free_spirit_etc

What kind of feet problems are you having? Are you sure they are getting worse because of your feet? I guess it could be a which came first thing. Is it possible the knee and back problems aren't causing your feet problems? Just wondering - because then the feet would be secondary SC. --They are all interconnected and can affect each other. http://www.hss.edu/newsroom_11280.asp Avoid Running into Trouble: Orthotics Can Cause Problems if Improperly Prescribed New York, NY—July 1, 1999 Orthotics, or orthopedic shoe inserts, can be useful devices. But if improperly prescribed they can lead to pain and discomfort, and even cause serious injury, warns Rock Positano, DPM, a foot and ankle specialist at Hospital for Special Surgery. Dr. Positano cites the case of a patient whose mail-order orthotics resulted in a broken bone in each foot. The patient thought the devices would provide support for his running. They landed him in Dr. Positano’s office instead. "Orthotics are like prescription drugs," Dr. Positano explains. "When indicated and prescribed correctly, they are beneficial to the user. When unnecessary or prescribed incorrectly, they can be dangerous." Some over-the-counter orthotics may exacerbate pre-existing medical conditions, Dr. Positano says. Those at particular risk are people with heel pain, achilles tendon pain, back or knee problems, or those who have a high arch foot type or flat feet. Exercise enthusiasts who engage in high impact or high velocity sports often buy orthotics to provide support or serve as shock absorbers. That, too, can spell trouble. Orthotics are not used to correct foot and ankle problems. Health care professionals prescribe them to stabilize a joint, reduce pain, prevent deformity, provide better positioning or improve the biomechanical function of the foot, according to Dr. Positano. They work by removing pressure and stress from painful areas in the foot and ankle. Custom orthotics, which may also be useful in alleviating knee, hip and lower back pain, should not be confused with the prefabricated models found in shoe stores, ski and skate shops, pharmacies and sporting goods stores, Dr. Positano advises. There is a tremendous difference in quality and effectiveness. "Orthotics alter the way a person walks, stands and absorbs shock from the ground," he says. "Anyone wishing to use them should have a good reason and be sure to consult a professional with the proper training and credentials, such as a podiatrist." He or she will ask about any medical problems or pain the person may have. The health professional will also consider gait analysis, orthopedic issues, level of activity, the type of activity, foot type, and biomechanics, which refers to ankle, knee and hip movement. X-rays may be taken, as well. When prescribed responsibly and used correctly, orthotics can be extremely helpful. It’s important for patients to follow the doctor’s instructions on when to wear them to obtain the greatest benefit, according to Dr. Positano.

So you are 10% disabled when you can stay married for 20 years, but 70% disabled when you can stay married for 44 years. Their logic makes no sense. LOL Free

And she is STILL married!...just longer now... Free

Maybe that is why Allsup has such a high "success" rate. If you only take cases that are already guaranteed success, your success rate would be pretty darn high. Free

I requested copies of my husband's entire C-file June 2007. I sent in a limited request for a copy of a medical opinion early this year. I sent an IRIS Feb 26 2008 to follow up on both requests - and again asked for a copy of the medical opinion (limited request) while I was waiting for his C-file. The VA responded February 29 2008 and informed me that both requests were sent to the privacy office - and that I would receive the copy of the medical opinion FIRST - and there would be a delay in getting the ENTIRE file, due to its size. I have NOT received either. I sent a follow up IRIS this week. They responded and told me they received my request for my husband's C-file on February 29, 2008 - and they sent the entire file (4 volumes) on March 3, and that I should inform them that I didn't get it. It is aggravating because they are ACTING like I JUST requested it on February 29th, when actually the Feb. 29 date was the date THEY responded to my Feb 26 IRIS asking them to follow up on my JUNE 2007 request. Anyway - how likely is it that they really DID send out the C-file three days AFTER they informed me there would be a delay in sending it - and that I would get the medical opinion first? I responded and told them I did not receive it. Does anyone know if they can NOW stick my request back on the BOTTOM of the stack - or charge me for "another" copy if they maintain they actually sent it to me already. Again, they SAY they sent it out March 3, 2008 - but it seems odd that they would actually copy four volumes and send it 3 days after informing me there would be a delay in sending it. Free

