free_spirit_etc

Since you have the SC for the headaches from concussions - is it possible that some of your other symptoms could be the result of Post-Concussion Syndrome? http://www.adhd.com.au/Post_concussion_Syndrome.htm The term Post-concussion syndrome or post-concussional disorder as it is referred to in the DSM-IV has been used to describe the range of residual symptoms that persist 12 months and beyond, sometimes years after the injury. Although minor head injuries are generally considered benign, a significant number of people report persistent symptoms for weeks or months [2] and some for years after injury [3-17] despite a lack of evidence of brain abnormalities on MRI and CT scans. The core deficits of post-concussion syndrome overlap with those of Attention Deficit Disorder, Adjustment disorder and Mood Disorders. In addition, sufferers often report memory and socialisation problems, frequent headaches and personality changes. The cluster of symptoms reported by these patients is referred to as the Post-concussion syndrome. The following are amongst the most commonly reported symptoms of post-concussion syndrome [4, 6]. Attention deficits, difficulty sustaining mental effort. Fatigue and tiredness Impulsivity, irritability Low frustration threshold Temper outbursts and changes in mood Learning and memory problems Impaired planning and problem solving Inflexibility, concrete thinking Lack of initiative Dissociation between thought and action Communication difficulties Socially inappropriate behaviours Self-centeredness and lack of insight Poor self-awareness Impaired balance Dizziness and Headaches [6, 15, 18, 19] Personality changes [20, 21] Often despite several of these chronic symptoms, there is no evidence of brain abnormality from conventional structural neuroimaging tests, such as CT scans and MRIs. Consequently the person can be labelled a "hot head" with a "short fuse" or as having either a mood disorder or anger problem, or as having a personality or psychological disorder.

BVA says: "There is nothing in any of the numerous statements she submitted prior to January 19, 2001 that expresses any intent to claim entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. See Crawford v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 33, 35 (1993) (in order to constitute an informal claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a), the document must identify the benefit being sought)." I am assuming you identified the benefit being sought - I don't think 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a)dictates that you have to specifically state your diagnosis to seek that benefit. You sought a benefit for hearing problems - tinnitus was reasonbly raised by the evidence as an ear problem. And again - as they played their card and stated their reasoning - you can argue as to whether they improperly applied the law to your case. The case I posted on another thread - and i am sure there are other cases would probably be a strong argument that the veteran is not required to diagnose themselves to identify the benfits sought. Free

Yep. Why is Parafon Forte DSC prescribed? Parafon Forte DSC is prescribed, along with rest and physical therapy, for the relief of discomfort associated with severe, painful muscle spasms. Hey! Maybe you should whack the adjudicator in the head with a metal pole and drop a bunk on their head and see if their neck hurts or if they get buzzing in their ears. That way - they could get a first hand experience of whether your reports of pain are "credible." Free

Yep. I would think it was. So if they failed to adjudicate the claim - isn't that one of those special type of CUE situations where they have to decide 1. Whether the claim was adjudicated? 2. If not - then it has to be adjudicated based on the additional evidence as well as the evidence in the file at the time the claim was made. And that ruling that states that when a claim is denied - it applies to all claims raised, whether they were addressed or not - would that even apply - is this was filed before that ruling? So maybe the BVA decision helps you in that - because they determined you did not file an informal claim. To me if you filed ANY kind of claim - and the tinnitua was reasonably raised in the evidence - it would be an informal claim for tinnitus. Free Isn't this interesting - tinnitus can be caused by SEVERAL things you have claimed - including head and neck injuries and cardiovascular disease - as well as ear problems. http://www.stronghealth.com/services/child...ns/Tinnitus.cfm Symptoms of TinnitusThe symptoms of tinnitus can vary widely from one person to the next. It can affect one or both ears or be perceived as noise “inside the head.” People who suffer from tinnitus describe the noise as ringing, buzzing, humming, hissing, roaring, whistling, chirping, clicking, and other sounds. back to topCauses of TinnitusTinnitus is not a disease. It’s a symptom that can be caused by a number of medical conditions. These include:· Ear injuries · Circulatory system problems· Noise-induced hearing loss - Prolonged exposure to loud noise is the most common source of persistent tinnitus · Wax build-up in the ear canal - Excess earwax can compromise hearing and make tinnitus seem louder. If your child produces a lot of earwax, ask an audiologist or doctor about having it removed safely by a health professional. Attempts to remove earwax yourself with cotton swabs or other objects can make the condition worse and cause additional damage· Ototoxic medications - Certain medications may produce tinnitus as a side effect. Before giving any medication to your child, make sure that your prescribing physician is aware of his or her tinnitus· Ear or sinus infections - Many children experience tinnitus along with an ear or sinus infection. Usually, the symptoms gradually go away as the infection heals· Jaw misalignment - Misaligned jaw joints - Termed temporomandibular jaw syndrome (TMJ) – can induce tinnitus along with a number of other problems. Dentists who specialize in this condition can provide treatment· Cardiovascular disease - A small percentage of tinnitus patients experience rhythmic pulsing sounds, often in time with their heartbeat. This form of tinnitus can result from vascular conditions, such as heart murmurs, hypertension, or hardening of the arteries· Head and neck trauma· Ménière's disease - The result of increased pressure in the inner ear, Ménière’s disease may also cause deafness and vertigo · Otosclerosis - Characterized by the abnormal growth of bone of the middle ear, otosclerosis prevents structures within the ear from working properly and can cause tinnitus, hearing loss, dizziness, and balance problems· Tumors - In rare cases, benign, slow-growing tumors on auditory, vestibular, or facial nerves can cause tinnitus as well as deafness, facial paralysis, and balance problemsback to topTypes of TinnitusThere are three main types of tinnitus:· Spontaneous tinnitus begins suddenly and goes away in a matter of seconds· Subjective tinnitus can be heard only by the person affected by the disorder· Objective tinnitus can be heard by other people as well as the affected person

