Bva With Remand To Amc

[jeeperrs]

I am new and posted much of what I am copy/pasting in another forum. However, I did not get much of a reply on that forum and thought I would try here. I will try to be as clear as I can, feel free to ask questions.

I will try to make this short and simple. I was discharged in 2003 for Supraventricular tachycardia. I found out after leaving the Army that they damaged my AV node and they took someone else's heart monitor and put my name on it (documented by VA cardiologist). The problem is that by putting my name on the other monitor and not my monitor, I received a 10% and not 30% rating in 2003. I have been fighting this for many years once a VA cardiologist pointed out the issue. I had a BVA hearing 2 years ago and just received my remand decision. I stressed the importance of the monitor that was miss identified and had a VA cardiologist document in 2009 that the heart monitor from 2003 was not my monitor and someone else's monitor. The judges remand said that I had to get current evidence, as that was too old of evidence for the increase in rating (she didn't once mention how I had false labs placed in my chart). This is my only issue that I have been fighting and I will post my timeline and then my questions. I have followed this board for 2 years but I can't seem to find an answer to this question, so I joined and am now posting.

Timeline (because I searched timelines all the time):

03/31/2009

Local VA Office Decision

RO

11/09/2009

Notice of Disagreement (NOD)

RO

11/16/2009

Appeal Pending

RO

03/17/2010

Statement of the Case (SOC)

RO

04/09/2010

Substantive Appeal (Form 9)

RO

01/11/2011

Supplemental Statement(s) of the Case (SSOC)

RO

07/27/2011

Certification of Appeal

RO

12/29/2011

Received by BVA

BVA

12/29/2011

Administrative Case Processing

BVA

10/15/2013

With VLJ

BVA

10/15/2013

With VLJ

BVA

10/23/2013

With VLJ

BVA

11/18/2013

With VLJ

BVA

11/19/2013

Pending Dispatch

BVA

11/19/2013

Decision & Claims File Dispatch

AMC

11/21/2013

Decision & Claims File Dispatch

AMC

Since it is now at the AMC you can all understand that I am in a remand.

My letter:

The Issue: Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for supraventricular tachycardia.

The introduction states:

This matter comes before the BVA on appeal from March 2009 rating decision issued by the VA RO in Muskogee, OK.

They had a quick review of my hearing and additional evidence

This paragraph was in bold and one of my questions (I was never seeking a secondary issue):

The issue of entitlement to service connection for degenerative mitral valve disease, to include as secondary to service-connected supraventricular tachycardia, has been raised by the record, but has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the board does not have jurisdiction over it, and it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action.

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the AMC in Washington DC.

Questions:

1) Can I not do anything about them discharging me under false laboratory findings, as I have a VA cardiologist and private cardiologist that says that is not my heart monitor?

2) I did not ask for the mitral valve to be a secondary condition but additional evidence to the chronic supra ventricular tachycardia. Are they starting their own claim to make this a secondary issue? What date do they use, my appeal or the order date?

3) They want evidence between the time I filed the appeal (when I found out about the errors in my medical records) but also said in the remand that I am to have an examination. The issue is that I had way more recorded episodes when I left the army than they want to use. However, the VA has agreed to count 4 recorded episodes but I need 5 recorded episodes to get the increase I am seeking. The examination criteria says "It is left to the examiner's professional judgment whether the veteran needs to be monitored by ECG or Holger monitor to satisfactorily complete this examination." but the requirements the BVA stated earlier said I had to have 5 recorded episodes. Should I allow the doctor to submit an opinion or require the doctor to put a 30 day holter monitor on me? I can get the needed recordings if they put a 30 day monitor on me.

4) Should I get a lawyer at this point? I have use VFW thus far.

Thank you for any feedback. I will probably think of more questions but these are the big four.

This was what I posted after talking to my VSO......

I finally got my VSO to return my call (they are 3 hours away making a day drive impossible with work). He suggested I fill out a DD form 149 and have the board review the MEB discharge and change my discharge from 10% to 30%.

As far as the secondary issue goes, he said the AMC will review the mitral valve and make a decision as secondary issue to the SVT. If they deny it, the BVA judge can then make a final ruling. I was told that it should most likely be approved because the judge implied that she felt it was raised by the record in her remand. That was promising news as I was getting frustrated.

I have not received anything from the AMC as of yet. I hope this doesn't take another 2 years for a blatant error the RO refuses to acknowledge.

