• Topics

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    AL Jones
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Posts

    • VA will pay compensation for some disabilities that are proven to be directly due to ionizing radiation exposure.   Ionizing only Can you scan and post the Reasons and Bases part of the denial and the evidence list from it? It is always possible that you were exposed to ionizing radiation but VA considered it to be non ionizing,in order to deny the claim. Based on your post it does sound like ionizing radiation.(involved with the nuclear reactor). Perhaps VA did not have enough info to determine what type of radiation you were exposed to. This VA  link contains limited info on radiation claims: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/basics.asp We have more info here at hadit under Radiation than at the VA web site. Also there have been a few awards for Agent Orange exposure at Ft. Mc Clelland, also searchable here at hadit. Or you can search with google Radiation Berta hadit.com or Fort Mc Clelland AO Berta hadit.com and many of my posts as well as from others on these issues will pop up.I just suggest google with my name in it because I have had many posts on both of these issues here over the years and it is easy for me to use google to find them. Were you ever, while at Fort Mc Clelland, involved in any "Tiger Village" exercise? If so when? What disability(ies) are you attempting to gain service connection for? Cover your C file number,name, prior to scanning the denial.    
    • Its very hard to win a S.A. claim  if you don't have Medical Records about any type of Sleep Disturbance/OSA while in the military. it can be a secondary from another S.C. Disability ''Aggravated by''  but  a specialist sleep Dr would need to detail why it is aggravated by. A S.A. DX and using a C-PAP prescribe by the VA is not enough to win a S.A. Claim  Just saying ''It is more likely than not that the xanax that my patient takes contributes to the sleep apnea" would be sufficient.'' Is not enough! I agree with Lotz about the detail explanation of the med Xanax However its true the  VA raters are not Medical Dr's but they have been trained to  read medical evidence and have a medical manual for the claimed disability to  point out certain possibility's of the  causes /aggravated  by  ect,,,ect,,
    • Will get an attorney. Thanks for the advice. Anyone know of any good VA attorneys? 
    • Just my opinion, but I would suggest that your doctor also explain exactly how the Xanax that you take to treat PTSD causes YOUR sleep apnea, specifically.  What is it about that medication that leads to sleep apnea?  Add what clinical evidence exists to back him up, like in a journal or something like that, then have him attach his curriculum vital (aka resume).   VA raters who review these forms are not healthcare professionals and need things spelled out in plain English.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Ptsd Denials

2 posts in this topic

I was surprised to notice today how many legitimate PTSD claims have bee denied by VAROs in 2006.I didnt read them all just enough to wonder what is going on.

This one is good example:


"The veteran was awarded the air crewman badge which is

indicative of combat exposure. Therefore, the veteran is

entitled to the combat presumption under 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.304(f). Additionally, the veteran's personnel records

reflect that he was a lineman/wireman which likely would have

placed him in a combat zone.

The veteran has reported several credible stressors. At a VA

examination in September 2003, the veteran reported driving a

truck as part of a convoy which was shot at, causing him to

lose control of the truck and get into an accident. At a

hearing before the Board, the veteran's representative stated

that the veteran was repeatedly exposed to rocket and mortar

attacks on Hill 837 (and the veteran indicated that they were

shelled every other night for six months on Hill 837); and

the veteran referenced several accidents in which he ran over

civilians while driving a truck. "

Apparently the VARO screwed up on VCAA or DTA regs too:

"In light of this result, a detailed discussion of VA's

various duties to notify and assist is unnecessary (because

any potential failure of VA in fulfilling these duties is

harmless error)."


Service connection for PTSD is granted."

Is it beyond my comprehension why claims like this cannot be properly resolved at the RO level- cant they read at all?

It took 2 years for this decision from the VA and who knows how many more years it was at the RO-with all the evidence needed to award-and then denied and sent to the BVA.

Makes you sure wonder what the VFW (POA on the brief so I assume on the initial decision too) did to help him-

obvious DTA errors in the RO decision as well as probative evidence in the c file-ridiculous!

(The aircrewman badge does not specify combat but the regs indicate what it is for:

Crew Member: Individual must be on flying status as a crewmember in a specified position or non-crewmember in the case of observers, medical aidmen, gunners, aircraft maintenance supervisors or technical inspection)

I believe his MOS in a combat zone was more indicative of "engaged in combat" for the presumption.)

Edited by Berta

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it could be the difference between 38 U.s.c. § 1154 vs. 38 U.s.c. § 1154. Although this is VA law, maybe the BVA reserves the right to discriminate between who was in combat and who was not.

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