As for the loan issue - then you might want to check that out - and know going into it whether or not your loan can be forgiven if your condition gets worse. You can also check into grad programs that would give you the free tuition and fees with no work requirements. Free

Hi! It is me again. The 1999 approval of SC for headaches might be helpful on the neck pain thing. Here's the part of the case I was talking about: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...e&no=007023 U.S. Fed Circuit Court of Appeals 2000 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-7023 NORVAL J. ELKINS, Claimant-Appellant, v. HERSHEL W. GOBER, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. Kenneth M. Carpenter, Carpenter, Chartered, of Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant. Our examination of Elkins' briefs before the Veterans Court points to the latter. In those briefs, Elkins cites the medical report conclusion that his headache pain was actually attributable to a neck injury and argues: The doctor acknowledges that the Appellant experiences pain which he "interprets" as headaches. The Appellant's substantive appeal mentioned headaches. [ ] It is disingenuous, at the very least, to argue that the Appellant is not competent to give an opinion as to the etiology of his condition, but then disallow his claim when he identifies the symptom that he is experiencing for the reason that he has failed to adequately diagnose it. The vet had claimed headaches -- the doctor diagnosed pain from neck injury. The VA didn't want to give him an earlier effective date for the neck pain because he had claimed headaches and NOT neck pain. Could they put two and two together and say the doctor states his headaches are caused by his in service neck injury? Nope. They deny headaches - and then make him claim specifically for neck injury. The courts didn't uphold that. SO this claim MIGHT help on the ear claims -- and also on the neck pain issue. If you had enough evidence in your record to grant SC for headaches --then it might be likely that some aspects of your headaches are related to your neck injuries. Both the case posted and my husband's claim were for headaches. Both times the doctors traced the headaches to actually being neck injuries. So you might want to check that out. And even bring it up with the doctors - to see if they might be related. The VA doctor my husband had actually had him describe his headaches - and he used the descriptions AND objective medical evidence to attribute them to sinus and neck problems based on how he described them and also the x-rays showing chronic sinutitis and the x-rays showing the cervical problems. Has any doctor had you actually describe your headaches in detail? you can have more than one type of headache. And since you are already granted SC for them if any of them are stemming from the cervical region - it might be easy for them to make the connection based on the descriptions and objective evidence. And again - that thing about checking your treatment records prior to deciding if you are credible - if any of the headaches CAN be connected to the neck injuries -- that might be an easier bridge to build than some others. Free

" Although her physician has provided an opinion that the currently diagnosed neck disorder is related to the injuries she incurred in service, that opinion was based on her report of having experienced neck pain since then. Her VA treatment records since service should be considered prior to determining whether her report of continuing symptomatology is credible." Whoa! Credible?? Now here is what gets me. Sound medical principles indicate that many of those types of injuries do not manifest in a painful way until LATER. Yet - if you start having pain several years later (like a normal person would after an injury) does that mena your reports of pain are not "credible' unless you got treatment all along?? I think the BVA remand pretty much prejudiced the case. They stated over and over in the remand . "The opinion should be based on review of the evidence of record and sound medical principles, and not solely on the veteran's reported history." They have pretty much put your credibility in question - and semi-instructed the examiner's and the RO to pretty much not put much weight on your reports of your history, your pain, your buzzing in the ears, etc. It almost looks like they instructed them to ignore what you say. I haven't seen that type of instruction repeated like that over and over in a remand. SYMPTOMOLOGY - one of those words the VA LOVES - IS the subjective experience of the person who is having the symptoms. Definition of Symptom Symptom: Any subjective evidence of disease. Anxiety, lower back pain, and fatigue are all symptoms. They are sensations only the patient can perceive. In contrast, a sign is objective evidence of disease. A bloody nose is a sign. It is evident to the patient, doctor, nurse and other observers. They didn't ACTUALLY tell the examiners and RO to IGNORE your self reports - however the fact that they instructed them to look at your treatment records prior to deciding whether your reports of your symptoms is CREDIBLE?? They brought your credibility into question in a way that I think prejudices the claim. And then when they repeat over and over that the report and med opinions have to be based on the med records and medical principles and not soley on the self reports (like doctors don't already KNOW this??) When they say that AFTER they have already brought your credibility into question --it is almost like telling them they think you are lying - so don't consider what you are saying. I really don't have a good feeling about the remand instructions at all. You might want to save this post for the credibility issue hhttp://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php? showtopic=12125ttp:// It refers to this case: www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7174.pdf Where the court says that the VA must consider lay evidence on its own merit. In the case posted - the court said the VA could not refuse to give weight to the lay evidence just because there was not documentation in the medical records to support such evidence - that the lay evidence had to be considered on its own merit. That doesn't mean the VA HAS to believe you - but they can't use the fact that your lay statements aren't supported by the medical records as the REASON to not give your lay statements probative value. To me - it seems like the remand instructions specifically violated this court ruling. They didn't just tell them to review your records to see if there is documentation to support your reported symptoms. They told them to check your medical records PRIOR to determing whether your reports are CREDIBLE. To me - that is the same thing the court directed them NOT to do - to basically say - if it isn't in the med records your lay statement CAN'T be credible. I'd keep that case in my resource file - because I think it might be something you can use in an appeal. Of course, if you bring it up now - they will just find a different way of wording why they think you aren't credible. But basically, I think the BVA has already instructed the doctors and RO to basically ignore your reported symptoms (when symptoms are a HUGE part of diagnosing someone) and go only by what is written in the medical records. and I think you might have a strong case with the court that they did not follow case law in considering the lay evidence of the veteran on its own merits - and did so in such a way as to actually prejudice your claim (by instructing others to give your statements no weight). How in the world can neck pain or ringing in the ears be diagnosed solely on the OBJECTIVE medical evidence? But if they put your reported symptoms in their reports - then the BVA can not give their opinions probative value because it relied on you knowing if you hurt or not or whether you were hearing buzzing in your own ears. Free

