free_spirit_etc

Do you have a claim for PTSD? If not, you might want to add that to your claim.

Should I cancel or stop my claim in order to return to AD or joining the reserves? Is there a penalty for doing so? Will I be able to resubmit my claim in case I don't get approved to return to AD or joining the reserve? If you submit a claim within a year of discharge, the effective date of any benefits granted should be the day after you left the service. If you submit a claim more than a year after discharge, the effective date will generally be the day you submitted the claim (or the date entitlement rose, if that is later).

R3dneck, I would suggest you file to re-open - as you now have new and material evidence concerning your PTSD claim. Your first rule of order is getting the condition SCed, as well as getting appropriate treatment. In the meantime, you can certainly work on looking up information to see if you can be granted an earlier effective date on your claim. So say, you file this month -- and are granted the benefit effective November 2013, there might be something in your records that will help you get an earlier effective date. I am not seeing a definite CUE at the moment. But that doesn't mean there isn't one. But you can always bring a CUE up later, if you have evidence to support it. But the CUE would have to be that the RO made a clearly erroneous decision based on the evidence in the record. So - I would suggest that you re-open your claim now. You have plenty of time to argue an earlier effective date or CUE later. As you have a diagnosis of PTSD by a VA psychologist, getting SC shouldn't be difficult as long as they connect it to your service. Do you have a copy of your C-file? Exam reports? Etc. You won't need those to file the claim. But you will want to get a copy of everything for your records.

I am thinking filing the formal claim within a few months of the date of the exam should be covered under C.F.R. § 3.157(b)(1) - for setting the date of the claim at the date of the exam that found the cancer. What date did the VA give you as the effective date of the claim? (1) Report of examination or hospitalization by Department of Veterans Affairs or uniformed services. The date of outpatient or hospital examination or date of admission to a VA or uniformed services hospital will be accepted as the date of receipt of a claim. The date of a uniformed service examination which is the basis for granting severance pay to a former member of the Armed Forces on the temporary disability retired list will be accepted as the date of receipt of claim. The date of admission to a non-VA hospital where a veteran was maintained at VA expense will be accepted as the date of receipt of a claim, if VA maintenance was previously authorized; but if VA maintenance was authorized subsequent to admission, the date VA received notice of admission will be accepted. The provisions of this paragraph apply only when such reports relate to examination or treatment of a disability for which service-connection has previously been established or when a claim specifying the benefit sought is received within one year from the date of such examination, treatment or hospital admission.

Did you have a VSO with this claim?

