Ad free subscription.


This eBook will teach you how to get C-Files (paper and electronic) from the VA Regional Office.
How to Get your VA C-File




  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      60,100
    • Total Posts
      387,967
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • NOD / DRO or TARP?
      Have you googled the doctor who did the C & P? He/she might have no background at all in MH issues.      
    • NOD / DRO or TARP?
      Sometimes I think I have seen it all and then VA surprises me. This is a ridiculous decision. All I can think that happened was that they focused on the wrong thing as stressors.Not only is a TBI a stressor , but you have the CAR on your DD 214. I feel you should ask for a new C & P. The new 2010 PTSD regs focus on "fear of" and/or "close proximity to hostile activity". It is as likely as not you were in fear of and in close proximity to that activity. What did the C & P doc diagnose you with?    
    • Denied!! Hip Service connection. Guess what? Their is HOPE!
      Great! If they do award on this info, then time to consider a 38 CFR 3.156 claim to gain more retro, on the 2014 denial.... Did both denials say the SMRS had been lost? Are you still employed ,with the 80%?
    • Denied!! Hip Service connection. Guess what? Their is HOPE!
      In my past threads i posted that in 2014 i put in a claim for hip pain, and after x-rays and C&P was denied service connection.I did not put in a NOD. Fast forward to 2016. Put in claim for hip pain secondary to knee, sacroiliac joint and back arthritis. Two weeks later BBE came. Denied service connection,states lost med records.  Well after some fuming i gathered my evidence in my copy of my service medical records and made an appointment with my VA PCP. I showed her where in 1984 a had a bad auto accident that involved my entire left side.  After showing this to her i explained that i was denied service connection for my hip and asked her if she would write me a statement explaining that this could have resulted in my hip pain.  She said no problem!!  WOW. Ok  Went on e-benifits this morning and low and behold here is the letter.....  to whom it may concern vetern ------ is DOB- -------, is under ,my care since June 2011. Review of record shows , vet had a MVA in 1984, while in service, that affected -------  his left side, left knee, left side of back , & hip, His hip pain has increased since then x ray shows degerative arthritis, which in my opinion is as likely as not is a result of trauma to his left side including hip in 2008 while in service if you have any question or concern, please feel free to contact me /es/ SAROJ B SHARMA MD STAFF PHYSICIAN Signed: 05/02/2016 16:35.  I think that this should be enough evidence to include my emergency record of the accident that they conveniently lost to RE-OPEN my 2014 claim for service connection of left hip.  What do you guys think?  I just wish that everyone of us vets had a great PCP like i do that actually cares for us vets and will go beyond what is required to help....    
    • CUE? Not using SMR?
      I love it AskNod. Thanks for the input!!! I will talk to him about it today. I do appreciate the time you all put in to give us advice. It's priceless. 
    • Temporary 100% post surgery/convalescense pay
      Whats up guys, hopefully someone out there can help me out here. Ok I had surgery on my right knee (service connected) on 4-13-16 at the VA hospital in Phoenix. I applied for convalescense pay the day before which was 4-12-16. My surgeon wrote a statemwnt saying I would be out of commission for 8-10 weeks or more if "desired strength in leg is not met" how long does the VA take to process something like this? And my understanding is the VA doesnt pro-rate meaning my convalescent start date is 5-1-16 and for 8 weeks will that be from 5-1-16 until 7-31-16? I currently am at 40% so i get $699.36/month. With convalescense do they pay 100% per month (in my case its $3187) or will they pay one lump sum for both months? Thank you     Quote   Edit
    • Ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatologist diagnosis
      Hi all. Got a good one for you again. I saw my rheumatologist today and was diagnosed with Ankylosing spondylitis. It affect both my feet and my right hand. Apparently this condition is related to rheumatoid arthritis and when i start treatment i will have to take shots for the rest of my life. I just got low balled at 30% for bilateral plantar fascitis which i just found out is related to to ankylosing spondylitis. My question is do you think i should file a claim and will this get services connected??? So internet research i have seen said RA is easier to get service connected but this is another new road i must go down so i would apperciate some Knowledgable feedback. This condition also affect my neck and back and i did have some back issues in my service medical records. Thanks all and i look forward to youtlr replies. 
    • CUE? Not using SMR?
      What I see missing here is any mention of 38 CFR 1154(b) Combat enhancement. VA did not give  him enhanced credibility in 1983. In fact, they didn't even mention it which they would be required to discuss by law (and then discount as not being probative). That is CUE. VA is required to take any testimony about his feet in the combat environment as Gospel. It's clear they had the STRs when they made the 1983 decision. Presumption of Soundness at entry on the physical sets the injury metric.  If he had flat feet when he left, then it occurred in service -38 CFR 3.303(a). If he says he got flat feet and he has a PH and CIB, VA cannot argue otherwise. Having proved CUE, all he has to do is show that the error manifestly changed the outcome. The 2015 grant is proof of that. The only thing that could poke a hole in this balloon would be an unappealed BVA decision which would have rendered the subject closed. No appeal up to the BVA on any of those reopens following 1983 means a CUE  claim is still viable for 1983 as well as any follow on denials in the interim. Personally, I'd go for it. I'd get an atty. because it's going to be a cat fight for that many dineros. Sorry about that sugar. Your email didn't mention the medals and the CIB. That's a whole different ballgame. Anyone who would die in combat for their country gets a bye on their testimony as being credible without corroboration. 
    • NOD / DRO or TARP?
      Also, I want to point out that my husband returned from his 2nd tour in October of 2008. I do not believe I would have said that I was that concerned with him returning when he had just got back as was stated in the decision. He usually has at least a couple of years between deployments.  I could be wrong, I don't remember. I do recollect saying that when he was gone, a lot of the memories of what we did and seen during the invasion returned or bothered me more..?.  Sorry, I can't be sure.
    • Dr Ellis IMO
      Thanks for the info Flores.  I actually called the clinic this morning.  I am in the process of gathering my records and will be sending them out hopefully by Monday.  They said that they are currently scheduling for the end of June, beginning of July.  The lady sounded very nice.  I am looking forward to meeting Dr. Ellis soon.   Good luck on your claim. Travis  