That is one thing the VA doesn't seem to realize about PTSD is that delayed onset it part of the nature of the beast. We had to fight that same concept in my husband's cancer claim. Wellll - if the nature of lung cancer is that is is typicallt asymptomatic until late stages - it is not useful to require that someone display symptoms in the early stages. If the nature of PTSD is that is often a delayed manifestation - then to require it to be anything else than what the nature of the very illness is goes against the standards of medically accepted principles. So since even the BVA failed to address the issue of the in service stressors - maybe you will have to point that out to them. 1. That as sexually assaulting patients is outside of the standard of care that physicians should follow - that the section 1151 claim should prevail (and I would think that MIGHT prevail in court) - 2. That as the section 1151 claim was only one basis of the PTSD claim. So even if they deny it as a 1151 claim - that does not preclude them from granting the PTSD for the in service assaults. That would be interesting for them to wiggle out of - explaining that as the VA doctor sexually assaulting you worsened your service induced PTSD they can't grant the claim. It looks like they have a lot of claims still to consider. I wasn't fully understanding the whole ear problem process - but I think you might have a basis on the EED on the other ear problems as they WERE in the VA record even if you didn't file a formal claim for them specifically. When you claim ANY TYPE of ear problems - and the record reasonably raises a claim for another condition - aren't they supposed to consider that. As you are not qualified to diagnose yourself - THEY are supposed to obtain the diagnosis and see if the diagnosed condition could have stemmed from the service. I remember reading a Court of appeals claim where the vet claimed for headaches - and the VA doc stated the headaches were actually caused by something else - which was connected to the service. But the VA just denied the headache claim becuase the doctor didn't diagnose them as headaches. They did that with my husband's claim. He claimed headaches as a Desert Storm related illness. The VA doc said the headaches were caused by his chronic sinus condition (which was diagnosed in service) and his cervical condition (which he had filed a claim for when he retired but was denied because there was no evidence of "current" disability - x-ray ALMOST normal). Instead of granting SC for the headaches based on the sinus and cervical conditions - they denied service connection because they were not a undiagnosed illness. We didn't have a copy of his records at that time. But in the Court of Vet Claims case - the court agreed that as the VA states that a vet, being a lay person, is not qualified to diagnose their own illness, then they can't deny the claim just because the vet imprmoperly diagnosed their illness and thought it was headaches instead of what it was. So that MIGHT apply in your ear claim. Being a lay person - you reported your symptoms - it was not up to you to diagnose yourself. Once the doctor properly diagnosed you - you claimed for that DIAGNOSIS. However, when you FIRST claimed for trouble hearing - ANY hearing related condition should be considered. If it is later found that you had other diagnoses than the one(s) they considered - you HAD claimed for hearing loss - I don't think the vet actually HAS to claim the specific diagnosis (as they aren't qualified to diagnose themselves). Free

I am with Josephine on this one. If you have SC for the OTHER conditions - or SOME of them - they shouldn't be able to deny secondary just because the psychologist also mentioned back and neck (which are not SC). I think it would be close to impossible to separate out how much of your depression and anxiety is related to your SC conditions and how much is related to you NON Sc conditions - therefore they would have to attribute the whole amount to the SC conditions. IF you had very minor SC conditions and a HORRID back condition - that would be different. I think it is horrid that the VA has a system in which a vet is afraid to submit supporting evidence because of one line that the VA might take out of context. However, that IS the way it is - so you were wise to check it out before sending it. The veteran benefits manual suggests vets get copies of their own records and only send in the ones that support the claim. You are NOT REQUIRED to send evidence which does NOT support your claim. But again - it is a poor system when a vet has to fear sending a very favorable statement because the VA can have a tendency to pull a tiny part out of the statement and quote it out of context. Free

I think it is because she appealed the other decisions. They just would not consider the one she said she hadn't appealed. That is a pretty intensive BVA reply. From reading it - I assume you must have presented a heck of a case - because they really got intensive into explaining some of the laws - rather than just pasting them in with a brief blurp. I was totally appalled that a VA doctor can sexually assault a patient, and since the sexual assault isn't within the realm of what the doctor SHOULD be doing, they can deny benefits from resulting PTSD - becuase it wasn't the result of the CARE recieved from the VA. Isn't that what the Section 1151 claims are ABOUT? That the VA either did do something they shouldn't have or didn't do something they should have in respect to your treatment and care. I would be tempted to send that to the press. They have really been running some stories about the PTSD many women vets have as the result of sexual assault from fellow soldiers. They might be interested in a story that the risk of sexual assault for female vets CONTINUES - by the physicians that are supposed to be treating them at the VA - and the VA refuses to pay the victims for PTSD caused by sexual assaults their own physicians perform on the female disabled vets they are supposed to be treating. Free

