Chuck75

Yes you can apply for SSDI. However, the requirements are that you are totally disabled, not 50%. This would require a determination by SSA that you are totally disabled. Without knowing how and by who you are 50% disabled, I have no idea as to your chances of success.

Even with a favorable C&P, the VA claim delays can cause the C&P to "age out". Current medical evidence of a condition and it's severity is a plus, even though it might come from outside VA medical treatment or diagnosis.

Although a "feet on ground" Navy Vietnam veteran, I have every reason to believe that my A/O(Dioxin) exposure, along with thousands of other far east navy veterans, began before we ever left the US for duty overseas. As part of the preparation for going on active duty in the far east for shipboard duty, the majority of navy junior enlisted personnel were sent to a "fire fighting school" for refresher training. The Navy base at Treasure Island CA. was just one of several bases used for processing sailors for overseas duty. The EPA records show this base as a "Cleaned Up" "Super Fund" site, with Dioxin contamination of the fire fighting school. The Dioxin was evidently a contaminant of the various flammable liquids used to fuel fires and generate smoke for the training. As a result, a great number of navy veterans serving anywhere in the far east were likely exposed to Dioxin, even if they never went anywhere near Vietnam or other locations where A/O was used. (Excuse any spelling errors, the checker is on the fritz again. This started with Firefox 9.01 and the recent website updates.)

Chances are that those jobs did not result in SSA "contributions" and credit. So they should be a non player for anything but a VA pension related calculation. If there are no records, there are no records, and nothing to mention. Since you are already rated for PTSD, the in service info should have already been considered (rightly or wrongly). This leaves current evidence that the condition has become worse. Getting this changed can be difficult, unless errors were made that reach the level of "CUE". Given the very recent Appeals Court ruling, it looks like you will need to get or have supporting evidence in your file, and then undergo another C&P for PTSD.

Getting Atlanta to do anything seems to take more time than it should. I'd guess that six months or so after October, you might see something other than the greem card. There is a concern that what you sent in might have been lost. Supposedly, you can ask the VA to confirm that they received something from you. I've had very mixed results doing this. It also seems that Atlanta's updating of the electronic records leaves a great deal to be desired. It's interesting that it can take seemingly months for an RO to get hands on a veteran's file, and the VARO's in house lawyers can (if they so choose) get hands on in a matter of minutes, while a veteran or legal representative (lawyer) is waiting on a phone.

In my experience, the VA intentionally ignores "pre-diabetes", and has done so for quite a long time. The reasons are obvious, since by the DOD/VA treatment documents, it may exist ten or more years before the formal diagnostic level is reached. Further, during this time frame, other serious conditions, such as heart conditions (IHD, etc.) can develop or become more severe as a result of the undiagnosed diabetes. It's also true that many VA practitioners have evidently had the "FOG" treatment in relation to what they may or may not say or write that would be in a veterans favor. This seems to trump any of the written guidance. Given the situation, there is no practical way (nor would I want to) force a VA practitioner to write something that they do not want to write. The only thing I can see to do is to file an NOD as soon as possible. It may very well be necessary to obtain qualified legal representation.

The list and the VA still do not recognize ships that were known to be in such places as Da Nang, and Cam Ranh Bay, and although not at a pier or dock, did use raw seawater or a mixture of seawater and runoff fresh water as feed water for the evaporators.

Forgetting about any possible regulations, and other issues - - It depends on the examiner! The examiner may or may not look at, or may or may not accept any evidence, or may or may not note the evidence in the exam report. The examiner may or may not have even looked at the existing medical records. It's not uncommon for the examiner to "shortcut" the requirements of a specific exam. It's not uncommon for an examiner to make an unsupported and incomplete exam report. Examiners stay examiners and get raises based upon the VA's ideas, not what might be correct, fair or reasonable. An example is an examiner saying that HBP is "essential", rather than saying "It's as likely as not" that the HBP is connected as secondary to an SC-able condition, even when current medical practice and references relate it to the condition. With that said - - If you have recent medical evidence that is indicative of the current severity of a condition, by all means make it available to the examiner. In many cases, the examiner is less qualified than the source of the medical evidence. IE specialist's diagnosis vs a NP examiner's opinon. A VA RO may take the less qualified examiner's opinion as gospel when it allows a denial. Appeals generally accept the most qualified doctor's records and diagnosis. Parts of a Nehmer ruling on my case actually (but indirectly) cited mistakes made by the RO in a previous denial.

The VA "should have" also considered the depression as secondary. If there was no mention, then you have to assume that it was denied, and proceed with an NOD. Or, since it was a very recent decision, ask for reconsideration and a hearing. Each path has it's pecularities. If there is medical evidence of treatment, or other evidence of depression, the VA should have scheduled a C&P exam. Since they did not, it's obvious to me that there are serious problems in the denial. The NOD, when an obvious error is evident, can generate (at the VA's discretion), an administrative action that resolves the issue. The reconsideration can do the same thing, but may result in a later EDD, as the VA often treats it as a "new claim". If the VA elects to let the NOD follow the standard path, it may take a long time to resove via the BVA, etc.