This case is one where TDIU was denied - BUT it is DIFFERENT than YOUR case. I am sending it because YOUR case DID have evidence in the file that you were unemployable - AND it SAYS you can file for TDIU either expressly OR implied - and it further says: In Roberson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that when a veteran submits evidence of a medical disability and makes a claim for the highest rating possible and additionally submits evidence of unemployability, the "identify the benefit sought" requirement of section 3.155(a) has been met and VA must consider TDIU.[/ http://www.va.gov/vetapp03/Files/0300890.txt This situation is unlike that in Roberson v. Principi, 251 F. 3d 1378 (2001). In Roberson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that when a veteran submits evidence of a medical disability and makes a claim for the highest rating possible and additionally submits evidence of unemployability, the "identify the benefit sought" requirement of section 3.155(a) has been met and VA must consider TDIU. VA must determine all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations, regardless of whether a claim is specifically labeled as a claim for TDIU. Here, there is no indication whatsoever that the veteran was seeking TDIU in September 1995. In Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32 (1998), the Court observed that while the Board must interpret an appellant's submissions broadly, the Board is not required to conjure up issues that were not raised by the appellant. The Court has also held that an appellant must have asserted the claim expressly or impliedly. See Isenbart v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 537, 540-41 (1995). Prior to March 20, 1997, the veteran did not raise a TDIU claim, either expressly or impliedly. The Board additionally finds that there is no evidence earlier than May 30, 1996 within the year preceding March 20, 1997 (or for that matter otherwise) which supports the proposition that the veteran was unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities.

I read these last night. But for some reason I got them out of order, so I will need to re-read them. I would certainly think that you have an inferred claim for being unemployable - and if they don't acknowledge it - and grant you less than 100% - you can appeal that pretty successfully. You have consistently maintained you have been unable to work. Your file indicates you are unable to work - and THEY determined you were unable to work. This isn't a case where you would be going back in later and saying "Hey, you didn't ask if I was able to work..." This is a case where the file CLEARLY SHOWED you are not able to work. So they SHOULD consider the TDUI claim, regardless of whether you filled out a specific form. It is kind of looking like you will get a big chunk of money, but still have to fight for the rest. Free

I would make sure they got clear on the fact the I-9 was sent in. That game can give them the opportunity to play around with remands with the BVA. I have seen cases where the BVA says that the RO accepted the NOD as the substantial appeal - but then, it is remanded back to see if there was anything filed that the RO took as an NOD. (Because you have to file an NOD FIRST). I am sure you DID. My concern is that THEY are putting all this confusing stuff in your case, so the BA and them can pass your claim back and forth resolving these side issues, and IGNORE the actual claim. That's what they seemed to do on my husband's dental claim - for his one time dental treatment. They kept passing it back and forth between the RO and the BVA, deciding all kinds of side issues, that they NEVER addressed the issue of entitlement for his one time dental treatment. So I would be prone to make it VERY clear: I received my SOC on ____ I submitted my NOD on ____ I received my SSOC on ____. I submitted my NOD on ____. I submitted my I-9 on ____. They will STILL be able to twist that all around and confuse it... But the BVA might be able to read it. Free

TS- Congratulations!! You deserve it! You deserve it! You deserve it! Free

I might have missed something along the way. I haven't been on much. But did they NOT give you 100%? I would think that ALL your claims have had an INFERRED claim for TDIU. I was thinking you filed your claims with a letter and they never sent you ANY forms. If they REQUIRE a form - they are supposed to SEND you a form. If not, isn't the time tolled until they send you the form they require? It is not like you haven't mentioned you were unemployable. And as you have stated -THEY determined you are unemployable. The claim was apparently filed. They apparently determined you weren't employable. It would seem like the only thing left for them to do would be to connect it to service connection. Free

My take on it is that when the VA rewords your claim - your actual claim was on target - and they reword it to throw up a smoke screen. My husband filed his initial claim for cancer. He stated the doctor told him based on the size and growth rate, it had to have STARTED in service. (It was 3.1 cm slow growing - found two years post retirement). Of course, this was a BASE doctor who states the BASE attorney won't let him write an actual OPINION. The VA initially acknowledged his claim for Lung Cancer. The denial changed it to Lung Cancer DUE TO asbestos exposure. He did respond to that - as they state he wasn't exposed to asbestos based on NO occupational surveys (which weren't even being done until he stopped being an electrician). Anyway - he BOLDLY told them his argument AGAIN - that he was claiming that his cancer STARTED in service. Of course, they ignored that over and over - and kept sending him info to send in evidence of ASBESTOS EXPOSURE. Before his death - he sent in a complete package asking for them to ACKNOWLEDGE his claim for was his cancer STARTING in service. They sent him more info telling him he had to send evidence showing asbestos exposure to reopen his claim. After his death, I also requested the ACKNOWLEDGE the ACTUAL CLAIM - that his cancer STARTED in service. The BVA has LOTS of approvals of claims based on the very same principle - though the cancer wasn't diagnosed until AFTER service - it was found to be present DURING the service. It is not Rocket Science. I am making SOME progress with them - they HAVE acknowledged that he maintains his cancer started in the service. But their doctor wrote an opinion - apparently not addressing the QUESTION - but just addressing whether the SYMPTOMS he had in service were related to his cancer. Geez....THey jsut keep on dancing all the way around it. What they IGNORE is a real key - when they keep dancing all around the issue - it means they don't want to address the issue DIRECLTY - i.e. if they do - they would have to grant benefits. Free