  • HadIt.com Veteran to Veteran providing FREE information and community to veterans since 1997.

    I am proud that I've been able to offer all that HadIt.com has for free for 19 years and continue to do so. HadIt.com does accept contributions to help with costs we also offer paid ad free subscriptions. None of the paid options are required. The forum, the website, news site and podcast are free and will remain so. If you choose to support the site with a contribution or a subscription it is appreciated but never required. If you choose to make a contribution or purchase an ad free subscription, you can do so here. 

Raven

Alcoholism /abuse As A Secondary

9 posts in this topic

Anyone heard anything of alcoholism or alcohol abuse as a secondary to depression? If one had this diagnosis, can health problems caused by alcohol abuse also be secondary (IE liver, etc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites







Alcohol abuse Secondary to PTSD- granted:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files5/0529097.txt

This is a successful widow's DIC claim- alcoholism secondary to anxiety-yet the veteran had sigificant medical evidence of SC depression too--

http://www.va.gov/vetapp96/files1/9607996.txt

This statement from a denied BVA claim states what the VA looks for in any disability that may be secondary to SC alcoholism-

"Secondary Service Connection

Disabilities secondary to alcoholism are not covered by the

“willful misconduct” bar. Regulations state that “[o]rganic

diseases and disabilities which are a secondary result of the

chronic use of alcohol as a beverage, whether out of

compulsion or otherwise, will not be considered of willful

misconduct origin.” For claims submitted prior to November

1990, disabilities secondary to alcoholism were not covered

by the “willful misconduct” bar, and compensation was

available. Effective November 1990, however, 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 1131 was amended for the express purpose of “preclud[ing]

payment of compensation for certain secondary effects arising

from willful misconduct,” including “injuries or disease

incurred during service or the result of ...the abuse of

alcohol.” As amended, 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 now provides that

“no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result

of the [appellant’s] own willful misconduct or abuse of

alcohol or drugs.” As a result, 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(3)(d) was

promulgated to provide that an injury or disease incurred

during active duty shall not be deemed to have been incurred

in the line of duty if such injury or disease was a result of

the abuse of alcohol or drugs by the person on whose service

benefits are claimed.

