Chuck75

For whatever it's worth-- My father was a WW2 vet, placed on inactive duty (officer, pilot) due to malaria. He was sent home from the pacific with active malaria. The original grant was for 10% (all of about $13 mo) . The VA bugged him repeatedly for exams etc. The trip to the nearest VA facility was about 200 miles. Then the Korean war came along. The VA, at the request (I suppose) of DOD reduced or eliminated most of the lower comp. To 0 in my fathers case. Next, DOD tried to activate him, since with a comp of 0% he was obviously not having problems with malaria! (Wrong!) He had relapses well into the 1960's. Since activation was voluntary, unless they activated my father as a pilot, and he refused voluntary activation, he did not get involved in the Korean war. (Had they activated him anyway, he would have failed the required flight medical, due to a history of reoccurring malaria.) From a pension standpoint, he might have been better off going that route. As it was, he was a book keeper for an asphalt company at the time,and earning about $12,000 a year in 1950. Whatever the VA paid then, it was less than his salary.

I believe that the schedule has temporary ratings up to 100% for a period of up to six months after open heart surgery or stint implantation. So, yes you should address the bipasses.

There is a basic problem with insurance in the US. Insurance company profits from policies need to be regulated in such a way that a reasonable profit incentive exists, yet is not excessive. Heavy regulation just increases costs. No or little regulation allows price gouging in several ways. Higher than reasonable premiums. "Fine print" that reduces the insurance benefits the customer thinks that they are paying for. Unreasonable low payment to providers that is much lower than standard insurance fee for service payment rates.

Even so, a bank may very well pay a claim from the VA or the government out of any account in your name. (Legal or not), even if there is no direct deposit from the government to that account. If they do, you will need to fight to get the money back. The moral of the story is DO NOT authorize a direct deposit, insist upon a check from the VA, SSA, or the IRS.

Seems that an additional clause needs to be added to Tricare. Under any conditions, Tricare shall pay providers at least the amount paid for the same services as Medicare & Medicaid combined. Or even better, Tricare shall pay providers the same amounts paid by insurance plans that are offered/available to govt employees and members of the US Senate and House.

To the best of my limited knowledge--No -- the normal 100% VA SC vet is entitled to commissary, exchange, and MWR only. Other additional access may be dependent upon local regs or practice. I.E. club membership. There are two cards that have been issued form 1173, and 2765. When an 1173 expires, it is supposedly replaced with the 2765. A 2765 may also be issued to the veteran's spouse or dependents. I used to carry a 2765 as a civilian that had "self" in the Sponsor entry.

This just goes to show that there are good reasons to have alternative drugs available. An example is that my relationship with iodine analogs is rocky. It works very well if applied in small areas and not frequently. Large area usage causes all kinds of problems. Betadyne can cause really nasty but not serious side effects in my case.

What is intersting to me is that my non VA doctors have me on 1500mg a day, 2 500mg AM and one PM. Nothing is said about taking with a meal. The metformin version I take is supplied by the va and is supposedly a version peaking about 4 hours after you take it.

I suppose the next best thing to do is to get a copy of your records from the doctor, showing the diagnosis and treatments.

Since the relationship between Diabetes II and heard disease is a personal issue with me-- What I found so far-- The two are connected. Diabetes may or may not have symptoms before heart disease starts or becomes obvious. A key to this is info on the ADA web site (American Diabetes Association) Ti seems that there is a condition called "prediabetes" by the medical profession, and serious cardiovascular damage can occur during this phase of diabetes. Unfortunately, as the name implies, prediabetes occurs before the blood glucose levels reach levels used to confirm a diagnosis of diabetes. The ADA shows ~105-130+ as blood glucose levels associated with "prediabetes". This is well below the level currently used to diagnose diabetes. This level is relevent only when diabetes is diagnosed, since it's possible for a person to never reach the levels used to diagnose diabetes. The VA may try to take the position that Diabetes does not exist until diagnosed by having the glucose level exceed a specific level. This is actually an after the fact diagnosis. It seems that diabetes may exist for years without reaching the diagnostic level. What I am trying to do -- Find evidence of glucose levels above normal, specifically in the "prediabetes" range, to show that these levels existed when heart disease was found. This is difficult, due to the non availability of old medical records, and the fact that blood glucose was seldom tested for in my case. Option two is to have my doctors state that they beleive that Diabetes caused my heart problems to become more severe. Virtually all of the doctors I've talked to, including the VA doctors, consider this a given. Mild (untreated, undiagnosed) Hypertension may exist for years before it becomes an obvious problem. For instance, I was told that I had higher than normal blood pressure during an employment medical for my first job after active duty. The level was such that it was not considered a problem at the time.

I wonder what an inquiry from/via the appropriate political representative would do! Looks like a Clear and Unmistakable Error to me.