Holli, What degree are you seeking? Many colleges have their own financial aid packages for Grad students. When I got my Master's in Communication - I had a grad assistanship - where I taught two under grad classes while going to grad school. I got free tuition and fees - and got paid for 20 hours a week employment. My husband got his degree in Sociology. He got a grad assistantship in which spent 10 hours a week "office hours" to help any undergrads that came by for assistance, or do some research for faculty members. He got free tuition and fees and was paid for 10 hours a week. With these types of porgrams - you would talk to the department, not the financial aid office. Most departments have these types of programs to draw grad students to their programs. A 10 hour a week position wouldn't pay much - but should also not be considered "employment" for SSD. It is considered more financial aid. One thing to watch with a student loan is they DO have a forgiveness clause for student loans - based on total and permanent disability. But IF you take a loan out when you are already disabled - the forgiveness clause doesn't count - UNLESS your condition deteriorates. To get the loan forgiven - you need a doctor's statement that you are not able to do ANY gainful employment. After that - you are given a conditional discharge (you don't have to pay but the loan is not forgiven) for 3 years. During this time (once you are in the condtional discharge period) you CAN work - but will be off the program if you earn over the federal poverty wage for a family of two. After 3 years of conditional discharge - the loan can actually be forgiven - wiped out. If you already disabled when you take the loan out - it might be hard to use this forgiveness program if you need it later - though it does say you can use it if your condition deteriorates. SO I would think you could build a case that when you took out the loan you were seeking training to do a job you COULD do with your disbility. And if your condition got worse - where you could not do that job - you could have a case for loan forgiveness. free

That was quick - them correcting themselves. Hoppy is always talking about how the VA intentionally doesn't write exactly why you were denied a claim. I do think they like to draw you into fighting the side issues - that have nothing to do with granting the claim. You can see that a lot of times in the BVA statements. They veteran finally "proves" what the RO was denying the claim based on - but that issue was not relevant enough to grant the claim. ANd yes, they waste tons of taxpayer's money with the stuff they pull. And actually - the money paid to the vet is the vet's money. Part of the backloading of military pay is that the military person is paid less than comparable civilian jobs with the idea that if the person is injured or becomes ill - or if they serve a certain amount of time - they will get the rest of the money that was "put aside" for such purposes. I remember reading once that they had even discussed paying the military more - and cutting back on vet programs - but they didn't trust that the young military members would use the money wisely to take care of the things the VA takes care of. So in essence - the government keeps part of the money the vet should have been paid, in order to take care of the vet, and then wastes piles of money making the vet go through the dysfunctional system he has to go through to get the money they put aside for him. Free

Sounds like a rough experience. 71 could have been your "raw" figure - or percentage. They have ways of calculating your FVC value as the percentage of your expected value (where they factor in age, height, gender). SO in that case - they would divide 71 into the expected value and come up with your figure. One of the reasons they give you the post test is to test the severity of the disease (as in is it treatable or reversible). If your score improve they SHOULD prescribe you the inhaler - as it works for you. My husband's tests didn't usually improve with the inhaler. But when he was in the hospital during his last illness they actually did find something that worked some. So the "bad" news would be - as long as they can find something that works in improving your FVC - your disease won't be considered as disabling. The good news is that being unable to breathe is a horrid experience - so having something that works in treating that is a good thing. Free