http://www.va.gov/vetapp03/Files/0317038.txt Citation Nr: 0317038 Decision Date: 07/22/03 Archive Date: 07/31/03 DOCKET NO. 00-19 727 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to an effective date prior to August 29, 1997 for a grant of service connection for numbness of the fingers of the left hand diagnosed as cubital tunnel syndrome of the left wrist. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Kelli A. Kordich, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1987 to January 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 1999 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana, which granted service connection for cubital tunnel syndrome, left wrist, and assigned an evaluation of 20 percent effective August 29, 1997. In an order issued January 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) vacated the Board's decision to the extent that it failed to discuss the 1995 C & P examination report and the extent this report could be considered an informal claim to reopen. Therefore, the statement of reasons or bases for the Board's conclusion that "there were no informal claims filed" is inadequate to "facilitate judicial review" citing Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990), and the decision of the Board was vacated and remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran filed a claim for service connection for numbness of the fingers of the left hand in February 1991. 2. A Board decision dated March 1995 denied the veteran's claim for service connection for numbness of the fingers of the left hand. 3. When examined at a VA facility on July 12, 1995, the veteran reported left hand numbness; this statement is an informal request to reopen the claim of service connection for numbness of the fingers of the left hand, diagnosed as cubital tunnel syndrome of the left wrist 4. A physician's report dated in 1998 and VA examination reports dated in 1998 and 1999 were added to the record; these reports constituted new and material evidence warranting reopening of the claim for service connection for numbness of the fingers of the left hand. 5. In a December 1999 rating decision, the RO resolved the veteran's claim of service connection for numbness of the fingers of the left hand by granting service connection for cubital tunnel syndrome. CONCLUSION OF LAW The requirements for an effective date of July 12, 1995, for the grant of service connection for cubital tunnel syndrome have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5107, 5110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155, 3.157, 3.400(q) (2002). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran filed his original claim in February 1991. His claim was denied by a June 1991 rating decision. He was notified of the decision and his appellate rights by RO letter dated in July 1991. The veteran appealed this decision. The Board, in a March 1995 decision, found that the veteran's claim was not well grounded. The veteran did not appeal the Board's decision. The veteran had a VA examination on July 12, 1995. According to the report of the examination, the veteran reported that his left hand was numb, and he had left shoulder pain with abduction. On August 29, 1997, the veteran requested that his claim for service connection for numbness of the fingers of the left hand diagnosed as cubital tunnel syndrome of the left wrist be reopened. A December 1999 rating decision granted service connection for cubital tunnel syndrome and assigned a 20 percent evaluation effective August 29, 1997. The veteran appealed the assigned effective date for the grant of service connection. In two January 1999 letters addressed to the veteran's Senators, the veteran indicated that he began the appeal process at his RO by filling out a VA Form 9 to be "hand carried to the VA office down the hall." In an October 1999 letter from the veteran to the editor of the Indianapolis Star Newspaper, he indicated that soon after he received the March 1995 Board decision, he went to his representative and filled out the necessary paperwork to appeal the adverse decision. He further indicated that his appeal was lost. In his November 2000 RO hearing, he testified that in April 1995 he took time out of class and initiated an appeal of the March 1995 Board decision. Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim or a claim reopened after final disallowance, will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran shall be the day following the date of discharge or release if application is received within one year from such date of discharge or release. Otherwise, when disability compensation is granted when new and material evidence is received after a final disallowance, the effective date will be the date of receipt of claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110 (a), (b) (1), (i); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (q) (1) (ii), ®. Any communication from or action by a veteran indicating an intent to apply for a benefit under laws administered by VA may be considered an informal claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. A report of examination or hospitalization will be accepted as an informal claim for benefits if the report relates to a disability which may establish entitlement, but only in a claim for increase or to reopen. 38 C.F.R. § 3.157. In the present case, the veteran's claim for numbness of the fingers of the left hand was denied by a Board decision in March 1995. At his July 12, 1995, VA examination, the veteran reported that his left hand was numb. Under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.157, reports of a VA examination may be accepted as an informal request to reopen a claim for service connection. Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244 (2002). It is found that the veteran's report of numbness in his left hand at his July 12, 1995, VA examination is an informal request to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for numbness of the fingers of the left hand diagnosed as cubital tunnel syndrome of the left wrist. Under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155, if an informal claim results in a grant of benefits, the date of the informal claim will be taken as the date of claim for purposes of establishing an effective date. Therefore, entitlement to an effective date of July 12, 1995, for the grant of service connection for cubital tunnel syndrome of the left wrist is granted. The veteran contends that an effective date earlier than 1995 is warranted. However, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decision of March 1995 was not appealed. The veteran states that he took steps to appeal the March 1995 decision, but the record is devoid of documentary evidence of a request for reconsideration filed with the Board of Veterans' Appeals or a Notice of Appeal filed with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Furthermore, the veteran's allegation that his service representative should have initiated the appellate process does not state a viable basis for overcoming the finality of the Board's decision. If the veteran in fact gave information or documents to the service representative, they were not forwarded to VA or to the Court. Because the service representative is not a VA employee, furnishing such documents or information to the service representative, without direct contact with VA or the Court, cannot serve as a request for reconsideration or a notice of appeal. Under the applicable effective date provisions, the effective date cannot be earlier than the date of the first claim after the Board denial of March 1995. As has been noted by the Court, a VA examination report can serve as an informal claim for either an increased rating or a request to reopen a claim, but, once the informal claim is accepted, the effective dates for a reopened claim must be established under regulatory provisions that are different from the provisions applicable to increased ratings. Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244 (2002). Under the provisions applicable to requests to reopen claims for service connection, the effective date may not be earlier than the date of claim, unless the new and material evidence warranting the reopening was received within the appeal period or prior top the appellate decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q). In this case, however, the new and material evidence was received no earlier than 1998. At the VA examination of July 12, 1995, the veteran stated he had numbness of the left hand, but the purpose of the examination was to determine the nature of a back disability, and the examiner did not report findings pertaining to the hand, wrist, or fingers. Thus the 1995 examination report was an informal claim, but it did not include new and material evidence. The requisite new and material evidence was not added to the record until the physician's report of 1998 and the VA examination reports of 1998 and 1999. Therefore, effective date, under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.400, is July 12, 1995, the earliest date on which a claim, either formal or informal, was presented after the final Board decision of March 1995. Accordingly, an effective date of July 12, 1995, but no earlier, is warranted. ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of July 12, 1995, for the grant of service connection for cubital tunnel syndrome of the left wrist is granted. ____________________________________________ G. H. SHUFELT Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Dang... I was trying to see if you could claim you should still be 100% until they filled those obligations. But based on the case the lawyer posted on the blog - it doesn't look like it. They only have to propose to reduce your rating, if you are already currently receiving benefits for the condition. http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020110707184 But it seems like you should be able to get 100% for a the period from when they detected the cancer until at least 6 months from when the treatment was stopped. They should have done something like a "staged rating" on this. (i.e. 100% from X through X, and 30% after that).

