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
      60,361
    • Total Posts
      389,959
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Exams during flare up?
      To me it reads like your in line for an increase, however, I am not a rater and it is purely JMO. I started with 0 on both knees and appealed to get to 10% bilateral, I am still in appeals to go for a 20% on the right knee because of the laxity and crepitus of that joint.  I am going for this rating because I have an independent medical opinion to substantiate such rating.  Without an objective medical examination it will be difficult to go much higher.  Read the ratings criteria in the eCFRs under the knee joint and you will have a clearer picture of what is needed.  I stress you must have the medical evidence to warrant the higher rating.
    • Should I file a claim now or wait?
      I LIKE PETES992 STATEMENT..........
    • BVA Hearing
      Good luck...........
    • RETIRED? NOW I AM DISABLED?
      THANKS................................ The basis for this discussion is prior to the 2004 effective law; military individuals would purposefully find ways to make sure (under their command) injured or otherwise to receive no VA compensation when they got out because in their eyes, at that time, you would get out and would receive more than them (and I am talking the Senior NCO's and Officers here at retirement), and did everything in their power to make sure treatment wasn't provided, etc. because of the jealousy factor $$$$ get people wrongfully off Medical Boards etc. it was an epidemic. Now, since that has changed (the law) the military care and recordings has improved dramatically since this jealousy factory had been about solvent. Now, anyone who was in prior to 2004 would share to comment about how these veterans were treated prior to such effective law because of the jealousy factor. I think the commentators so far have took this the wrong way. When I got out, I had shrapnel from a round in my back, a busted spine, partial paralysis, PTSD, hearing loss and headaches from explosions/IEDs.......and a bunch of other stuff prior to the 04' law/ OEF. I am trying to relate to others who got banged up, even while in training, and got screwed by your command because they in their eyes only saw you getting compensated, not your injuries (and did not treat you because of this properly).   So, shouldn't veterans be able to prove that they deserve full retirement from the military plus VA compensation too. Not just the other way around. In my case, shouldn't it be streamlined where I can show, hey I have all the documents conditions right after I got out and had bunch of surgeries, etc. and my command where a bunch of jerks who got off on screwing peoples lives over and look here is the proof.      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have also revised this in the original post to clear up any confusion. 
    • New guy here!
      I wish for everyone to have a safe and peaceful memorial day :-)
    • Should I file a claim now or wait?
      Depending on this more evidence, VA can use it to grant your service connection but it can also be used as the correct effective date if this evidence was not in your records at the time of the original denial. 
    • Exams during flare up?
      Okay, I'm reviewing my C&P exam now. Noted is a significant loss of motion. Here are my results. This was done during a "flare up" apparently. Even though I have had this "flare up" for 3 weeks. My previous initial C&P exam 3 years ago noted loss of motion ass well this time however is much worse. Im not sure if this should be noted as a flare up or the worsening of the cartilage decay in my knee cap. Left Knee --------- [ ] All normal [X] Abnormal or outside of normal range [ ] Unable to test (please explain) [ ] Not indicated (please explain) Flexion (0 to 140): 40 to 55 degrees Extension (140 to 0): 55 to 40 degrees If abnormal, does the range of motion itself contribute to functional loss? [X] Yes (please explain) [ ] No If yes, please explain: sigificanly reduced ROM would impede kneeling/squatting. Description of pain (select best response): Pain noted on exam and causes functional loss If noted on exam, which ROM exhibited pain (select all that apply)? Flexion, Extension Is there evidence of pain with weight bearing? [X] Yes [ ] No Is there objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissue? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, describe including location, severity and relationship to condition(s): lateral patellar Is there objective evidence of crepitus? [ ] Yes [X] No b. Observed repetitive use
    • BVA Hearing
      You change the info in your profile settings.   Top r/corner open profile, then edit profile, and scroll down to SC info.
    • Exams during flare up?
      Yes that is a possibility, there is no sense worrying about it though.  The foremost concern is getting the injury service connected, once that is done then you can appeal the rest that you may be entitled to with medical evidence,IME/IMO, ect.... This sounds cold, however, no sense worrying about it until you receive the decision, from there you can decide which avenue you will pursue as well what attack to utilize.
    • Sexsomnia
      Your profile indicates that your 100% SC? If your 100SC, an IU Claim would be "Moot." Could you list your SC's & ?%, would help? Semper Fi

  • 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.