Off the bat I am thinking about spatial orientation - in the sense of inner ear mechanisms. Like if you closed your eyes and someone spins you around - your body gets disoriented in the terms of it's relations in space - and you can fall over, walk into walls, etc. But for PTSD - it might mean being spacially oriented - knowing where you are all the time. Not so much do you get lost or not - but there being times when you don't have a clue where you are and have to look around for clues from your environment to get "back in touch" with where you are - especially during times of significant stress. PTSD -- Stress = I need to be hypervigilant to what is happening around me to the extent that I am not paying attention to anything else. So you could get stressed driving - and then pay attention to what the other cars are doing - and drive miles past where you were supposed to -- and if the stress was very bad - you might not know how to get back until you recover some. So it would be different than the normal person just having a poor sense of direction or getting lost. Two episodes in my life I can think of (and I DO have SOME PTSD -not military related) but I had something traumatic happen - so my mind kicked into its "pattern" of doing trauma -- And I was TOTALLY LOST!! I usually have a pretty poor sense of direction - but I was lost on a parking lot!!!! I kept driving around panicked trying to figure out HOW to get off this parking lot. (A normal person would probably slow down, stop, think, and look for the exit.) Not me - I just kept driving around like somehow if I could just get off this parking lot I would be safe. I found my way off finally - and I was driving to school _ ACK! I had to teach that night. But all of a sudden - everything looked unfamiliar (I came out of trance and became aware) so i THOUGHT I was going the wrog way (but I wasn't really) - so I turned around -- then - after driving awhile - I realized I HAD been going the right way in the first place. But for some reason I kept driving the way I had been - But then I finally turned around -- and drove past where I was supposed to turn. Again, instead of immediately turing around - I kept driving - even knowing I was going the wrong way. It was like all those things that are in your brain to get you where you are going weren't working. I KNEW I was going the wrong way - and just kept driving. Then I turned around - and for some reason - I turned around again. And it was like the whole episode was etched in my mind. Like I was either in trance and not aware - or else watching myself driving - but not doing the things I should have been doing. I am not sure - but I would say that could be an episode of being spatially disoriented. NOT all the time - but at times. I also had a friend who had panic attacks. She went to her school one day and had a panic attack - and couldn't get home. She sat on the parking lot and creid because she couldn't figure out how to get home. She told me "I just couldn;t get a map in my head." It was like when she paniced - her maps in her head disappeared -- and she couldn't get oriented to where she was or how to get out of there. She had to get past her panic before she could do anything about getting out of there. For quite some time she was afraid to go ANYWHERE because she was afraid she would have a panic attack and not be able to get back home. I am not sure if these apply to your case - but would be what I would think of when I think of being spatially disoriented from PTSD. And again, I think it is different than getting lost sometimes or having a poor sense of direction. You could have a great sense of direction that leaves you when you are under extreme stress. http://dnl.ucsf.edu/users/dweber/dweber_do..._hippocamp.html Hippocampal Functions in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Damage to the anterior portion of the hippocampus in PTSD can affect the ability to accurately develop supramodal, episodic representations and accurately evaluate and incorporate new information into episodic memory. This lack of accuracy in episodic memory will continually generate mismatch activity in the hippocampus that will initially hyperarouse the BIS and initiate excess stress reactions. These responses may attempt to habituate, but cannot do so due to impaired episodic memory evaluation and consolidation, which leads to cognitive, emotional, and endocrine exhaustion. In this manner, PTSD patients are unable to incorporate new information after their trauma and the most recent episodic memories that were consolidated remain traumatic and continue to affect expectations of the world. This fundamentally alters their world view and psychic life. Threshold of hippocampal activation for behavioural inhibition system is reached by threatening information and this information is incorporated into episodic memory and generates further traumatic associations that encourage intrusions, but neutral information doesn’t reach this threshold and so doesn’t get properly evaluated and integrated into episodic memory. The BIS shifts attention and executive functions away from neutral information toward threat. Note similarity of this idea to that of Murburg (1997), "relative basal quiescence of [catecholamine] systems with enhanced responsivity to stimulation may provide for enhancement of ‘signal to noise ratios’ in neuronal and other systems. Such enhancement may facilitate selective attention and selective responding to the most strongly determined inputs …, potentially contributing to symptoms including hypervigilance, insomnia, flashbacks, intrusive memories, panic, physiological hyperactivity, and startle." Murburg (1997) also points out interesting peripheral relationships to central processes. For instance, traumatic visualisations may induce increased peripheral epinephrine that increases memory consolidation by stimuluating the amygdala, which is important in emotional memories and was identified, along with increased activity in anterior cingulate and decreased activity in left inferior frontal cortex, in a rCBF study by Rauch and Shin (1997). Murburg (1997) also notes that, "responding to a stressor … may itself leave behind molecular ‘memory traces’ that so alter involved neural pathways as to predispose them to be more readily activated in the future." Relationship of hippocampal volume to ERP stimulus evaluation amplitudes - hippocampal atrophy, episodic memory impairment, behavioural inhibition and executive function disruption, all impair integration of new non-threatening information into neutral information schemata. This impairs attentional strategies that are directed by knowledge of what to expect and when and where to expect it. It thereby impairs the ability to detect, evaluate, and consolidate knowledge about the regularities in various, especially complex, stimulus arrays. http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~jdbremn/...tionalwords.pdf Neural Correlates of Declarative Memory for Emotionally Valenced Words in Women with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Related to Early Childhood Sexual Abuse Background: Animal studies have shown that early stressors result in lasting changes in structure and function of brain areas involved in memory, including hippocampus and frontal cortex. Patients with childhood abuse–related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have alterations in both declarative and nondeclarative memory function, and imaging studies in PTSD have demonstrated changes in function during stimulation of trauma-specific memories in hippocampus, medial prefrontal cortex, and cingulate. The purpose of this study was to assess neural correlates of emotionally valenced declarative memory in women with early childhood sexual abuse and PTSD. Other regions, including posterior cingulate, parietal and motor cortex, and cerebellum are functionally related to anterolateral prefrontal cortex (superior and middle frontal gyri) (Selemon and Goldman-Rakic 1988), mediating visuospatial processing that is critical to survival in life-threatening situations (Devinsky et al 1995; Vogt et al 1992). Recent PET studies have established a role for the cerebellum in attention and memory, probably mediated by its projections through the thalamus to prefrontal cortex (Ashkoomoff and Courchesne 1992; Leiner 1989). We have hypothesized that the excessive vigilance seen in PTSD is associated with increased demands on brain areas involved in visuospatial aspects of memory function and planning of response to potentially threatening stimuli (Bremner et al 1999a, 1999b).