Not exactly the same issue as yours, but similar. http://www.seankendalllaw.net/blog/100-percent-rating-following-prostate-cancer-surgery.cfm So some of the information might be useful. Did they provide you with a rating exam before they rated you for the kidney cancer?

I would be interested to know what they actually said in that rating decision. I am wondering if they only rated you on residuals, if the rating for cancer could still be considered pending and unadjudicated. I am not sure. Just a thought I am throwing out there. Because they should rate cancer at 100%, through the time you cease treatment and AT LEAST six months past that. The day of your surgery might not even be considered the point you "ceased treatment." 7528 Malignant neoplasms of the genitourinary system ....................................................... 100 Note: Following the cessation of surgical, X-ray, antineoplastic chemotherapy or other therapeutic procedure, the rating of 100 percent shall continue with a mandatory VA examination at the expiration of six months. Any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination shall be subject to the provisions of §3.105(e) of this chapter. If there has been no local recurrence or metastasis, rate on residuals as voiding dysfunction or renal dysfunction, whichever is predominant.

Has the decision on that rating become final? i.e. are you still within the time frame to appeal?

Did they take the kidney out from the back or from the front? I had a friend with kidney failure and her sister donated a kidney. The surgery was MUCH harder on her sister. The doctor explained it was because they removed her kidney from the back. They placed the kidney in my friend from the front. The removal from the back is a much harder surgery to recover from because they have to cut through a lot of muscles. At least that was the way the doctor explained it to them.

I certainly agree with you john999. Assistance adjusting can help. I also just posted a link on the PTSD thread that shows they are doing a lot of research and finding that PTSD is actually a very real brain injury. It causes very real and distinct changes in how the brain functions. And they are finally finding ways to study what those changes are. They even have pictures on one of the links showing the patterns of neurons communicating with each other in the brain of someone with PTSD. The VA is actually funding some of this research. Hopefully they will use the information they obtain to find better ways to treat PTSD, and not just use it for diagnosis.

I think you are on to something here. They should have rated you at 100% for kidney cancer until at least 6 months after surgery. It looks like they considered the cancer to be service connected, but only rated you on residuals (for the removal of the kidney). So on this one, you might very well be able to file a CUE claim that they made serious error in only rating you on residuals, without rating you for the cancer itself for the appropriate time period. What was the time-frame between when they found it and when they did the surgery?

"my way of thinking is wouldnt taking one of a persons kidney out " decrease kidney function, ? I dont think they work intermittently, like one works while the other doesnt, they work together to filter the blood." Yes. The kidneys do work together. But they do not consider the loss of one to be significantly disabling. You can actually function quite well with one kidney. That is why people can be live donors and donate a kidney to a person with kidney disease, because they can can function quite well with one kidney. Now if you start having trouble with your remaining kidney, you have got BIG problems.

I don't think how they rated you has anything to do with hep c. I think they rated it according to the schedule of ratings. I am not sure what the schedule was at that time, but the current schedule is: 7500 Kidney, removal of one: Minimum evaluation................................................................................................. 30 Or rate as renal dysfunction if there is nephritis, infection, or pathology of the other. So unless you show some dysfunction in your remaining kidney - they would just rate you on the loss of one kidney.

They save a lot of money on what the vets do not know.

"yes but that doesnt specifically state that I was working, it just states what my employment profession was at the time. Had it said, veteran reports he is currently working, as an appliance repairman it would be different." That could have been a valid argument in a timely appeal - if you were providing evidence that you were not working (or hardly working) and the RO said the examiner reported you were working. You could certainly argue that he merely reported your profession and did not state you were working. But trying to go back and file a CUE, and add that there was an inferred claim for TDIU - unless the examiner stated you were NOT working, or you had stated in your statements to the VA you were not working -- the inferred claim isn't there.

I agree 100%.

"it say in thier own words frequent abdominal pain, , nausea, and mild weakness. everyone knows how much abdonminal pain hurts and how debilitating it can be. that not including feeling nausiated, , lightheaded, and dizzy all at the same time. How can this not be debilitating and they expect a person to just jump up running and go to work feeling like you are abt to crap on yourself. ALL DAY" I don't think the RO can make that leap Sierra. They can't say "Veteran suffers abdominal pain and everyone knows how bad that hurts. He probably didn't feel like working." They need something in the records at that time stating that you were incapacitated. Appealing at that time, you may have been able to make a case that you were sometimes incapacitated. Statements from your spouse. Records showing a significant drop in earnings, etc. But I think it would be virtually impossible to go back and show the RO made an error by not realizing you were incapacitated because you had abdominal pain.

