Chuck75

How many veteran's claims have been delayed or denied in a similar fashion? One of the major reasons used by the VA to deny many past claims was based upon "not duty related". There is no justification for this type of denial when the claim originated from an in-service event, and mis-conduct was never alleged. It's really a case of the VA using delay, "divide and conquer", and other tactics to deny valid claims anyway they can think of. I believe that the "systemic" bias to deny cries for serious change. It plainly does not meet the intent of Congress, and the letter of the law. A denial should be more difficult to obtain when -- There is at least as likely as not present, based upon evidence. Negative or no evidence is used to totally offset positive evidence. When "lack of evidence" exists - - Is a government or DOD action (or lack of action) responsible? If so, this should be counted for the veteran's claim, not against. And so on.

I worked in and with a USAF major logistics facility for over 20 years. A major ongoing effort was to digitize the mountains of documents, drawings, Technical Orders, etc. It was amusing because there were different standards at different times, incompatible file formats, almost unreadable microfiche records and so forth that had to be dealt with. Some of the documentation went back to the post WWII era in the late 40's. The effort is still ongoing, and new documents have to be added on a daily basis. Fortunately, the majority are now delivered in digital format, and the equipment used is much better and more efficient than it was in past decades. What scares the heck outta me is that an effort to digitize a veteran's VA records can easily suffer from the same problems, in that original pages that are old or barely legible to the eye may not digitize. The urge for speed usually ends up with a blank copy of such pages. (There are several such pages in my file. fortunately, I have a copy of many, and others are redundant for the claims process.) Next, records that are inaccurate, not even the veteran's, and so forth can end up being digitized. Once digitized, the opportunity to correct errors and the complexity of doing so is even worse than it is now. As to the manpower - - - The VA created an extremely inefficient and time eating bureaucratic system. Regardless of the reasons, it has resulted in totally unacceptable results, be it claims delays, not responding to veteran's needs, undeserved bonuses, poor condition of reusable medical items, or even the basic "it's easier to deny than award" mentality and system. While I can sympathize with a VA worker to some extent, I cannot but vehemently object to the VA "system" used in the claims process. I would have to say that the whole claims process needs to be turned over to something like SSA. (And I'm not a fan of the SSA claims process either.) (And, I wont even get into a current "hot topic" that is the result of the VA's fiduciary program.) As to the VA websites in general, they are among the worst I've had to deal with. Far to many links are broken, documents seem to migrate or even disappear, often seemingly without rhyme or reason. Web document references to other web references are seldom updated. A government organization that has nothing to hide has no reason to do such things. To many documents reference other documents that are supposedly in (By Law) public domain, yet the copy is at VA internal use only web locations.

In 2002, the VA evidently used the same exam for entrance & A.O. The exam supposedly had some place on it that noted if the veteran was potentially exposed to A.O. The service records (that I gave them copies of) showed Vietnam service. But, since I was in the Navy, (Brown & Blue) who knows what they really did. At the time, I was applying for drug coverage due to the number of drugs I was taking for heart problems. Had I known then what I know now - - - (And to think that I might been eligible for retro back to the time of open heart surgery in the 80's had I but known then what to do.) Fast tracked or not, the VA is obligated by court order to submit a list of potential Nehmer veterans to the class action lawyers. They have (voice conversation) told me that the list they have is questionable as to it's completeness, and are actively asking that any Nehmer veterans who suspect they were not included contact them. (Evidence of VA non compliance)

