Chuck75

It sounds like you might have reason to file for at least the earlier EDD. On the other hand, the VA may try to say that the claims died with the veteran. I don't think there would be anything to loose by filing an NOD for an earlier EDD, and see what happens.

Amazing! I received a copy yesterday! That makes a total of three since 2005!

Only the VA really might know, if they would answer honestly. I've heard numbers across the board, from the 23% to 83%. It might also depend on how you arrive at the numbers. Count only those cases directly awarded by the BVA? Since remands to the RO are common, this would reduce the numbers rather drastically, since the RO would actually make the award.

Well, the records "cleaup" for paper records didn't do what the VA wanted to do, so, ANOTHER CHANCE to screw things up!

Besides that, Georgia is quite rigid concerning the deadline. A large expensive problem for disabled veterans is created when the VA takes years to decide a claim. There is no way to recoup the property taxes paid for years that retroactive pay covers.

I'm wondering if this is a document that the VA supposedly put out on a quarterly basis for years, and seemingly never did so. (Or, sent copies to a very small number of A/O veterans that were on the VA's books.) Volume 26 implies that there were 26 years of publication, or is totally misleading. (I've had an A/O SC'd "presumptive condition" since a 2005 EDD, and have actually had exactly two copies that I obtained from a VAMC. After all, the more veterans know, the more likely is that they will file additional claims.

"I got a horrible staff infection from a private podiatrist's handiwork" An infection of one kind or another is a fairly common problem with foot surgery of almost any kind. The original surgery, good or not, creates an opening for infection to occur. The foot's environment is a big part of the problem. In the "old days", one of the preventive measures was to use an iodine solution to soak the foot before and after surgery. If the residuals wore off before there was at least a surface healing, infection was a real concern. Antibiotics have lost effectiveness for many things, and staff infections happen to be one.

To Legate Having a degree causes the VA and SSA to often think/say that the applicant can still perform in a sedentary job. Both the VA (usually during a C&P) and SSA (during a claim interview, or on a questionnaire form) ask questions that have multiple possible answers. Some have to do with physical activity, others mental. While there may be no single "correct" answer, there are answers that are more (or less) favorable to the claim. The same job may be classified as sedentary or not, depending on the applicants answers. One of the key questions I remember had to do with ladders on the SSA questionnaire.

Service connection related to exposure to various fuels is always going to be a problem. The reason is simple. A very large number of veterans have exposure of one kind or another, and varying amounts of exposure from minimal to "swimming in it". This alone , to the government, is reason enough to seriously fight over claims. Kerosene, and Diesel fuels, as examples, were commonly used to clean just about anything, from machinery to weapons, so many veterans of all the branches have exposure. More dangerous and volatile chemicals were used in such things as typewriter cleaning spray(of all things), which was used at one time as an electronics equipment cleaner. It contained cancer causing ingredients, and was eventually banned from use. PCB oil was used in transformers and capacitors. The list goes on and on. In order to evade the cost, the government, and in particular, the VA, can be expected to go to greater than normal effort to deny such claims. Translated A VA claim, related to fuel exposure, must clearly meet the VA's requirements for nexus, medical history, medical opinion, and so forth. The chances are that the original claim will be denied, forcing an appeal. Since many veterans, for one reason or another don't appeal, or don't appeal in a timely fashion, the government wins by default!

Remember that to the government, veterans are an "inconvenient" result of war. Disabled veterans are "traditionally" considered as even lower. There's even a poem by a famous English poet that sums up the situation fairly well today as it did when written. Lincoln was sort of the first president to recognize that disabled veterans should be compensated. Last I heard, a few years back, the VA was still paying a small number of Civil War "Widows Benefits". Fancy that! My great grandmother was a small child at the time of the Civil War, and I can also remember (I think) the last civil war veterans deaths. Last Union veteran, Albert Woolson, died 8/2/1956, age 109 Last Confederate veteran, John Salling, died 3/16/1958, age 112 (Arguable as to real status)

I just read a news article concerning the SEAL that supposedly did in OBL. Seems that he has a family with kids, and decided to get out at 16 years, and for valid reasons. No benefits, no witness program protection that he had been offered, etc.

Sadly, the enlistment papers of the Vietnam era and earlier (remember the draft existed at the time) had clauses that allowed the government to unilaterally make major changes (at any time) without the enlistee's consent. This may be the legal basis behind many of the changes that occurred between then and now. I haven't looked at the current enlistment contract, so I have no idea what has changed in modern times.

