if you send them and bend them, you mend them.

I expand on this argument at markcroxford.net/read

Regards,

Mark Croxford
20-year Navy veteran and
former media and political adviser to a Minister for Veterans’ Affairs

.

.

ChatGPT image

.

.


.


.