After updating to the lastest and greatest firefox version, I noticed that the spelling checker was not working in this forum. Since this also concided with forum changes, etc. I wrote the problem off for a time. This evening, I noticed that the spelling checker was not working at all. The cure seems to be to use firefox, download and install the english spelling checker add on, and, naturally restart firefox.

I recently noted an additional downloadable document in the E benefits letters section. This is intended to aid in application for benefits, and, in summary says P&T for comp & benefits when the veteran is entitled. It does not mention the monthly amount paid the veteran, as similar previous letter documents did.

CAD no. Blood pressure, possibly related to CAD, might be possible, ask a physician. Phlebitius (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002098/) maybe. There also may be a relationship to some causes of CAD. Again, ask a physician, preferably an endocrinologist.

I generally agree that a veteran should file as soon as possible. But if there is a "simple" claim in the works, and it involves a significant rating, the additional claim can delay things. There is law and precedence that may, under a combination of things even take the additional claim back to the EDD of the first approved claim. (Such things as are the claims related, was there evidence in the file at the time of the first claim, etc., did the VA fail to take notice of the other evidence, etc.)

"Getting them to actually PAY is hard work" I believe it's worse than that! As far as I can tell, the long standing restrictions are still in place, and will continue to be until Congress makes significant changes in the laws. Any insurance (private, group, medicare) pays first, and may leave the veteran with deductibles and co-pay due in the event of urgent or emergency care, VA payments or not. At least Medicare does impose some limits on hospital charges. The VA's definition of reasonable and prompt access to VA facilities and "qualified" and competent help may be quite different that that of the overall medical community. The last time I got involved with this, The local VA clinic PCP was running late, the waiting room was full of scheduled appointments, and I was told that it might be up to several hours before a referral to local medical facilities or the VAMC might be made after the VA PCP had a look. This involved an infection that was spreading, and had the potential to penetrate into the brain or cardiovascular system. Had I waited, there was a strong possibility that effective/proper treatment would not be available until the next day. I ended up seeing my private PCP, and then a full blown oral surgeon recommended by my cardiologist. The surgeon took one look, drained a pocket of infection, and then pulled two teeth, It turned out that a tooth had abscessed, (with no localized pain, of all things), and the infection had traveled well into the facial and sinus areas. The VAMC has one dentist, who is not qualified as an oral surgeon. The VAMC dental department was called, and refused authorization. Since my wife's insurance also covered dental, even with authorization and VA payment, I still would have paid the same deductible and co-pay that I paid. In my area, I'd have to drive to the VAMC about 50-60 miles away, be told that they don't have the capability (lack of specialists, etc., and necessary drugs) be transferred back to a regional medical center about 20 miles in another direction (50-60 back plus 20) , and then be stuck with the same expenses as if I went to the regional center in the first place, assuming I survived the delay. Forget VAMC approval by phone, as either no one is "authorized" or those authorized are "unavailable" during the usual inconvenient times that emergencies occur. Even after "authorization", the VAMC may still refuse to pay. Post emergency approval is almost unheard of without a major hassle, the last thing a veteran with a serious medical condition, or for that matter, the veterans family needs to be involved in. To me, access to true emergency or acute care is governed by the "golden time", usually one hour or less for the kinds of life threatening events that I might expect to experience as a result of service connected conditions. For example, a VA emergency room in a VAMC that doesn't even have an interventional cardiologist on staff, or emergency open heart surgery capability is not a facility of choice. All they might be able to do is use "TCB" if they have it, and are qualified to even use it. The capability I mentioned is partially available at my local community hospital, in that "interventional emergency treatment" by a cardiologist, followed by transfer to the regional center is possible. The VAMC involved will not usually preapprove expenses, and follow through with reasonably prompt payment, unless a veteran is destitute, and carries the "fee paid" card, or politicians and the news media get involved.

$29.95 is not free!

E Benefits usually shows the "appeal is possible" statement, based upon a decision date. When somebody figures out what a development letter is supposed to say, please give us some info. I'd bet that is is one of the classic VA letters that the VA sends to fill a legal requirement, and does not really help a veteran much if at all.