Any additional comments will be appreciated.

[jbasser]

AMC is not good. We have members here who are deep inside the AMC and getting out is like being under the dome.

J

[FormerMember]

The answer to many of these things is a matter of reading it carefully. Notice :

The issue of entitlement to service connection for degenerative mitral valve disease, to include as secondary to service-connected supraventricular tachycardia, has been raised by the record, but has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

No. You did not file for it but some gomer decided they could hamster wheel you at the AMC. They needed breathing room and they got it. The BVA does everything at once so this means your whole claim is put on ice for the AMC to make a decision in the first instance as to whether the degenerative mitral valve disease has anything to do w/ the supra tach. $100 bucks says they come back with a denial on that and then you lose the increase to 30% There may or may not be some hanky panky with whose wire was whose, but it's fairly clear that the BVA is disinterested in it and concentrating more on the correct percentage for the supra tach rather than what it should have been in 2003. If you had a disagreement with what transpired in 2003 and did not appeal it, that is a done deal. You appear to have filed for it, and were given 10% but failed to appeal. You can only attack it via CUE.

You currently have a claim for increase. The BVA VLJ has decided there is the possibility that you have degen mitral valve disease. They will adjudicate that in the first instance at the AMC because you signed a waiver giving them permission to do so. When they finish it, you will have two decisions decided by the BVA but not soon. If you are denied anew, your next trip is to the CAVC-- hopefully without that VSO chipmunk in your pocket.

​Pursuing it via the MEB will be rapid compared to the VA process but they will still have to incorporate it into a decision. We know where that has to go. Back to the RO for another decision based on original (revised) evidence. You should have this sorted out by 2017 now that the backlog is almost nonexistant.

clear prop.

Edited December 4, 2013 by asknod

[63SIERRA]

devide and conquer is thier game.

Edited December 4, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[FormerMember]

That's plagiarism. You must have read my book.

cp

[Berta]

I feel that a strong independent medical opinion would possibly square this away.

The criteria for IMOs ( Or the IMO doctor might well want to do an IME) is in our IMO forum.

However dont excpect too ,much from the Black Hole (AMC) .

I had 3 IMOs for my AO DMII claim filed in 2003.

The Buffalo RO ignored them, the AMC ignored them and then the Seattle RO ignored them and then when the BVA got the IMOS, after a brief remand they awarded. All that took 6 years. I would handle that situation much differently these days.

With the IMO ...which could clear up your issues,in my opinion, if the IMO doc has ALL available med recs ,all VA C & P and all AL:L VA decision,

and your SMRs. and the doc could cover the mitral valve issue as well, it could possibly get a decent response from the AMC.

If you do get an IMO send it to the BVA as well as the AMC and the AOJ you had originally.

If the AMC ignores the IMO, then I can tell you what to do next.

However the BVA wont ignore it ,if it supports your claim ,and if it follows the IMO criteria here at hadit in our IMO forum.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Berta

[jeeperrs]

I am adding some updates:

This is the link to the decision, if it adds to any comments that may be beneficial. Does anyone know how to get the Physical Evaluation Board to review a decision after new evidence was found? They left the rating at 10% because "the VA had me rated at 10%". That was before the VA cardiologist found and documented the issues with my medical records. Thanks

http://www.va.gov/vetapp13/Files4/1337996.txt

I had a C&P exam last Monday. The C&P exam went very well. The BVA judge requested specific attention to my holter monitors in 2009. The C&P examiner found more than 4 episodes in just one 24 hour monitor from 2009, plus several more in each of the other monitors. She wrote her opinion that it is more likely than not that I have more than 5 episodes a year based off previous holter monitors from 2008 to present (she even listed the time of each recorded event and how many heartbeats the rhythm lasted for 5 episodes). So, I am very confident that I will eventually receive a favorable rating, possibly from the AMC.

The examiner did state that I will have to open a new claim for my mitral valve prolapse. Should I wait until this case is decided?

Also, can I fight the date if the AMC rules in my favor starting in 2008 instead of from 2003? This is an issue that was from my MEB in 2003 and I hope to get my back pay to be from 2003. As you can read, the judge did not mention anything from 2002 and my medical records being mixed up with another soldier, which resulted in fewer recorded episodes and a 10% rating at the time (all noted by the VA cardiologist in 2009).

Edited March 3, 2014 by jeeperrs