free_spirit_etc

NavyWife, I will search and see if I can find anything. I don't think it will necessarily be a deal breaker if the doctor didn't specifically write that down. Even if he wrote something about the frequency of seizures which indicated that they were more than what your husband was rated for, that might help. For instance, you said your husband was rated at 20% - That is "At least 1 major seizure in the last 2 years; or at least 2 minor seizures in the last 6 months." So it would seem like even if the doctor noted he had a major seizure in the last 6 months -- that would kick it to 40% (At least 1 major seizure in the last 6 months or 2 in the last year; or averaging at least 5 to 8 minor seizures weekly = 40).

Awww.. that is sweet missd79. Wishing you both much luck!

I like this part: "In contrast, the statutorily-mandated benefit-of-the-doubt rule assists the VA in deciding a veteran’s claim on the merits after the claim has been fully developed: “When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.” 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Thus, the Board’s consideration of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not replace VA’s duty under Moody, Szemraj, and Roberson to generously construe the evidence in this case and resolve any ambiguities in Mr. Harris’ favor."

There is a January 4, 2013 decision on effective dates posted here: http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/harris-v-shinseki-no-2012-7111decided-january-4-2013-fedcir-38-u-s-c-%C2%A7-5107b-duty-is-separate-from-duty-articulated-in-moody-szemraj-and-roberson-resolve-ambiguities-in-veterans/ Harris v. Shinseki, No. 2012-7111

Does the 1997 exam show his condition worsened? http://www.va.gov/vetapp13/Files2/1314713.txt "The purpose of § 3.157(b)(1) is to avoid requiring a veteran to file a formal claim for an increased disability rating where the veteran's disability is already service connected and the findings of a VA report of examination or hospitalization demonstrate that the disability has worsened. Massie v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 123, 132 (2011)."

There is a case here that discusses the restriction of activities required for higher ratings for diabetes. http://www.va.gov/vetapp13/Files3/1327679.txt

Good luck! I love how you already posted this is success stories!

You might want to do some research on this. You can search BVA decisions http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva.html Here are a couple decisions covering pre-existing PTSD -- but they are a bit different than yours. http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files5/1232328.txt denied - but veteran already had PTSD diagnosis before service, didn't disclose it, and only served a couple months in the military. http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files3/1123181.txt denied - but veteran didn't seek treatment for, or report symptoms of PTSD until years after the service. It helps to research what decisions were made and what reasons were given to help you better frame your claim.

I am not certain, but I would think that you could. There are several ideas I can think of: 1. You might have other MH diagnoses besides just PTSD (anxiety, depression, etc.) - Those could be service connected if they started in the service. 2. Service connection is granted for conditions that were caused by or incurred in the service. If your PTSD started in the service, it was incurred in the service, regardless of when you experienced the stressor(s). I don't think they can call a stressor a pre-existing condition. 3. If they say your PTSD pre-existed the service, it could have very well been aggravated in service. Those are some ideas -- but check things out thoroughly so they don't railroad you on this one.

Good luck!

I really want to get a SOC from the VA, as they never sent one, I was thinking you got one SOC, but have not received one from the DRO review yet. They might still be working on that. That would be the SSOC (Supplemental Statement of Case). For some reason, I was thinking you said that they sent you a sheet to fill out with the names of your medical providers. So the reviewer might be looking for additional medical records before he makes a decision. This would be a good thing, I would think. It would mean that they actually wanted to look into some more information, rather than just copy and paste the previous denial.

My appeal document is about 20 pages long, and includes specific dates, places of references, doctors names, treatment, findings, and Is specifically written to point out their mistakes, blunders, incompetance, etc, in very non-adversarial terms and verbiage. This appeal also includes the "new" disabilities, and the what, where, and why, I have requested them to address. I also am including all the signed release forms for my doctors. I would suggest you also create a shorter argument than 20 pages. You can certainly submit it all, but also create a document that is only a few pages long that concisely hits the most important points. Consider it your cover letter. Sorry for breaking this all apart. My mind is working better in bursts tonight. But at least I got a few things addressed. Disclaimer -- My intent is to be helpful rather than critical. Just hoping to help in some way as you polish your claim.

.

They also requested proof of the mitral value prolapse which 'existed from” your military service. This did not exist from military service as I told them in 2010 as I was not claiming the mitral valve prolapse to be SC. Just wanted it in the records as DM II is "notorious" for many heart problems. I was thinking that mitral valve prolapse can cause PVCs.

Have had PVCs at times similar to what I have described but they went away "by themselves" just as fast as they "came on". As of June 2013, "they are back", bothersome, terrible at times and time for the 24 hour "halter" to measure them and prescribe meds. This could be the problem – depending on how long you did not need treatment for them, they are probably saying they aren’t convinced that they are caused by the same condition that was causing them in the military. So you may need a nexus statement to convince them. What does your doctor say is causing them?