I hate to say this -- but my impression of the VA Secretary's recent statements, and actions concerning the Navy veterans in the A O related court cases makes me believe that there may be a bias against Navy veterans. In past years, this bias seemed to be evident in veterans organizations as well. Originally, it had to do with the Army and "hand to hand" combat and WWII veterans. I'd ask Berta if this sort of thing might be "CUE"able.

While this certainly applies to such things as the VA claim's process, it should be noted that one of the major facets of a bureaucratic process is that it is intended to reduce or eliminate personal liability and accountability on the part of a bureaucrat. It does this by obscuring who did what, and making a process "faceless". When an action or non action is accomplished via the process, the idea is that the process is at fault, not the individuals involved.

My first comment is that the more recent medical reports showing an increase in severity are a plus. Next, since you are most likely already at 100% schedular, I doubt that additional claims will increase your compensation, unless there is restricted mobility, or something else involved that would allow compensation above the 100% to be paid. On the other hand, an additional SC problem may help sometime in the future if the VA tries to reduce compensation for an individual SC condition.

A quick web search disclosed that Dupuytren's contracture can be caused by diabetes, as well as other tining. It's basically the formation of scar tissue under the skin. I used the search opton in IE, which on my PC, is not limited to Yahoo. The A1C and Glucose #s arn't awfully bad, just not good either. Ideally, the A1C should be below 6 if at all possible. And the blood Glucose closer to 100 than the present 132.

This is the exact issue I'm struggling with! It seems that the classic diabetes diagnosis levels used to determine that a patient has diabetes are high enough that there is a strong likely hood that various other problems such as cardiovascular can and do occur well before the formal diagnosis of diabetes. The key seems to be "prediabetes", something that is only obvious after the fact, and (at least from current medical references) may exist for years. (Ten or more) It is during the "prediabetes" period that cardiovascular problems may occur. Further, a cardiovascular "friendly" diet will likely delay reaching the levels used to formally diagnose diabetes. A nexus for both (if you look at recently released "Ranch Hand" results) is guess what! Agent Orange exposure. Even if The VA refuses to service connect Diabetes as causative to a secondary condition, you should be able to get them to SC on a "develop further", if you can show that the problems were stable until diabetes was diagnosed, and then became worse. If the secondary condition reaches a schedular 100%, and diabetes contributed to the severity, then the secondary condition (By the VA's rules) be considered SC. This supposedly eliminates the % offset used when the condition is less than 100%. "So a vet could actually have diabetes for years and not even know it or have VA not diagnose it and then the vet suffers from CAD BEFORE they diagnose the DMII-and then the VA can say this was NSC and predated the SC DMII and therefore isn't secondary. A good IMO from a real doc who uses the ADA guidelines and knows all the literature that can define a specific type of heart disease as Exactly due to DMII-such as left ventricular hypertrophy-etc can help a vet get proper secondary as well as the proper EED on these claims." Unfortunately, the highest rated doctor(s)(by my insurance company)are not interested in writing an IMO that meets the VA's requirements. Naturally, when I first started going to them, it was "no problem" to write the IMO. (Until I showed them what a real IMO was - today!) This wasted quite a bit of my time and money.

Just completed the 149 (total of 10 pages including the 149) Consisting of: Transfer and Assignment pages from Service Records DD 214 Copy of letter from NPRC stating that VA has my Records. List of Awards including dates and type from awards.navy.mil The reason for all this effort is a back injury that has existed since and during service. Records of shipboard treatment for it are slim to nonexistant. Evidently, individual records were not kept of "aches and pains", and treatment with Asprin, Darvon, etc. I don't know if the "Sick Call" logs are available (Doubt it). After service records (X-rays, etc.) are useless, since the ruptured disks only show up on CAT scans or an MRI.

This seems really odd to me. If you have an SC'd heart condition for 40 years, they cannot deny SC now, unless they were able to prove fraud. You would also think that since heart disease is almost always progressive, (regardless of why), the VA, is in all reason, required to upgrade the disability as the condition progresses. If you are claiming other things related to aggrivated, or caused by heart disease, I can sort of understand, but not agree with the VAs denial.

Yes, but it may also pertain to other things that are within the guidelines, but that the VA would normally say that there is not enough proof. Anyway, I found another award that does mention Combat and Hostile fire.

I'd have to agree. The VA system as it now stands is the major contributor to delay and improper denial. There is also an issue with what is "probative" and what is not. There are serious issues with "Agent Orange" related medical problems and secondary issues to them. The VA's decisions can and sometimes do fly in the face of standard medical practice, references, and even statements of cause and effect by the National Health Institute. The "Ranch Hand" studies are an example of government inspired manipulation of data to get desired results. It turns out that, based upon the data, Diabetes II and various Cardiovascular and arterial problems should be linked together, since with Diabetes, the others follow. Indeed, the first signs of Diabetes may be cardiovascular in nature. This is consistent with the data in the Ranch Hand study. Yet, undoubtedly because of the number of veterans that have cardiovascular problems, The relationship can/will only be acknowledged by the VA after a Diabetes Diagnosis.