My husband taught Sociology for a couple years. They had a pretty neat game they played called 'Capitalist Monopoly." It was played with the regualr monopoly game - BUT - some people were given more power than others from the beginning. So the powerful people got WAY more money - had different rules - and had the power to CHANGE the rules AT ANY TIME. The only people who could object to rule changes were OTHER people WITH power. So if someone with Power landed on YOUR property - they could CHANGE the rules and not pay you as much. Or if you landed on THEIR property - they could change the rule and charge you more. It is a very frustrating game for the people who don't have the power - but it sure was a good game to use in the class - and a good way to teach the kids how the system really works. Free

You brought up an interesting point about the recording. IF the agency has the standard "this call may be recorded..." message for YOU - I am wondering if you could record THEM without informing them - since they gave their implied permission to record the call with their own message. I think if it came down to it - you could say they DID give you permission. You could say - They told me - This call MAY be recorded -- I thought that meant I was allowed to record it for quality assurance... LOLOLOL Free

I think since you will be getting such a large retro - it has kicked in every safety feature the VA has- The compentence - to make sure they don't send a huge chunk of money to someone who can't handle it - to protecct both you and them The review of the review - to make sure all the rules were followed, the correct standards applied, that the amount is figured appropriately - etc. I don't think they could overturn the BVA decision. It looks like the fast letter just addresses effective date. And the BVA did not set the effective date - though they sent a pretty strong message that implied it should go back to the date of discharge. It is actually possible that the Fast Letter could work in your FAVOR - it STARTS with the level of the least competent - and moves up. So it is even possible that the later reviews will grant you an earlier effective date than the locals did. Free

Hey Berta! I remember you telling once about how you sent your husband's ashes to the RO as additional evidence - and really horrified them - BUT got their attention! Did you send them by certified mail or deliver them? Free

My husband used Obama's office for awhile. He sent a copy of one of his letters to several politicians - and Obama's office called him fairly quickly. They did tell him to choose which politician he wanted to work with - as having multiple people checking on the claim would delay things. I did think they were fairly helpful. At least they let us know what was going on with the claim. They were much more helpful than a VSO. Whenever they found out anything - they would call and let him know. The RO had actually told my husband his claim was still pending appeal at the BVA - and that any evidence he sent would be forwarded to the BVA. When he got ahold of Obama's office to see if they could help move his claim a bit quicker - due to his terminal diagnosis - THEY informed him that their screen showed the claim was CLOSED. The RO never even told him his claim was closed. He even wrote to them and asked - and they never responded. But they finally wrote to Obama and told THEM why the claim was closed. Had we not contacted the politician - we might still be sitting here waiting for the BVA to hear the appeal (well WE wouldn't be sitting here - but I would). So they did help us get more straight answers about the claim than the RO would give us. I think if you contact a politician - it is important that you be very specific about what you are seeking from them. For instance, I am going to contact someone to follow up on our Social Security claim. But if I just tell them EVERYTHING that is going on - they will forward THAT letter to Social Security - and SOcial Security will respond by explaining that it is all very complicated - and that *I* just don't understand - etc. etc. etc. So I will be VERY specific - and write to the Senator that a year after we filed my son's claim - that Social Security has STILL not made a decision in respect to my son's entitlement as a legally adopted child of my husband. Hopefully - that will limit Social Security's response to the Senator about THAT specific issue (which will hopefully motivate them to ADDRESS the issue). They have been kind of like the VA - totally ignoring the issues that DO lead to entitlement - and going on and on about side tangents... So I think that sometimes a politician can be very helpful in pushing an agency into addressing a specific issue (usually THE issue you are trying to get them to acknowledge) that they remain "artfully" silent on (because to address it would mean they could no longer send you lengthy letters explaining why you aren't eligible). But I would be VERY specific in my request - so they can't dance around it as easily. Free