Expediency really dictates that the first claim be kept simple, If a veteran wants it to be promptly (for the VA anyway) decided and hopefully awarded. The VA on the other hand, will say that all details and possible conditions related to military service should be claimed at one time. This does have a basis in law. The VA logic (excuse?) is that the system then only has to deal with a single pass through, rather than multiple. Nothing is farther from the truth, since a deferred decision means that another pass is going to be needed. Indeed, each pass through the system increases the chance that records will be compromized as more and more hands touch them. What gets me is the typical C&P scheduling for a single condition, when multiple one are claimed and present. The VA has been known to then say that because the C&P did not address others, they don't exist, ignore them completely, or that additional evidence is needed. If a condition is omitted from an otherwise favorable decision, it is deemed denied. The only conclusion that can be drawn, other than the VA C&P system is a total disaster, is that it's an intentional effort to minimize awards. The question then becomes more serious, in that it can easily result in defrauding veterans of benefits that they are entitled to. If intentional, this is a crime, just as false claims can be a crime.

The VA has been very "sticky" when it comes to non vietnam A/O exposure. The EPA superfund site information (Web searches) may be the best place to start. Then, you would have to convince the VA that actual exposure occurred. Finally, An independent medical opinion (IMO) would be needed to associate the A/O exposure with the appropriate medical conditions. An example of a superfund site is the closed navy base at Treasure Island CA. The fire fighting school used oil and other inflammable liquids to generate fire and smoke, and the fire fighting trainees then went through the smoke, sometimes in enclosed spaces, and put the fires out. Due to dioxin contamination in the oil and flammable liquids, the fire fighting school site is listed as having been contaminated by dioxin. The VA will fight "tooth and nail" to avoid service connecting A/O presumptives based upon exposure at treasure island. Why? For one thing, over 50% of the "nonrated" sailors going to the far east were sent through the school, so the potential liability is extreme, and extends to those that never set foot in Vietnam. Next, the VA traditionally has fought cases involving A/O use and exposure in countries/locations other than Vietnam.

Depending on the exact location in Vietnam (and elsewhere) - - Ships took on fresh water from "the pier" or from tank trucks and barges, or even from other vessels. In some locations, the water was too polluted to cycle through the ship's evaporators and drinking water systems. A ship might shut down the evaporators until it returned to "clean" seawater. River water, as an example, was pumped into a convenient void, left to have the muck settle out, then pumped through a filter before it reached the evaporator system. Destroyers were steam turbine powered, had large evaporators, and used quite a bit of distilled water to go from place to place. Thats why a relatively small number were actually used in "inland waters". The riverwater could clog the evaporators to the point that they had to be disassembled and cleaned out, tube by tube. (Usually a major shipyard job)

That's somewhat typical. You will need to get a doctor to associate the HBP with your diabetes in writing, assuming that the diabetes is service connectable. In addition, you can write a letter (Send certified or registered, return receipt) stating your concern over the "incomplete" C&P exam, and if you so choose, request another by a different examiner. Was the C&P given by the usual NP or PA, or by a "real" doctor? In any event, you likely face a denial, in part due to the incomplete C&P exam, unless there is another SC-able condition that can be related to HBP. The HBP hassle is nothing new, the VA for years has tried different subtrifuges to avoid SC'ing HBP. A common one is calling it "essential" which means literally "of itself", and in actual fact "cause unknown".

The first thing to do is find out if a drug is on the VA's pharmicopia list. If so, then it's possible to have it prescribed. If not, you would have to get a VA physician to "jump through hoops" in order to get the VA to provide it. The VA is obgliated to provide pharmacopia drugs under the veterans drug act. (Something in the new forum software has killed my spelling checker!)

This is the statement that the VA usually uses, along with the 10%, regardless of what B/P is without drugs. "Diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or; minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control---- 10%"

Why do you think that the VA was among the first of government agencies to start strict security practices concerning non employees? (Of course they know who they are aggrivating) Many years ago, I was given "free access" to the VA's Chicago area RO when I was trying to deal with an education related problem. (Why?) At the time, I was working at the sole "defense plant" in the area, and showed up in a suit, with all the badges, trappings, etc. Seems that earlier I had gone to a formal meeting at the plant, and that required wearing all the whistles and bells. (Suit, Military A/C tie tac, flag lapel pin, ID badge etc.) It was kind of interesting, in that I left the VARO with a hand signed "certificate" instead of the computer generated one that gets mailed whenever the VA gets around to it.

I'd agree that the VA PTSD 30% rating is low. First things first, though is to deal with the SSA exam. As soon as that is dealt with - - -, It's possible that recent PTSD related class action may have an impact on the 30% rating. It sounds like advice, etc. from a VA case qualified lawyer may be the next step.

Dealing with the government is scary for anyone! To me, the most important thing is make sure that you have evidence of continuing treatment for those problems that make you unemployable, and that that evidence is part of your record. Did SSA send a letter request for additional info, or just a notice of a pending exam?. It might be a very good idea to have a copy of the latest treatment records, etc. when you go to the exam. I've never heard of a court order making you unemployable, although that is interesting. What kind of court made the ruling or order? (local, state, federal?)