AGENT ORANGE

[BUZZ]

My friend file for AO and a( few months  later) and went for a cad exam on his own and receive 10% for CAD,he got back pay from when he got the( exam),I thought he would off been paid back when he filed in the beginning,also do you think he should appeal the 10%

[Vync]

They should pay back to when he filed. If it was a reopened claim, typically they would pay back to when it was reopened.

Here is a link to the heart ratings table. I also copied the content of the CAD rating criteria below as I assume he was rated using this. Regarding appealing 10%, the first thing to do is compare the C&P exam findings/tests to the rating criteria.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5;node=38:1.0.1.1.5#se38.1.4_1104

7005   Arteriosclerotic heart disease (Coronary artery disease):
With documented coronary artery disease resulting in:
Chronic congestive heart failure, or; workload of 3 METs or less results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of less than 30 percent	100
More than one episode of acute congestive heart failure in the past year, or; workload of greater than 3 METs but not greater than 5 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 30 to 50 percent	60
Workload of greater than 5 METs but not greater than 7 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation on electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, or X-ray	30
Workload of greater than 7 METs but not greater than 10 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; continuous medication required	10
Note: If nonservice-connected arteriosclerotic heart disease is superimposed on service-connected valvular or other non-arteriosclerotic heart disease, request a medical opinion as to which condition is causing the current signs and symptoms.

 

[BUZZ]

It was a new claim he file

[FormerMember]

They pickpocket first timers who arrive without any supporting documentation. They send them out for the C&P that actually "proves" they have it and then pay from that day forward. If you have earlier private records, you could possible win it back to the date you filed. Technically, you are entitled to a year earlier than your filing if it's for AO herbicides. If you ever filed before -ever-for CAD even if it was not a VA-recognized presumptive at the time, VA has to pay you back to that filing-and up to a year earlier if you can show entitlement.

[Berta]

You said it was a "new" claim but did he ever have any older claims ,regardless of what they were for , whereby they listed the CAD as NSC, with a 10% rating?

I filed a AO IHD claim in 2010 regarding my husband who had been dead by then for 16 years.

IHD or CAD had never appeared in any past rating he had on any rating sheet,or on any decisions I got ,due to my claims filed after he died. It was an 1151 issue that awarded DIC ,along with VA's admission that they had malpracticed on his IHD and Strokes,  but the decision never rated his IHD. He died without knowing he had heart disease or even being treated for IHD.

They paid retro to 1988-50% for AO IHD.

I am simplifying this because I explained it all here before and it also involved a CUE claim for the IHD.

Under the Agent Orange forum, there is information from NVLSP as to how Footnote One of Nehmer has caused many AO vets under the  2010 presumptives, to gain a far better EED and retro than their AO claim filing dates ,

when the 2010 AO regs came out..

 

[BUZZ]

no,first claim he ever file,he also has prostate trouble,but no cancer from it,if he had,I think he could file a secondary clam for it from ao.,right

[Berta]

Yes, if he does develop prostate cancer or any other AO presumptive condition listed here:

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/conditions/

Your post made me realize something....

Nehmer under Foot note One involves AO disabilities that appear  rated as NSC in older decisions as well as those that "should have been coded" in past VA decisions.

My IHD death claim under Nehmer involved a AO disability that ":should have been coded"in 1988 but never was,because it had been malpracticed on.

I have a claim on appeal that will involve a General Counsel opinion or at le4ast a GC re- iteration of their past opinions on the same subject, that the RO is not adhering to.

But I realized that, after my DMII AO claim was awarded, I had spent every week for 6 years, assessing the evidence I needed for that claim. I didnt file it as 1151 because I already received DIC under 1151. VA will not pay DIC under 2 or more 1151 theories.

My husband's DMII was never coded in any VA decision. As with the IHD it was a malpracticed disability , thus never acknowledged or treated by VA, and never coded.

After the 2009 award for direct SC death I was still in the evidence gathering mode...dont know why but when you do that every week for 6 years it is hard to stop.I pulled out my husband's autopsy ,which I felt I understood quiter well, but had never looked up one medical term regarding the heart slides, thinking I knew what it meant....

but I had been wrong to overlook it.

It revealed that the heart had definite evidence of diabetic cardio disease as well as IHD.

My evidence, in addition to 3 IMOs, all led to the DMII award but today I realized,under Nehmer Footnote One, the DMII "should have been coded" in tyhat award letter because if I could convince Dr Bash in our very first emails that this was a DMII AO vet,(without any IMOs and only a brief list of some of my medical evidence,directly from the veteran's VA records, then the VA should have coded the DMII as well ,under Nehmer Footnote One based on the same entries that I found in the med recs that supported the DMII AO case.

After the holidays I will ask the Medical Examiner's office to consider putting DMII on the death certificate, based on my IMOs and award letter.And then I will file a claim to get the DMII rated.

The ME autopsy and heart slides reveal proof that DMII contributed to my husband's death, as the BVA award does, so obviously it had to be at a ratable level at some point .....and caused both PN and PAD per my IMO and also probably  caused the veteran's 1151 100% P & T stroke.

The medical acronym DVD was crossed out in the med recs bu someone and the initial C & P doctor said my interpre4tation of the4 DVD (which was still readable with the lines through it)

was not what the Merck Manual said it was (VA uses Merck) DVD- Diabetic Vascular Disease)

The C & Per said it stood for "Denies Venereal Disease"... I laughed at that and knew she was wrong because throughout all of my husband's VA med recs, he had never denied having VD in Vietnam and was rated at "0" for it on all past rating sheets.

All I have to come up with is the earliest date in the med recs that he first evidenced DMII and I think that would be his dental records in 1989. The dentist noted white plaque inside his mouth.

I learned from the VA DMII training letter (1997 version) that this was oral candidiasis, caused by excess glucose in his saliva.

It was formally diagnosed by VA in 1992 but without any medical reason why he had it.

As I have said here before Malpractice has a snowball affect,meaning if an initial diagnosis or treatment was completely inaccurate, the patient will more than likely suffer multiple future disabilities because of it.