I would think this wouldn't stop at the age 65 thing. I would think that if they got that passed - the next thing they would do is to try to prevent vets from drawing both VA and SSD - or offset it - saying that they are already being paid for their inability to work by SSD. Just a thought Free

I would think one of two things is going on. 1. They are trying to get out of paying retro by stating that THIS is your filing date - in which case you can get the claim granted - but then have to file for an Earlier Effective Date, meaning they can drag paying the rero out for years beyond granting the claim. 2. They are ignorant. ANd I do mean this. I do think we know the laws and regs better than MANY of the people who work at the VA. And I think that the people who do the first work with the files are the most inexperienced. But I think the ignorance is also what results in lots of denials. They look just deep enough to deny. But you know how you look at a law and think you have found something - but BEFORE YOU COUNT ON THAT LAW - you do deeper research - to find out if that law really applies like it looks like it does on the surface - and find out that it doesn't. I don't think a lot of the VA employees look that deep. If they find SOMETHING that SEEMS to fit - they use it - and think they are done. My husband claimed in 2001 for lung cancer. His biggest part of the claim was the doctor told him it had to have started WAY before he got out of the service. They have ignored this and ignored this and ignored this. His claim said I am filing because my cancer began in the service. I also am sending evidence of asbetos exposure. They denied on asbestos exposure. He filed a NOD - saying You have NOT addressed my cancer STARTING in the service. They again denied on asbestos exposure (DRO same as initial denial fluffed a bit). When he "reopended" the claim - he again said I want you to ADJUDICATE the UNadjudicated claim - Whether my cancer STARTED in the service!!!!! They sent him a VCAA letter informing him that he had submit NEW and material evidence about ASBESTOS EXPSOURE in order to reopen his claim. They will not even acknowledge that he has claimed, and was claiming that his cancer STARTED while he was in the service. This was NOT a little side comment in his claim. It was the MAJOR basis of his claim. He repeated it over and over and over again. Yet they continued to act like it had never been said. I still consider it an unadjudicated claim. And I am treating it as such. Even if they ended up granting SC for cancer with asbestos exposure - I want them to adjudicate the cancer claim for STARTING in the service - and give an earlier effective date to the date that he CLAIMED it in 2001. Free

I am starting to believe it is better to have NO So than a poor one. Having a poor SO can really prejudice the vet's claim. The VA is not responsible for what the SO does - so if your case is mishandled - they act like you had a private attorney or something. But I have also seen many BVA cases and court cases where they vet isn't given the benefit of the doubt on something because they were represented by an SO. (The vet states they were not made aware of ___, but they were represented by an SO ==== Or the court said that the VA is supposed to give a "sympathetic reading" to information submitted by pro se claimants -- but this vet was represented - thus he was not pro se...) I don't know. It seems like having an SO can work both for you and against you. Free

I think it about time someone started holding some of the SO's accountable. I remember reading BVA cases where the vet had sent their appeal form to the SO - and the SO never submitted them - They missed the dealines - ad the BVA would not waive the deadlines - as the SO is not employeed by the VA - therefore the VA is not responsible. I have questions about "in the constructive possession" of the VA. I think that any Service Records are considered to be in the constructive possession of the VA - whether the VA had them or not. I was thinking that might also be stretched to government records - as those are kind of within the realm of things the VA is supposed to get for you. Private records are a different matter. You have more control over those. So failure of the VA to get those can be failure of duty to assit (of you have identified the records and asked them to obtain them.)..but those records wouldn't be within the "constructive possession" of the Va before they recieve them. My husband's first denial for lung cancer was based on the VA determining that he was NOT exposed to asbestos - because he was not part of any occuaptional screening programs. We did some detective work - and confirmed that there were NO such proagrams for asbestos when my husband was an electrician. OSHA was just formed in 1970 - and the first OSHA standards didn't apply to the construction industry. Most Air Force Bases didn't even START ANY type of screenings and abatement programs until the mid to late 80's. So his lack of involvement in the asbestos programs did NOT "prove" he wasn't exposed to asbestos. In fact, they more likely showed his risk was GREATER because he was exposed BEFORE safety programs were in place. (No screenings, no training, no respirators - that are NOW REQUIRED for people doing the same type of work he did.) They did kind of acknowledge the POTENTIAL for exposure(being an electrician) but said "Though the record showed you worked as an electrican for 13 years, there is no evidence that you were part of any occuaptional survillience or screening programs.." Well how in the world are you supposed to be a part of a program that didn't even EXIST at that time? Duh. So we did get evidence of when those programs started. I am going to ask that those be considered to be in the contructive possession of the VA. They are government records. They are military records. And if the VA is going to use lack of involvement in such programs as evidence that you weren't exposed to asbestos - then they should dang well find out when those programs started before making such a decision. So I will ask that they be considered "in the constructive possession of" the VA. Actually - my husband was one of MANY MANY vets exposed to asbestos during this time frame - so the VA SHOULD actually KNOW when those safety programs started. After they started you can more easily assume: 1. People were better protected from dangers of exposure. 2. Records were kept regrading potential exposure. Being in ANY career field that was LATER a field that was regualted for asbestos exposure - if you worked in the filed BEFORE such a time - should raise the likelihood of exposure. We also obtained records of the asbestos management plan from the last base he worked as an electrician. THis plan shows buildings that had significant asbestos - and many of those buildings are ones that match the work orders he submitted to the VA for rewiring, maintaining wiring, etc. It took us MONTHS to get that - we had to fill out FOIA papers - and actually in 2007 the base has still not done a complete baseline survey for asbestos. I am going to ask that THAT report be considered in the constructive possession of the VA. It is a military record which WAS availble to them. These are not private records. They are records the VA should have obtained prior to making the decision. And yes, the vet should prove their case - but it is in the realm of the VA to get government documents and military documents relevant to your case. If they do not do so - I think an argument can be made that such documents were within their constructive possession. I am not quite as sure on my husband's post service medical records. These were also records from the military base. When we went to get my husband's records - they gave us those little digital brief things they now call medical records - that take your entire records and reduce them to little blurps. When we raised heck about the brief records - they told us they also have DOCTOR NOTES - that are DIFFERENT than your medical records. The doctor notes from the base medical records DO discuss his asbestos exposure and relative risks. We have no idea of whether the VA obtained these doctor's notes. (as it takes 6 months to a year to get the C-file copy). BUT - if they did not - I am going to ask that those also be considered to have been in the VA's constructive possession. My husband signed a release for the VA to get his post service medical records from the Air Force Base. They informed them that they had them. There is NO WAY they should even expect a Vet to know that there are medical records and doctors notes and these are separate. Or that when you allow the VA to get your medical records you are supposed to specify they are also supposed to get the doctors notes... Or that after they tell you they HAVE your base medical records that you are supposed to check to see WHICH records they got - and if they are complete - etc. etc. When you sign a release for the VA to get you MILITARY BASE medical records - you assume they will get them ALL. You also assume that if there is a special way to ask for them to get them all that they VA should know this. You also assume that when they say they have the records that they have ALL the records. So if there are any military base doctors notes that are instrumental in my husband's case that were NOT part of his VA record before I sent them - I am going to ask that these also be considered to be in the constructive posession of the VA. Free