You might want to also use the terms in the rating schedule. You have already recieved two more surgeries for local recurrance (which certainly should be above zero percent) AND as it has now no longer confined to the skin - a 100% rating should be given. 7818 Malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma): Rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800), scars (DC’s 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or7805), or impairment of function. Note: If a skin malignancy requires therapy that is comparable to that used for systemic malignancies, i.e., systemic chemotherapy, X-ray therapy more extensive than to the skin, or surgery more extensive than wide local excision, a 100-percent evaluation will be assigned from the date of onset of treatment, and will continue, with a mandatory VA examination six months following the completion of such antineoplastic treatment, and any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination will be subject to the provisions of §3.105(e) of this chapter. If there has been no local recurrence or metastasis, evaluation will then be made on residuals. If treatment is confined to the skin, the provisions for a 100-percent evaluation do not apply. Free

Are you asking what to do about it now? I'm not sure what has happened between August 07 and now to comment on that. My Iris are always signed by the same person at the RO who sends me the letters - so I always assumed they were from the person at the RO who is assigned to handle my claim. It does seem like they were sending you a strong message to NOT email them about THAT topic again. (or they would deem you a "nuiscance emailer.") I am not sure what they do with people they deem to be nusiance emailers though. LOL Send you to crappy C&P's? NOT read your evidence? Make silly decisions on your claim? But they did seem to be trying to tell you that they couldn't answer your question YET no matter how many times you asked it. Yet, I don't have any idea WHY they told you to call INSTEAD. If they can't answer your question - what does it matter whether you call or email? I am always suspicious of ANY customer service I email or write to - that insists they can "better" help me by TALKING to me. To me it usually means - "We are unwilling to respond to you about this issue in writing - because a permanent record will be made of what we told you - therefore, we would rather talk to you on the phone so you will have no proof of what you aksed or what we told you." If they merely told you not to email on THAT issue - and that they wouldn notify you when your file arrived and so they COULD answer your question - that would send ONE message. Someone who tells me to STOP writing and START calling - makes me suspicious. Free

If you worked steadily until 05, you are probably still okay - as long as it was Social Security covered employment. My husband ALMOST missed the deadline. He retired from the Air Force in 1998. After that he went to school, worked as a Graduate Assistant (NOT SSA covered employment) and taught (NOT SSA covered employment). So when we figured out in June 06 that he met the eligibility requirements (disability-wise), we realized he was a bit past having the required quarters in the PAST 10 years (because of the years he spent in school and Non-SSA covered employment. BUT they can also go back 12 months from your filing date. He had stopped working in Dec. 05 - and his income was below substantial gainful from August 05 on. So he applied in June 06 - they were able to go back to August 05 (when he still had enough credits in) and also count those as his waiting months. Because he had lung cancer that had invaded the heart space -(had attached to the aorta as far back as 2004) - he was approved in 3 weeks - and had over $7,000 deposited into his checking account for retro pay before he even received his letter that he was approved. In the case of terminal illness, Social Security does a TERI claim - and they move FAST - Most cases do not move quite that fast. Free

It could be. I was I know if the records are missing - (like with the St. Louis Fire) - the vet has a somewhat lesser of proof. Still needs to prove more likely then not - but they certainly can't make them produce SMRs that are no longer there. But they ALL know the game. And they all know that it HAS gone on, and IS going on. So the bill is, to me, a FIRST step in stopping it (or AT LEAST giving the vet a CHANCE).But of course, as always, they will find a new way to play the same game that keeps them legal. So perhaps the more people push that this practice really DOES indeed stop - by calling it as it is as often as possible - the less easy it will be for the VA / military to just create an equally effective loophole to do the same thing in a new way (as they have always done before). Free

I think they count on people being new and not knowing what is going on until the time frames expire. The VA and all the other governmental agencies that have employees that seem to enjoy doing dirty deeds to those whom they were hired to serve. Free

Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.... ~Robert A. Heinlein Free

Yeah.. It is about time - though they are still able to act like this is kind of a "new thing." - and not the same old game in a different war... Maybe some of us should write the Senators that sponsored this bill - and ask about the older vets whose records were destroyed to cover up the evidence that this was being done. Make it presumptive. Any vet who was discharged under one of their little diagnose them out games - who has NO service medical records of any psychiatric treatment - is granted SC. It can be presumed that the evidence was in the documents the military destroyed. Free

Now there is an idea... Tell the VA you want the entire retro payment deposited directly into your Paypal account. Tell them that you've been shopping on Ebay ever since you got the BVA decision - and you are going to be reported as a Non-paying bidder if they don't get those funds into your Paypal account PRONTO! LOL Send them a letter and tell them to hurry up and send the retro - because your checks are going to bounce if they don't get a rush on it. Free

Don is "well aged" enough to know that women will pretty much do as they please anyway - and a man's life runs much smoother when he learns to go with the flow - He seems like a man whose wife trained him well. Awwwww..Okay...Yes - he's a real sweetie!