Also seeing court decision that awarded SC presumption from AO for sarcoidosis and lately, DM II presumption from sarcoidosis. It is common for "learned" doctors to state this presumption as "more likely than not", which "opens the door" for "secondary" claims and "aggrivation" of an SC or even a non-SC association. I don’t think sarcoidosis is presumptive for AO. A doctor wouldn’t have to say “more likely than not” for a presumptive condition. With an AO presumptive condition, as long as you have it, it is SCed. Sarcoidosis is a presumptive condition under 3.309. So if it is shown that you have it and that it is at least 10% disabling within a year of discharge, they grant SC. But they already granted you SC for sarcoidosis, as it was diagnosed in service. Sarcoidosis CAN be connected to Agent Orange with a doctor stating it is more likely than not connected, but that is a direct service connection, rather than a presumptive one. Your biggest problem with sarcoidosis seems to be that they have rated it at 0% - and you need to increase the rating to reflect your actual condition from it. And yes, since it is SCed, you can also get secondary SC for other conditions that it, or its treatment causes. Also- You can claim secondary SC for any condition that is the result of an SC condition -- not just the ones that are AO presumptive.

They state in this rating of 2011 "that shows noted history of PVCs" from my private doctors from 1990-2003(CIGNA), and 2004-2008(Associated Internists then they state "service connection for PVCs is denied because current evidence does not show a relationship between the disability which occurred in service and the current condition. That was as of 2006 and thru 2011. So I am saying(in my appeal), VA is confirming SC for PVCs in 2006 but still denied it anyway, in 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2011. OK, they say no PVCs in 2 separate FIVE SECOND EKG strips somtime in 2010. DUH! The point is my Active duty medical records form 1980-1987 show PVCs (up to 2000 per hour, on rare occasions), and again as stated above from 1990-2008 after my 20yrs. I am not understanding how you are saying that the VA is confirming SC for PVCs in 2006. ??? If you have been denied for the condition that many times, I would say you will most likely need a nexus statement from your doctor or an IMO, where a doctor specifically relates your current condition (PVCs) to service. It seems like they are saying you had a condition in service that caused PVCs, and you have a current condition that causes PVCs, but you need a nexus statement – i.e. a doctor stating that your current condition is related to the military condition, and using some reasoning to connect the two. And, I think (but am not 100% certain) that even if they connect the PVCs to service on a DIRECT basis, that would still not kick in retro through Nehmer. For Nermer to kick in, it would take the PVCs to be given SC on the AO presumptive basis (as being caused by a condition that is AO presumptive) ***Disclaimer – I don’t know this for sure though. But just putting it out there as a thought…

You claimed PVC but that does not fall under the Nehmer IHD regulations. No but the mitral valve prolapse does MartyL, Where are you finding that mitral valve prolapse is AO presumptive?

I am glad you like it. My students told me about it when I was using a really outdated version of Microsoft and couldn't open their documents.

Sierra, It was my understanding that submitting a FDC doesn't prevent someone from submitting additional evidence if they choose to. The only thing is that once they do that, it is no longer processed as a FDC. So, of course, there is no reason to file a FDC if you plan on submitting additional evidence. But if you do submit a FDC, and discover something additional to present, then you have to decide whether to submit it, or wait and see how the decision goes. From what I have been reading, FDCs actually work very well for some people, depending on their condition, the evidence they have, etc. So I think it is nice as an additional option for veterans to use.

Here are my TDIU questions: -If I file for TDIU will it make my disabilitie(s) permanent in the eyes of the VA? I don't think so... but I am not sure. -If I apply foir TDIU can you ever get off it? (Hypothetical question) Yes. I guess you could if you wanted to. You could start working. But that might lower your rating on PTSD. -If you are on TDIU does the VA do periodic evaluations? They can. You also have to report annual earnings to the VA. With 100% PTSD, that should probably be zero (from wages or self-employment). -How long can you be on TDIU? I don't think there is an end point besides death. Hope I helped a bit. I am not real familiar with all the ends and outs of TDIU though. Someone who knows more about it might be able to give you better help.

I am really sorry. I can add a little bit, but I am not really sure. I was hoping you might be able to claim under GWI for an undiagnosed illness. I am not sure exactly how to turn it around at this point. You probably will need a diagnosis, and will probably need for your doctor to state that this relates back to the same symptoms you had in the military. Again, even if a doctor can't figure out exactly what is causing the symptoms, sometimes they will note that and at least give a provisional diagnosis of some type -- even if it is very general. You can still appeal the decision and have time to submit additional evidence. Based on the limited information I have, I would say you might want to talk to your doctor and see if he thinks this all relates back to the same symptoms you were having in the military. If so, you can ask him to provide you with a nexus letter. In the very least, he might be able to help you start building a case by documenting how long the records show you have been having these symptoms. If there is a gap between service and post-service treatment, the VA is likely to say that even if you have the condition, it might not be the same condition that you had in the service. So you would need to have a doctor to say that it was. What does your SOC letter say specifically about the issue? I am sorry you are in a lot of pain from it. Hopefully, you will be able to get the medical documentation you need for it to be service connected. Hopefully, someone else in here that might know a bit more than I do will be able to help.

There is an edit button if you would like to make it more user friendly. ;)

Try here: http://asknod.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fast-letter-13-013-001.pdf

You are welcome! I have never got to be a geek before...