"va treatment records show u reported on 11-00-02 for a first visit with complaints of feeling ill and fatigued and episodes of lightheadedness.you were staerted on medication to normalize your liver funtion tests.. (SEE HOW THEY DOWNPLAY, THEY DIDNT SAY, YOU WERE STARTED ON STRONG MEDS THAT COULD KILL YOU, AND WILL MAKE YOU VERY ILL TO KILL A LIFE THREATINING VIRUS THAT IS EATING YOUR LIVER)." I don't think that is actually "downplaying" anything. I don't think you can expect them to actually say that, unless the medical records stated "Patient is being put on strong meds that could kill him and make him very ill to kill a life threatening virus that is eating his liver." And that doesn't seem like something a doctor would write in a report. "Report of 11-00-03 shows you would continue on medication for an additional 48 weeks. Va eaxamination report of 12=00-03 shows you reported being self employed.as an appliance repairman, You complained of occasional vomiting, chronic flu like symptoms, frequent abdominl pain, nausea, and mild weakness, on examination there was a 15 pound weight loss over the last 6 months and minimal muscle strength and wasting. " So is this exam 6 months into treatment? They made sure to point out that you were working. Does what the VA said match the treatment notes? If the treatment notes down reported much worse symptoms, then you MIGHT have some basis to try to fight this. I am not saying that you were not much sicker than they are reporting. But I am saying it will be hard to fight it ten years later unless you can show that the treatment records noted that your symptoms were much worse than the RO indicated. As far as trying to file a CUE and get 60% in order to file for Temporary TDIU for that time -- the fact that the record states "Va examination report of 12=00-03 shows you reported being self employed.as an appliance repairman" would make that very hard UNLESS the record ALSO stated the examiner indicated that you were no longer able to work. But trying for an inferred claim for TDIU would be pretty hard if the medical record points out you stated you were self employed (and pretty much indicates you were working). And again, we aren't talking about just a standard appeal, we are talking about a claim that the VA made a clear error on the decision. I think you would be against the wall trying to prove that. Are there any other exams that reported worsening conditions that the RO did not take into account?

Noise and Military Service: Implications for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus ( 2006 ) You don't have to buy the book. You can read it on the site. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11443&page=1

Permanent & Total Congrats Harley-1

That is the question... how do I find what the rating criteria was in 1987????? It looks like they didn't have a separate rating code for sarcoidosis in 1987. They rated it under something "close." So the part about the low-dose maintenance drugs wasn't even in the ratings. It was mostly based on pulmonary function and fibrosis. http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/Files3/0614618.txt In July 1987, the RO granted service connection for sarcoidosis and assigned a 10 percent disability rating under Code 6699-6802, effective from March 1, 1987, the day after the veteran's separation from service. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Code 6699-6802 (1994). Code 6699-6802 was used to rate the disability as the rating code does not contain a separate listing for sarcoidosis. When an unlisted condition is encountered it is permissible to rate under a closely related disease or injury in which not only the functions affected, but the anatomical location and symptomatology are closely analogous. 38 C.F.R. § 4.20. Thus, the veteran's sarcoidosis was evaluated by analogy to pneumoconiosis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Code 6802. This was the most appropriate code since only lung involvement was demonstrated, and the symptoms are essentially the same. http://www.va.gov/vetapp95/files6/9526559.TXT After reviewing all the evidence of record, the Board finds that the 10 percent disability evaluation currently in effect for the veteran's sarcoidosis is appropriate. In order for the veteran to receive a higher rating for sarcoidosis by analogy to pneumoconiosis, his symptomatology must meet the criteria set forth in Diagnostic Code 6802 for those ratings. To receive a 30 percent rating, there must be moderate disability as manifested by considerable pulmonary fibrosis and moderate dyspnea on slight exertion, confirmed by pulmonary function tests. For a 60 percent rating, there must be severe disability, as manifested by extensive fibrosis, and severe dyspnea on slight exertion with corresponding ventilatory deficit confirmed by pulmonary function tests, with marked impairment of health. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Code 6802

http://www.healthvermont.gov/prevent/Sarcoidosis.aspx What are the signs and symptoms? Many people who have sarcoidosis have no symptoms. Often, the condition is discovered by accident only because a person has a chest x ray for another reason, such as a pre-employment x ray.Some people have very few symptoms, but others have many. Symptoms usually depend on which organs the disease affects. Symptoms from sarcoidosis in the lungs and lymph nodes include shortness of breath, a dry cough, wheezing, and enlarged and sometimes tender lymph nodes. Changes in sarcoidosis usually occur slowly (e.g., over months). Sarcoidosis does not usually cause sudden illness. However, some symptoms may occur suddenly. They include: Disturbed heart rhythms Arthritis in the ankles Eye symptoms.

Is there a veteran organization / church / kind soul / etc. that might be able to provide transportation? Sorry. I don't know quite how to change the date in a way that might not come back and bite. So I was just thinking about another way to make it work... Hopefully, someone will know how to change the date.