ODD! I requested a copy by letter, citing the privacy act, foia, and the VA's obligation to help in "perfecting" my claim. With a couple of phone calls, it took about 6 weeks. No fee asked or charged.

The research on combat related awards is getting to be a bigger effort than I thought. Besides the combat ribbon, The NU was also awarded. Now, because of the language following below, I have to find out/document exactly what the NU was awarded for. I suspect in this case, that the NU was awarded for combat support, not actual combat. Navy Unit Commendation Awarded by the Secretary of the Navy to any unit the Navy or Marine Corps which has distinguished itself by outstanding heroism in action against the enemy, but not sufficient to justify the award of the Presidential Unit Citation; or to any such unit which has distinguished itself by extremely meritorious service not involving combat but in support of military operations, rendering the unit outstanding compared to other units performing similar service. To justify this award, the unit must have performed service of the character comparable to that which would merit the award of a Silver Star Medal for heroism.

To answer your Question. On the ships I served on-- officers got individual awards, enlisted did not as a general rule. One exception was a "dud man" who was awarded a silver star by a visiting admiral. Vitrually all the individual awards given were originated by someone outside the ship's direct chain of command. Some problems: Example- We were generally not allowed to return fire, since we carried the river rats ammunition as cargo, along with about 100 river rats (boat crews) When we did return fire, usually our rounds went through such things as sampans or light structures, and exploded in the water or sand on the other side. We came under sustained mortar fire while making an amphibious landing and offloading troups at Cau Viet. (The shp's bow is grounded on a sand beach and the bow doors and ramp are open and down.) The mortar fire forced us to pull away from the beach more than once. One LSMR incident was a case of an off shore tin can taking fire from inland in a artillery dual. We pulled in between the tin can and the shore, much closer to the shore than anything else. A spotter gave us fire coords, and we salvoed. No more return fire from inland was the direct result. Basically, a tin can can fire about six or less 5" rounds at a time. Our salvos, about six to ten seconds or so apart, could consist of up to sixteen 5" rockets at a time. And this from a ship that is about half the size of a tin can. The reason I asked was that my 214 shows only a VS with stars. (why?) My records were not updated when I was transferred from one ship to another on very short notice. (Less than 24 hours). Next, late in the same year,I was in a navy hospital in Japan for 31 days, due to an operation and recovery time. Since I was usnr, not usn, I then fell under a mandatory early out program, and was sent from the navy hospital in Japan stateside for early seperation. (18 months + instead of 24) If the combat action ribbon is a qualifying award, then I suppose it's worth the trouble to use the DD 149 to correct my 214, Or submit a copy of the award obtained from whoever has it. (Navy Historical, etc.) Really, this has nothing directly to do with PTSD. Instead, it involves an injury and aggrivation of it. From what I've found out so far, the coreman on the first ship did not transfer ship's sick bay treatment records to the individual's records in a timely manner. The combination of several medical problems, all of which can in theory be service connected, forced me to retire early, at 61, rather than the standard SS retirement age of 67 for my age group. Navy personel generally do not get a CIB, they get a combat ribbon, or other awards. A navy unit commendation may refer to combat actions under fire. A CIB can be awarded if navy sailors are serving as part of a unit that is normally awarded a CIB. It really got messy from a technical standpoint, since the river rats were a multiple service group.

Yes and no-- There is a clause somewhere in the regs that reduces the "burden of proof" for a "combat veteran". Also, since "stress" is a contributing factor in a medical condition's severity, PTSD may come into play before all is said and done. Because of my past profession (Retired now) PTSD was a "don't go there" for many years -- one of the government forms that had to be filled out periodically had a line that asked "Are you now or have you ever consulted a (Mental health professional) or have you been treated by a (mental health professional). Answering yes was an automatic "you no longer meet the qualifications for this or a similar position", and termination.

After suffering thru the Hearing-- http://www.senate.gov/~veterans/index.cfm?...ngs&rID=943 The "top down" view was more than adequately represented. The "bottom up" (Veteran's) side was not. One Senator(From Montana) Did bring up the views of veterans in his state. Unfortunately, that was just the "tip of the iceberg". An example of how the VA might save a heck of a lot of effort and time-- Many of the A O Service Connected problems have multiple effects that are well known to the medical profession, are acknowledged by the government, and documented by medical text books and even the National Institute of Health. Yet, the VA does not automatically consider these effects and the medical treatment for them as service connected, unless the veteran files for them. I contend that once a disease such as Diabetes is servce connected, any reasonable secondary claim for conditions that the medical profession and the NIH considers to be caused or aggravated by diabetes should be automatically covered, and rated according to the severity. Treatment for such conditions should be considered service connected, even though the veteran may not have filed for compensation, or has a claim that has not been decided.