Have you been diagnosed with arthritis? It might be something else - OR arthritis AND something else. They might do some nerve conduction studies on you - where they can trace the impulses along the nerves and see if there is any nerve damage or impenged nerves. When I hurt my shoulder - everything radiated down to my hand. The nerve conduction studies showed the nerves were okay. With therapy - the pain started getting more localized - and back to where the injury was (in my shoulder) instead of spreading all the way down my arm. But that was LONGE ago - and I still have to work with my hand a lot - or it will start wanting to draw up on me and hurt. Our bodies are connected through amazing pathways. If we are injured - it rarely affects just that part. It affects the pathways. Free

Wow! Your post gave me goosebumps. Powerful. And it is so hard to for people to understand the disabilities they can't see. In fact, even being in Had it - it took the realization that I know have vets in w/c's in my classes EVERY semester for me to wake up and say - Wow! This is just the tip of the iceberg I am seeing. We have a whole new generation of kids getting wounded in so many ways...ways that we can not always see. Though I am not a disabled vet my experience with my son's disability has been one of those "but people can't see it" type things. He is high functioning autistic. So he looks pretty normal. And can even seem to be pretty normal on the surface. It was especially rough during his adolescence when people would THINK he was "normal" and blame his akward social responses on his attitude. So, of course, they would snap at him and everything - and then, of course, he would snap back - which confirmed their beliefs - and gave them a reason to be unkind. It is a little easier now - because he HAS matured - and at 27 - when he isn't mature - people are more likely to get the hint that maybe something is going on - so they are much less likely to jump to "teach him a lesson." But I remember a social worker that told me once, "It would be easier if your son was a little worse - so people could see that and know." Or the doctor that asked me "Where are you going to hide him?" I remember once seeing obviously disabled child with his parents - and the thought crossing my mind how LUCKY his parents were that people could SEE their child's disability - and be less likely to judge the child because he didn't act like they would have expected him to had they not seen it. And there were times I would really get on my son because I would get so frustrated when someone would snap at him, or glare at him, or give me one of those "You are a BAD mother" looks - when they really didn't understand. But then I realized how horrid it was to put what some stranger thought ahead of the needs and feelings of my own child. Did I still need to teach him appropriate ways to act? Yes. But from a loving place - not from a place of trying to prove to judgmental people that I was a good mother. And like some of you have said -- I tried explaining over and over to people - so they wouldn't judge him - or me. Sometimes I still explain - like some have said - to educate. But I no longer feel the need to justify everything to every stranger. Sometimes people will think whatever they think anyway. I like the ideas from the book The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense: 1. Don't defend yourself/ 2. Don't counter attack. 3. Stand in your own integrity. Free