Interesting. When I turned 62, due to a long standing heart condition (IHD, etc.) I applied for both SSDI and early retirement. The early retirement kicked in as scheduled. Some months later, SSDI awarded, but with the wrong EDD. I went through an administrative process one step short of a formal appeal, and got the EDD changed to six months after I had last worked. That worked out to about as far back as the SSA law allowed. The SSDI documents showed that the medical conditions were "not likely" to improve. Further, The VA's Nehmer review results made the VA 100% rating "P&T" for the IHD alone, and awarded small percentages for other claimed conditions. The results also instructed the VARO that further C&Ps were not needed or desired. The SSA retro was substantial, since it was the difference between full retirement and early retirement for the retro period. When I turned 65, the SSDI converted automatically to "standard" SSA retirement, with no change in the payment amounts.

NPs and PAs are not unusual in the VA outlying clinics. Doctors are few and far between, with one on duty at the most in my area. At one point the clinic even pulled in one of the C&P examiners from the area VAMC (not a doctor), since the doctor had moved and there was no replacement.

The real problem is how to get congress to act to change the laws without getting into party politics or allowing "poison pill" clauses to creep in! Past studies, commissions, and so forth, have made it quite clear that change is needed, and suggested useful changes. Sadly, virtually all of the suggestions/changes have been ignored by both congress and the DVA.

The closer you look at the wheel, the slower it turns. (Esp. when it's being cranked by a bunch of bureaucrats.)

Maybe the VA is hoping that the percentage of death certificates that cite such things as "cardiac arrest" will be ambiguous enough that they can squirm off the hook for widows comp, etc. Remember the way the VA works. To the veteran when it involves compensation, the VA considers the case to require "proof" as if it's the only claim of it;s kind. To the VA side in dealing with the case, it's just another veterans claim, and we need to find all the reasons to deny it, so that we can outweigh and positive evidence the veteran provides.

To me the next thing to do is to get a copy of the VA specialist's diagnosis/notes, etc. If the symptoms were present and listed earlier than you were given an EDD, and there is reason to believe the VA made a legal error, you have a chance. Collect all the information you can get, and see a VA claims lawyer. If the VA had the medical information, failed to diagnose, and that caused you harm, it's possible (not necessairly probable) that you might be able to get something done.

Further, several of the routine medications taken can cause problems with tests that use radioactive dye, and other drugs commonly used when cath based tests are made. Some of the drugs/chemicals used can damage kidneys and the liver if the "routine" medications are not suspended for a period before and after the tests. One of the dyes used until recently, in lieu of iodine based dye, can cause kidney shutdown, and should have only been used once, if at all.

Complete accounting? You have got to be kidding! The fight is still going on about conus locations. Actually, I'd think that the German government's data might be more reliable than anything from our military. How to get it is another story. I have some interest in this, since I was in Germany for about five years, working at a now closed USAFB. I was more worried about depleted Uranium, since we supported A/C that were routinely deploying to and returning from the "sand box". Although the rounds were supposedly not in Germany, there were some, and returning A/C cannon were "decontaminated". The base I worked on is now a civil airfield and an industrial park.

It's that high? From my own experience, the VA often said that the "A/O exam" was no different than the usual VA entrance exam given many veterans when they applied for such things as drug act benefits. I actually was awarded a claim for DMII, based upon A/O presumption, and the VA failed repeatedly to add me (and others) to the A/O "list". At one point, the "local" VAMC had a "person" with a fancy title, that was assigned to be the specialist for such matters, unbeknownst to the person. I had to go to the class action lawyers, and get them to ask the VA why I and thousands of others were not on the list furnished by court order to the Nehmer lawyers. Everyone had hoped that the issue would contribute to a contempt of court citation, but that hasn't happened to date.

One exception might be a Nehmer related award. It might be argued that such an award should require a court review for a significant change.

ChampVA and Tri-Care are separate, with similarities. One area of concern has to do with the forthcoming changes in medical insurance law. This can end up drastically changing things, to the point that someone that was eligible for ChampVA, but elected to not take it due to various reasons, may see the reasons go away, and not be able to reverse the decision. I believe such a change in insurance law should also allow a "second chance" in such cases.

I'd second the statement that the VA considers the whole claim as subject to review. It's a pity that the review usually seems to extend only to things that the VA thinks it might be able to reduce. There are things about this that look to be extremely "one sided" and so forth. I'd take the stand that previously denied conditions should be included as well in a review.