As noted, the statutory amendment applies only to claims

filed after October 31, 1990. Here, however, the appellant

initially asserted claims of entitlement to service

connection for liver disease, psychiatric disability,

gastritis and peptic ulcer disease, all as secondary to

alcoholism, in his Substantive Appeal in support of his claim

of entitlement to service connection for alcoholism, which

was received by the RO&IC in July 1993. As there is no legal

entitlement to service connection on a secondary basis for

disabilities arising from the abuse of alcohol, the claims of

service connection for liver disease, psychiatric disability,

gastritis and peptic ulcer disease are without legal merit.

Sabonis.

In addition, the Board notes that in April 1996, the Board

received a private medical report that was not accompanied by

a waiver of consideration by the RO&IC. In a written

statement dated in that same month, the appellant’s

representative noted this report but did not waive initial

RO&IC consideration. Because alcohol dependence is deemed by

statute to be the result of willful misconduct and cannot

itself be service connected, and because the veteran’s claims

for service connection for disabilities as secondary to

alcoholism were filed subsequent to November 1990, these

claims lack legal merit. " (meaning this specific claim) from:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp96/files3/9626118.txt

Basically if medical evidence finds any disability from alcoholism is Secondary to another SC disability- then there is potential to service connect the disability from alcohol as secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berta,

OK now how about this:

Since the BVA is stating,

"Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that

the veteran's sexual dysfunction disorder is proximately due

to his service-connected PTSD. Thus service connection for

that disorder is warranted."

Does this open it up for us females to get granted this same benefit due to our PTSD ?

Sexual dysfunction is not limited to reproduction ??

carlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I confused

So if one drinks like a fish everyday because they have major depression, they can file a claim for SC alcohol abuse as a secondary, and if granted, they do not get compensation ( a 0% rating I guess).

And if they are granted SC for alcohol abuse as a secondary, and down the road they have health problems from drinking (liver problems from the abuse), they can also file a claim claiming SC liver problems from alcohol abuse, which was granted as a SC because they are depressed? Would that warrent a rating other that 0% for the liver problems?

I hope I did not confuse anyone, just trying to explain my question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Berta,

OK now how about this:

Since the BVA is stating,

"Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that

the veteran's sexual dysfunction disorder is proximately due

to his service-connected PTSD. Thus service connection for

that disorder is warranted."

Does this open it up for us females to get granted this same benefit due to our PTSD ?

Sexual dysfunction is not limited to reproduction ??

carlie

Berta: I'm not trying to say that women whould not be so qualified , I am just trying to put some input to why their may be difficulty in it for a women.

The BVA is not ruling on a physical problem with guys plumbing, its that his electrical circuite can not tell the valve to turn on for the delivery mechanism to become a functional device.

Another analogy, A fire truck arrive to a fire, the fire chief tells the fire truck pumper attendant to turn on the pumper, but de doesn't, because he doesn't, no water can get to the hose to charge the system for use.

If it is shown that the hose can be charged but their is still a delivery problem, I doubt the BVA would have ruled as it did.

I gues in a womens case, she would have to show that due to PTSD the delivery recepticle is broken and none usable in the present condition. If it was otherwise found serviceable, then they to might find it diffecult to be awarded.

Again, my analogy is not to be argumentative but for open discussion on the problems defending a claim of this nature.

Jim S. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

This is only my opinion.

If sex ( because of PTSD ) can't begin in my brain -- taint never gonna happen

with my body.

If it doesn't work -- it doesn't work -- whether male or female.

