jhfleet

For some reason I've started to get hadit posts by email. I'd guess I got around 50 so far today. I discovered someone had subscribed me to one of the forums so I unsubscribed myself. But, I'm still getting a steady stream of emails. I went back to my profile and I'm not shown as subscribed to a forum or topic. The only reason I can come up with is that changes to the website automatically subscribed me to a forum and the ones I'm still getting were generated before I unsubscribed. Does this make sense?

I was diagnosed with PF on one foot a few years ago. My Doc said anyone with PF probably had heel spurs too. As predicted, my x-rays showed that I sure enough had heel spurs on my sore foot. But, the Doc said they didn't hurt anything and that he never operated on them. He prescribed stretching exercises and shoe inserts for the PF, which I thought would never work. But, after about six months of stretching and wearing inserts the pain was greatly reduced and was completely gone after about a year. It's been about three years pain free so far, knock on wood.

An temporary O2 level of 88% is not at all unusual in sleep apnea patients. In fact, a low of 88% is pretty good for a patient not using CPAP at the time. If the low O2 level occured with a CPAP machine in use there's likely a problem with the pressure used or possibly excessive mask leakage.

Philip, none of my paperwork lists the diagnostic code. But, the decision was for service connected CLL, presumptive to agent orange exposure in VN.

Thanks Berta! I really appreciate the advice you extended to me and others in my situation.

I filed a NOD in response to the denial for retro pay that I posted earlier in this thread. The DRO found that the denial was a CUE and awarded retro from the original date of the award back to the date of claim about eight months earlier. This site was a great help to me and i appreciate it very much! Now, does anyone know how long after a favorable decision it takes to actually get a retro payment??

I'm mildly surprised that VA will rate plantar facitis as a disability. I guess there's cases where it leads to other problems, but by itself it's not much of a issue other than it can be very painful if arch supportsd are not used. When I was diagnosed I was told that it was a temporary condition that would disappear in about a year, with or without treatment. I elected to buy an arch support that minimized the pain and used it for about six months. Walked 18 holes twice a week throughout that time and haven't had any further symptoms. (Knocking on wood).

I'm disputing the effective date of a 100% award and believe I'm entitled to about 6 months retro pay. Am I understanding that some say I should forget the retro pay because getting it might jeapordize the 100%? This is scary if the VA really works that way.

My claim was received by VA on January 29, 2003. There has never been a question about the diagnosis of CLL or that it was service connected. In fact, there has never been a dispute about anything relating to the claim except my questioning of the effective date. I understand why the effective date was initially set as October 16, 2003. But, I can't understand why the VA refuses to adjust it in the face of court decisions that require it to do so.

A little background on my case that might be helpful to anyone in a similar situation: First diagosed with CLL in 1999. Filed for VA compensation in January, 2003, immediately after it was announced that CLL was being added to the list of Agent Orange presumptive diseases. Awarded 100% for CLL in early 2004 with effective date of October 16, 2003. Award letter said October 16, 2003 was the earliest possible effective date under the law that added CLL to the presumptive Agent Orange list. At some point, NVLSP filed suit over the effective date of CLL awards and prevailed in a lower court. VA then published Fast Letter 06-16 instructing VA raters to pay CLL claims to the date of diagnosis or date of claim, whichever was later. Further, the lower court ruling referenced in the Fast Letter required an outreach effort be made to current veterans receiving compensation for CLL as well as those with pending CLL claims. The outreach effort required that receipants and applicants be informed of the process to request an earlier effective date. However, receipiants were required to acknowledge that VA could recoup any excess payments if they (VA)successfully appealed the lower court decision. VA did appeal and lost their case in mid-2007. Since that time, I have twice requested and twice been denied an effective date earlier than October 16, 2003. Both times the stated reason for denial was that the law does not permit an effective date earlier than October 16, 2003. (The very date that the courts as well as the VBA Fast Letter declared invalid.) Anyway, this is somewhat bizarre to me. Although English is my first language and I was a government bureaucrat who wrote similar nonsense for many years, I apparently cannot comprehend the language used by the VA. Black seems to be white and day apparently is really night. Thanks for reading!

Thanks Berta! I'm very thankful for what I'm already getting and don't want to get anyone in hot water. But, at this point I'm seeing a little humor in the situation. Through the courts, the NVLSP forced the VA to establish new procedures and to recognize earlier effective dates. But, local VA representives are ignoring everything and continue to hang their hat on the very regulation that's been declared invalid. I can't believe a local rater can do that with impunity unless there's a wink and a nod from higher up. I will ask for reconsideration and quote them their own FAST Letter. Wonder if NVLSP could nail them for punitive damages for ignoring a court order?

Chronic Lympocytic Leukemia. It's presumed to be a result of agent orange exposure for those diagnosed with it during or after serving in Vietnam.

Just wondered if anyone that filed an agent orange CLL claim prior to October 16, 2003 has been successful in getting VA to move the effective date back. I've appealed my effective date twice, once informally and once officially and keep getting denied. This is perplexing since there is internal VA guidance in VBA Fast Letter 06-16 stating that due to court action CLL claims will be retroactive to date of claim. Also,several BVA appeals concering the effective date of CLL claims have gone against the VA. And, a few months ago the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found against the VA on this matter. That court gave them an unprecedented chewing out over their foot dragging. Obviously I'll file a NOD, but I'm wondering why they persist in ignoring the courts and their own internal guidance.

As previously stated, I'm no expert on mental disability evaluations. I certainly agree that if work ability is a factor in awarding a mental disability rating, taking a job would jeopardize the rating. But, excepy for IU, I'm unable to find any reference to a physical rating evaluation that considers employment status. In my case as well as many others, a decreased quality of life and the probability of a shortened life led to my 100% rating. Employability was never an issue.

There seems to be a lot of confusion between compensation for a service connected disability and individual employability. The VA doesn't ask and doesn't care if the typical 100% service connected disabled veteran works. The compensation such a person receives is to make up (somewhat) for his/her loss, not to provide income in lieu of employment. Granted, 100% disability usually severely restricts the types of employment a veteran can undertake. But, many use whatever abilities they have to earn income. I'm no expert, but I know of no restriction against the mentally disabled being equally able to earn additional income. VA disability compensation IS NOT charity! IU is a different matter: If one is employed, obviously he/she is employable and ineligible for IU.