The VA's handling of claims has got to be the best example of fraud, waste and abuse that I've ever run across. That said, please consider this - - A "broken system" such as the VA's seldom if ever works in any logical fashion, and becomes a massive time and money sink. Who benefits? It's not (obviously) the veteran or the veteran's dependents. It's not the government in general, because the cost of administering veteran's benefits is significantly increased. It's certainly not the taxpayers, or the politicians, because money is wasted that might be put to better use elsewhere. Who Benefits? The VA's bureaucracy, that's who! How? Justification for unending increases in the size of the administrative work force. This means more money for those in management, more management positions, more management bonuses, more employees under management, and do to sheer size, more opportunity to take advantage of the loopholes in such a system. To answer your question, a "hardship" status supposedly decreases the time to get a claim through the system. But, (and it's a biggie) The VA bureaucratic system has a large number of conflicting goals and priorities. Some are such things as multiple groups that by law, regulation, or VA internal practice, are given "priority". If you were to try and form a logical idea of how a particular claim should be prioritized-- you would need to consider such things as - - Hardship Member of group given priority besides hardship (Certain "combat" veterans) Member of group given priority by court order (Nehmer as an example) Political involvement. Political inquiry with response dates required, etc. Size of potential award. (Seems to be an internal VA thing involving extra steps in process) Percentage assigned by compensation schedule - - Besides higher compensation, higher percentages can require the VA to do such things as eliminate "co-pay", and provide additional compensation beyond the basic schedular amount. Amount of time the claim has been in the system. Obviously, the VA has it's own unique ways of setting priority. One "proven" big one is that a "simple" uncomplicated claim involving 10-20% may make it "out the door" in a few weeks or months, regardless of any other considerations. This is why many VSO's advocate filing a simple claim to get a veteran "in the system" as quickly as possible.

Worse, it seems the VA can ignore court determinations of competency, and court assignment of a fiduciary. This is hardly "due process". It's past time that this issue is given the attention in both the courts and congress that it cries for.

Personal opinion only - - - If a VA document, such as a C&P report is in obvious error, and contradicts opinions by more medically qualified specialists, I'd certainly write a letter explaining the problem, and in your case, request a new C&P by a different examiner. VA medical records can be just as bad, and for instance, contain mention of such things as referrals that were never made, or mentioned to the veteran, to name just one. A C&P exam that was never done may have a completed C&P form in a veterans file that totally contradicts the actual medical and service records. An RO may see this, and immediately stop claim processing. At least the your letter "should be on file" when and if you need to appeal.

It's really hard to guess, since the VA is consistent in it's inconsistency. Supposedly, there are multiple paths that a claim might go through. Nehmer is just one path. PTSD likely is another. Recent claims from the current conflicts are also supposedly placed first on the priority list. Us Vietnam vets with older claims that have been screwed up by the VA usually get pushed to the bottom. One way the VA has done this to Vietnam veterans is to not place Nehmer claim veterans on the "official" Nehmer list that the VA furnishes to NVLSP. Another one seems to be to treat an appeal of a non Nehmer claim as preempting an earlier or co existent Nehmer claim. It seems that the type of claim involved in the "preempting" is likely a claim involving a percentage rating, and may be a low rating, such as 10%, and usually less than 50%. The "hung up" Nehmer claim may be a scheduler 100% claim with additional special schedule compensation also applicable.

"More likely than not" would have been better. On the other hand, "At least as likely as not" is supposedly enough. RO's tend to deny valid claims. Remember that the default on the form letters is often "Denied". You obviously are going to need to "NOD" the denial, and likely file a "substantive" appeal, unless you can get the VA to admit to and correct "administrative error. This might occur when the language is positive, yet the final statement is "denied". I doubt that the language in the denial is of much help at this point, since they tend to be cut and paste, and seldom contain specific tailored reasons why the claim was denied. Another thought is that RO's tend to pick apart or ignore positive evidence, and emphasize any remotely negative evidence or lack of evidence. Out of curiosity, if you are comfortable saying so, what VARO and VAMC was involved?