Any women out there have an opinion on this ?

carlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alcohol abuse Secondary to PTSD- granted:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files5/0529097.txt

This is a successful widow's DIC claim- alcoholism secondary to anxiety-yet the veteran had sigificant medical evidence of SC depression too--

http://www.va.gov/vetapp96/files1/9607996.txt

This statement from a denied BVA claim states what the VA looks for in any disability that may be secondary to SC alcoholism-

"Secondary Service Connection

Disabilities secondary to alcoholism are not covered by the

“willful misconduct” bar. Regulations state that “[o]rganic

diseases and disabilities which are a secondary result of the

chronic use of alcohol as a beverage, whether out of

compulsion or otherwise, will not be considered of willful

misconduct origin.” For claims submitted prior to November

1990, disabilities secondary to alcoholism were not covered

by the “willful misconduct” bar, and compensation was

available. Effective November 1990, however, 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 1131 was amended for the express purpose of “preclud[ing]

payment of compensation for certain secondary effects arising

from willful misconduct,” including “injuries or disease

incurred during service or the result of ...the abuse of

alcohol.” As amended, 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 now provides that

“no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result

of the [appellant’s] own willful misconduct or abuse of

alcohol or drugs.” As a result, 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(3)(d) was

promulgated to provide that an injury or disease incurred

during active duty shall not be deemed to have been incurred

in the line of duty if such injury or disease was a result of

the abuse of alcohol or drugs by the person on whose service

benefits are claimed.

As noted, the statutory amendment applies only to claims

filed after October 31, 1990. Here, however, the appellant

initially asserted claims of entitlement to service

connection for liver disease, psychiatric disability,

gastritis and peptic ulcer disease, all as secondary to

alcoholism, in his Substantive Appeal in support of his claim

of entitlement to service connection for alcoholism, which

was received by the RO&IC in July 1993. As there is no legal

entitlement to service connection on a secondary basis for

disabilities arising from the abuse of alcohol, the claims of

service connection for liver disease, psychiatric disability,

gastritis and peptic ulcer disease are without legal merit.

Sabonis.

In addition, the Board notes that in April 1996, the Board

received a private medical report that was not accompanied by

a waiver of consideration by the RO&IC. In a written

statement dated in that same month, the appellant’s

representative noted this report but did not waive initial

RO&IC consideration. Because alcohol dependence is deemed by

statute to be the result of willful misconduct and cannot

itself be service connected, and because the veteran’s claims

for service connection for disabilities as secondary to

alcoholism were filed subsequent to November 1990, these

claims lack legal merit. " (meaning this specific claim) from:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp96/files3/9626118.txt

Basically if medical evidence finds any disability from alcoholism is Secondary to another SC disability- then there is potential to service connect the disability from alcohol as secondary.

Will smokers get the nod also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this statement really gets me;

However, when the determinative issue involves a

question of medical causation, only individuals possessing

specialized training and knowledge are competent to render an

opinion. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992).

most of the jerks at the VARO's, don't have any specialized training and knowledge in medical causation and are not competent to render an medical opinion, but they do it all the time, then people wonder why the veteran is on a uneven playing field, and get the above quotes on all decisions, that the veteran is a lay person, and we know we are, but so are most of the people who determine our claims. I have had these people rebuffed a doctors favorable opinion, by saying that the doctor didn't have all my medical files in front of him/her, so they couldn't make a decision like that, but if the doctor rules against you, then that is fine with the VARO's, with no questions asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put Frosty-

what gets me is that lately they have been telling some vets who get a good IMO from a real doc that the real doc didn't examine the vet, therefore the opinion is not good -well that is crapola-

vets should not have to get an expensive IMO in the first place-but they often need one to succeed in their claim-

or the vet orgs should be picking up the tabs on IMOs-with all the money they save from not giving their SOs continuous viable training-

A vet in say NY might have to contact an expert from California to study their med recs and render an opinion-by mail.

It is ridiculous that the VA is starting to use this ploy to knock down IMOs when the VA doctor might give the vet-at best- a 15 minute C & P and never even look at their c file. And then the VA can somehow consider that as a more probative opinion than an IMO doctor who might not have the vet in their office,yet will take the time you have paid them for, to completely go over all the medical records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.