• Topics

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Posts

    • I always thought by law a FOIA request needed to be addressed within 30 days.  This is what I found on Ebenefits (keep in mind I originally submitted a FOIA for my C-File and any related rating documents 11/2014  but apparently they now have no record of the request.  I submitted the request again in May and didn't even receive acknowledgement until July. Status of Your Claim Gathering of Evidence Submitted: 05/27/2016 (Freedom of Information Act / Privacy Act Request) Estimated Completion: 01/31/2018 - 01/18/2019 Estimated Completion Info Tooltip with additional information
    • Sometimes the VA will call a CUE on themselves when they see that they are clearly wrong.  I claimed SMC  "S" based on Bradley VS Peake.  I did not know I was filing a CUE, but the VA said they had made a CUE.  I got this very quickly.  On the other hand,  I filed a CUE claim due to defective decision in my original claim.  I spent 8 years on that and lost.  When you file a CUE claim it is a claim like other claims except  you don't  have protections like "benefit of doubt".   The VA must make a decision on the CUE and you can appeal that decision.   Asknod says a CUE should be visible from the moon.  The error must be so clear and undebatable that it flashes like a neon sign.   I really found out the hard way.  Reason, logic , right or wrong have little to do with it.  When I got "S" I got a decision that stated the VA had declared a CUE and I got my SMC and 2 years retro.  There is no secret CUE.  It is a decision like any other except it has strong powers and many problems getting there.
    • don't post our decision for me or anyone else but until I can see this BS. I could be wrong just don't add up.
    • sounds good to make yourself look good I got to see it to believe it. Maybe the VA is changing but not that much If I win a cue claim in 3 months I would post decision but that's just me just make sure it has cue in decision lol.
    • I look all over the net and still cant find a CUE REVIEW WHAT THE HELL IS IT. Can  anybody explain this to us all?? The only cue review is from your post. when you get your decision post how VA says  it was a CUE or reconsideration. You just don't win a cue for an EED WITHOUT THE CLAIM being close and you won a cue in three months don't sound right .jmho  RU

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Berta

Astonishing Ptsd -hbp Bva Decision!

1 post in this topic

I think this is an astonishing and fairly recent decision because Dr. Boscarini's work is acknowledged in this decision- (as a treatise)

His work on PTSD has never been given much credence by VA-in the past -unfortunately-

And it is a good example of the way Relative Equipoise is supposed to work.

Citation Nr: 0521679

Decision Date: 08/10/05 Archive Date: 08/19/05

DOCKET NO. 93-23 884 ) DATE



On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New



Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.


Appellant represented by: New Jersey Department of

Military and Veterans' Affairs


Ronald W. Scholz, Senior Counsel


The veteran served on active duty from July 1968 to April


This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals

(Board) on appeal from a February 1992 rating decision by the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in

Newark, New Jersey which denied service connection for


The Board remanded the issue on appeal in October 1995,

November 1999, and September 2003. In its September 2003

Remand, the Board directed a VA examination to determine

whether the veteran's hypertension was caused or aggravated

by his service-connected PTSD.


The evidence of record is in equipoise with respect to the

question of whether the veteran's diagnosed hypertension is

secondary to his service-connected PTSD


Hypertension is proximately due to the veteran's service-

connected PTSD. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 5107 (West 2002); 38

C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.310 (2004).


In light of the favorable action taken herein, discussion of

whether VA duties pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance

Act of 2000 (VCAA) have been satisfied is not required. The

Board finds that no further notification or assistance is

necessary, and deciding the appeal at this time is not

prejudicial to the veteran.

Factual Background

The veteran has been service-connected for PTSD since May


Medical evidence of record reflects that the veteran has a

current diagnosis of hypertension.

Pursuant to a September 2003 Board Remand, the veteran

received a VA medical examination in April 2004. The

examining VA physician concluded there was no relationship

between the veteran's service-connected PTSD and his

hypertension and, further, that PTSD did not cause

hypertension or contribute to any exacerbations of


An April 2005 letter from Alfred M. Dipiero, D.O., noted that

the veteran had been under his care for hypertension, and

concluded that the hypertension resulted from the veteran's

service-connected PTSD.

Legal Criteria


Service connection may also be granted on a secondary basis

if a claimed disability is found to be proximately due to, or

is the result of, an established service-connected disease or

injury. Establishing service connection on a secondary basis

requires evidence sufficient to show: (1) that a current

disability exits, and (2) that the current disability was

either (a) caused by or (;) aggravated by a service-

connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a) (2004);

See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 446 (1995).

The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and

medical evidence of record with respect to benefits under

laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an

approximate balance of positive and negative evidence

regarding any issue material to the determination of a

matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to

the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(B) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.102 (2004).


The evidence with respect to whether the veteran has a

current disability, hypertension, is not in dispute. The

record reflects that the veteran was first diagnosed with,

and treated for, hypertension, sometime in the 1970's.

In its September 2003 Remand, the Board directed that a VA

medical examination be conducted to determine whether the

veteran's service-connected PTSD caused or aggravated the

veteran's hypertension. Subsequently, two medical opinions

have been obtained and added to the file, both of which are

remarkably inadequate with respect to providing any rationale

for their diametrically opposed conclusions.

The first, a report of an April 2004 VA medical examination,

concluded that there is no relationship between the veteran's

service-connected PTSD and his hypertension. No rationale of

any kind, however, is provided for that conclusion.

The second, a letter from a private physician who has treated

the veteran for his hypertension for many years, concluded

that the veteran's hypertension resulted from his service-

connected PTSD. Again, no rationale of any kind is provided

for that conclusion.

Other than the two medical opinions discussed above, there is

no evidence of record with respect to the issue of secondary

service-connection for hypertension resulting from the

veteran's PTSD.

The Board finds that the evidence with respect to secondary

service-connection is in approximate balance, as there is no

sound basis for choosing one medical opinion over the other.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative

evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of

a matter, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the

claimant and, accordingly, the claim must be granted.

In reaching this determination, the Board notes that the fact

that PTSD was recognized after hypertension was diagnosed is

not determinative, since the record is not lcear as to when

PTSD first existed. Furthermore, in reaching this

determiantion, the Board notes that the VA published

information in the Federal Register. The study did find a

statistically significant increased incidence of hypertension

and chronic heart disease among World War II veterans with

PTSD (odds ratio = 1.25 for hypertension and 1.19 for chronic

heart disease). The conclusion that PTSD may be associated

with cardiovascular disorders is also supported by a 1997

study finding that Vietnam veterans diagnosed with PTSD had a

significantly increased risk of circulatory disease many

years after service. (Boscarino JA. Diseases Among Men 20

Years After Exposure to Severe Stress: Implications for

Clinical Research and Medical Care. Psychosom Med 1997;

59:605-14.) 69 FR 60083-01. In view of the lack of reasoning

in each pertinent medical opinion, the favorable evidence at

least has some support in a document placed in the Federal

Register by VA.


Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, secondary

to the veteran's service-connected PTSD, is granted.



Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0