The Nehmer Lawsuit and court orders had/has this requirement. The VA (at least on the surface) ignored it by processing non Nehmer and other A.O. related claims before the Nehmer claims. I believe the NLSVP? is the class action lawyer, and likely raised the issue, due to the VA's recent actions with the new presumptive conditions. From what I've personally experienced, the VA was/is doing it's usual practice of placing simple claims in front of the older Nehmer claims for the same presumptive conditions. In addition, the older claims often contain some VA paperwork that is obviously incorrect, and the result of default settings in various VA fillout documents/form letters, etc. Some of these documents can result in an RO "read no further" decision, and a resulting improper denial. (The language "do not develop" is one of the many flags.) Remember that the VA is a very bureaucratic entity, and bureaucrats have overwhelming tendencies to do things in certain ways. If a hundred cases fall under the court ruling, ten thousand cases might be delayed, even though there is no logical or rational reason to do so. (You want us to do this, we were doing that, so we will only do this. -- and ignore the fact that we can do both.) There are a few practical reasons, such as the requirement to determine the cases involved, find the case files and separate them for Nehmer processing. Actually, this should have been easy to do if the VA had done what it claimed it did some time ago.. "there is some lawsuit against the VA that is mandating all of the claims in it be processed" There is also an issue that many A.O. veterans should be and are not listed by the VA as Nehmer class members. You should also remember that the VA often tells the veteran one thing, and does another.

if you are employed full time, that will likely adversely impact any rating. The doctor saying that you cannot handle your own finances, as opposed to rather not handle finances, is both a plus for a rating, and a minus in that the VA may want to "appoint" a fiduciary. The VA appointment of a fiduciary can open up a really big can of worms, and should be avoided if at all possible.

Was the same ARNP used for multiple C&Ps covering the same conditions? (That's actually a technical no no!) Do you have any medical evidence that shows the ARNP was in error? or failed to consider existing evidence? Do you have IMOs from board certified (in the appropriate specialties) doctors? (It sounds like you might need them.) It will likely take an expert to judge if you have cause for CUE.

You certainly can give them a release. But they should understand that you have a private lawyer representing you. If I remember correctly, the NVLSP is the designated consul for the Nehmer suit. They are vitally interested in collecting violations of the court orders. In my opinion, the recent "fast track' and other VA actions actually violate the court orders by giving non Nehmer cases precedence. The longer your case drags on, the greater the rewards are for your lawyer, since the lawyer gets ~20% of retro payment.

The Da Nang bay is actually quite large. Ships anchored in the outer portions of the harbor, (Large ships, ships waiting for pier space, etc.) were at sort of one A.O. hazard level. Ships at the docks/piers, or ships such as LST's using the river LST ramp were at greater hazard for A.O. exposure. The river carried runoff containing A O, along with massive organic contamination from raw sewerage. The large USAFB had a fair amount of runoff, and used A.O. to control vegetation. It might be argued that the EPA standards are 0% for dioxin, and the fact that ships of the time were not capable of removing dioxin from distilled fresh water are factors. In addition, the fresh water tanks usually were lined to prevent rust and so forth, and the lining material helped concentrate the dioxin. All that aside, it's obvious that the VA has /had decided to take a position that is not rational in light of what is known now, and, like many government bureaucratic entities, will not change until they get hammered. (Politically, in court, or by public opinion. At one point the VA was saying that docking was not enough, and a sailor had to somehow prove the fact that he/she actually went ashore. Evidence of shore docking can usually be obtained by getting copies of the ship's logs. It is important to know the exact dates to reduce the search effort time and cost. Most of the Vietnam era logs were still on microfilm, and had not been digitized the last time I got involved. It's a pity that the ship in question did not carry an LCVP as the ships boat, since certain kinds of boats are on the "brown water" list.

This is interesting, in that code 9411 is listed twice. I'd almost bet that this, according to the VA, will be considered a duplication, and not considered as separate items. (Bi-laterals, on the other hand, get the additional factor added.) I'd look at the alcoholism as secondary to PTSD, with it's own code.

"We docked in Cam Rahn Bay" The key here is docked. Anchored in the bay is not considered. VA RO's tend to ignore the difference. Typically, the VA wants "feet on ground". Perhaps you might have sent a postcard to someone from the Navy facility? Or have a receipt from the exchange for a camera? At one point, we had similar problems, even with a letter from the captain of the ship I was assigned to. Finally, after a lot of hassle, The VA recognized both ships I served on as "Brown Water" vessels. The VA plays similar games with the harbor at Da Nang. Even with a court case or two that went in favor of A.O. claims. The last I heard, the VA was still fighting about large ships, such as cruisers that provided fire support in Da Nang harbor.

What gets me about TDIU - - - A veteran, according to SSA, is totally disabled and unable to work. The SSA determination is based totally on now AO presumptive conditions, and was awarded prior to any VA claim award. The VA awards in part, and denies in part, without considering or even mentioning TDIU prior to the latest round of additional presumptives. The SSA records are in the VA "C" file, and "constructive custody" applies anyway, since they are SSA records. The remainder of the denied claim is a Nehmer Class claim, and thus a review and appeal under Nehmer is required.

What happens is anybody's guess, since the VA has been known to screw things up, and not give the veteran enough detail to make the screwup obvious. I'd try to determine - - What the total VA compensation at the lower rate has been paid. What should the VA compensation have been if paid at the new retroactive rate. (Remember to account for annual changes, etc.) Subtract the former from the latter to determine the correct retro due. Make sure that the new compensation is at the correct rate.

Phone based VA Query answers are not to be trusted. There is an IRIS Email query system that is a bit better, since it creates real records. Perhaps the major problems with IRIS involve people that are usually not at the VA center/VARO you deal with, and,, from what I've experienced, many don't know all the ends and outs of the VA's computer databases. This problem extends to at least the VAMC I deal with, in that those who respond to phone queries from veterans have similar problems with the VAMC databases and access. "I didn't know that screen was there" was one remark that I overheard.

Actually, with headaches and HBP, I'd want to be darn sure that the cause was found. The two together can be a symptom of an even more serious medical problem. That aside, you can try to get the HBP SC'd. A good medical opinion will be needed that links the headaches and HBP.

Actually, there is a possible incentive. Even Pro Bono can be reimbursed by the government when the client has an income under a specific amount. (More than I ever made!)

The VA letter can be useful, I'd agree. Those who served on older navy ships have a probability of exposure that is greater than it would be on the newer ships. Ships built or in service into the 1970's still had asbestos insulation in some areas where nothing else would work, or, where it was judged to be less than a major hazard. Ships in service during the Vietnam war had a much higher asbestos content, and were the subject of early remedial efforts, usually in the latter 1960's. Something that I noticed was somewhat amusing to me. My Navy Vietnam era specialty was ET. I worked on almost all shipboard electronic equipment, including Sonar. Yet, the ET rating was shown as probable, and the Sonar Tech rating was higher yet. In truth, anyone on an older ship was likely to be exposed to asbestos, simply because the ship's ventilation systems were not designed to filter it out, and there were large amounts of asbestos present in various types of insulation. The constant vibration breaks down asbestos fibers, and eventually the particles end up in the air. Ships that fired "guns" had a shock factor added to the vibration that greatly increased the problem. Not to mention that enclosed gun turrets had a fair amount of asbestos inside the turret.

Insurance, regardless of where from, seems to be less than desired. Do you need something besides CHAMPVA? My opinion would be yes. The whys are two numerous to get into. That aside, cost of any insurance is a major factor, as is a problem when you drop conventional insurance. Often, those of us that have disabling conditions are not "eligible" for individual insurance, or the cost goes out of sight. Group insurance can be lost completely if it is discontinued. (If I drop coverage via my wife's group insurance, it's gone forever.) Ultimately, a decsion must be based upon cost, availability of providers (can be a problem with CHAMPVA and even TRICARE) and personal/family medical history.

It would depend on more than one thing. There is additional compensation for a catastrophically disabled veteran. Chances are that the VA has ignored it completely, even though they are supposedly required to consider it. The hassle might outweigh the additional benefit. I believe it involves having 100% and at least 60% of other compensatible disabling problems.

Told by who? The VA? If so, I'd suggest that you should consider getting another opinion, and if possible, a workup by and at a recognized heart center.

Very true. CAD can lead to ischemic heart disease, but is not IHD. IHD is basically a certain type of damage to the heart, usually caused by a restricted blood supply to specific areas of the heart. A chemical stress test with the appropriate monitoring equipment clearly shows how the heart is malfunctioning, and the presence of IHD.