http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Sectio...ContentID=20434 Is It Only A "Pain In The Neck"? Pain in the cervical region can cause arm pain as well as the "pain in the neck." Why? In the case of the arms, it's because the nerves that branch out from the neck go all the way down into the arms and into the hands. Sometimes it's difficult to tell whether the pain is actually originating in the neck, or the arms, or both. Symptoms in the arms include numbness, tingling, cold, aching, and "pins and needles." These symptoms can be confused with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), a condition found in people who work at computer keyboards or perform other repetitive motion tasks for extended periods. In CTS, the nerve sheath that runs down the center of the forearm becomes inflamed and restricts the gliding movement of the nerve. It is possible, however, for a nerve impingement to start much further "up the chain," in the neck region. It's also possible for the nerve impingement to be taking place both in the neck and in the arm. http://www.necksurgery.com/symptoms-arm.html Arm pain, strangely enough, is sometimes not a symptom of something wrong with the arm, but a problem in the cervical spine (neck). Neck problems can affect the shoulders, arms, and even hands. These problems can be caused by wear and tear over the years, trauma, or simply "over-doing-it" one weekend. If you are suffering from arm pain and have been in any sort of accident involving your neck, you should seek treatment from a physician. Get a list of questions to ask your doctor. Types of Pain Acute pain is commonly described as a very sharp pain or a dull ache. Treatment of acute pain includes physical therapy, medication, and other preventative practices, but this is usually is short-term. Patients with acute pain, even when it's severe, will typically improve or completely recover within six to eight weeks. However, individuals with acute pain occurring more than three times in one year or who experience longer-lasting episodes of arm pain that significantly interfere with functional activities (e.g., sleeping, sitting, standing, walking, bending, riding in or driving a car) tend to develop a chronic condition. Chronic pain is commonly described as a deep, aching, dull or burning pain in one area of the neck or traveling down the arms. Patients may experience numbness, tingling, burning, or a pins-and-needles type sensation in the arms. Chronic pain tends to last a long time, and is not relieved by standard types of medical management like medication, physical therapy, or rest. It may result from a previous injury, or it may have an ongoing cause, such as nerve damage or arthritis. Keep track of your pain using our Neck Pain Tracker. Causes of Arm Pain Neck pain radiating down the arms is often caused by cervical spinal stenosis or a herniated disc. Spinal stenosis refers to the narrowing of the area of the spine where the nerve leaves the spine and travels to the rest of the body. This narrowing can be caused by many things: herniated disc, bone spurs, thickened ligaments, thickened bony structures, trauma, arthritis, and tumors. As the nerve leaves the spine, it travels through an opening created by bony structures of the spine above and below the nerve. If the size of this area is decreased, the decreasing can lead to irritation and "pinching" of the nerve, leading to pain and sometimes loss of function. The nervous system is the "communication system" of your body, so anything interfering with this communication can cause loss of mobility as well as pain and discomfort. When the outer lining that surrounds the disc tears, the soft center squeezes out through the opening, creating a herniated disc. This protrusion can then put pressure on a nerve leading to pain. When a nerve root or the spinal cord is being pinched, you may experience pain in your neck, and pain or numbness in one or both of your arms and hands. In severe cases, the muscles that are controlled by the nerve root that is being compressed by the disc herniation may become weak. The pain that you feel in your neck, back, and arms can come from a combination of a tear in the annulus fibrosis, from the pressure that the disc herniation puts on the nerve, or from irritation, inflammation and swelling within the nerve.

I have been teaching college classes since 1993. In that time, thanks to the GI Bill, and the fact that one of the schools where I teach is a community college near nd Air Force Base, I have had the opportunity to have quite a few active duty military and vets in my classes. The change that has occured the last couple of years is that some of the vets are now coming to class in wheelchairs.Young guys who went in the service walking and came out with no use of their legs. But I also realize that these vets - who most people typically think of when they think of "disabled vets" are but a small portion of the wounded - and that many of the vets walking into my classroom are vets with disabilities I cannot see coming to school trying to do what they can to make their life work for them. My thoughts and prayers are with them. And hope they kept copies of their SMRs. Free

I think a lot of people lump them together...which probably works against the vets as much as for the Vets. Kind of like in Jospehine's case where they tried to say - since the doctor said __ is causing your problems then they can't be caused by ___. How in the world could they know that? So sometimes they get lumped together to the vets benefits (as we can't tell which one is causing the problem - we have to attribute it to the SC condition) - and sometimes it works against the vet (since we can't tell for sure which one is causing the problem - it must be the NON SC one). It does seem to work to the vets favor if they are already SC for something and filing for an increase - than trying to get the INITIAL SC granted. Because the SC problem was granted before the confounding condition appeared. Plus - it really shouldn't be any different than other SC conditions. Vets have aging related changes that affect their SC conditions all the time - but when the SC condition increases in level of disability with the age related change - the rating can be increased. That is why it is probably important that a log of symptoms is kept and / or any PTSD type symptoms are reported to doctors AND documented. Because if the vet is showing an increase in symptoms that are related to the PTSD - then they can get an increase in rating - even a unrelated cognitive impairment is bringing on the increase. The PTSD symptoms are worse = increase. but if the doctor is just reporting symptoms that are related to the cognitive impairment that are NOT also symptoms of PTSD - the increase won't be as likely to be granted...as the two conditions CAN be separated. Free

Jesse - As far as benefits are concerned - if you do a BVA search with the terms PTSD and dementia - there are LOTS of increased ratings from this. Some are termed as "PTSD with dementia," some discuss how the effects of the demetia can't be separated from the effects of PTSD - so the benefit of the doubt has to go to the SC condition causing the problems. Again, I hope you find help - and something to treat your husband. But you are also going to have to be his advocate in this and make sure they don't sell you out on the possible connection with dementia (if it IS dementia) - whether the demetia was CAUSED by the PTSD - or just merges with it -- make sure the doctors know the interplay of the TWO things. The BVA has granted increased ratings for the combination in quite a few cases. Free

Jesse, Yes. People CAN get Alzheimer's that young. That is kind of how they discovered it. People were EXPECTED to get "senile" in old age. But when they started noticing the symptoms in younger people - age didn't explain it. They are doing much research in Alzheimer's - and getting better at diagnosing it - but as far as I know it is still very difficult to definately diagnose until after death (with a brain autopsy). Yet doctors LEAP to that diagnosis -- or the catch-all "Alzheimer's Related Dementia" WAY too soon - and then the person goes into custodial care. There isn't a lot of promising treatment. It's pretty well a downhill slide - And the SADDEST thing of all is it often is NOT Alzheiemer's - It is something that is treatable - or something that is not treatable per se - but NOT Alzheiemr's. I was an CNA in a nursing home, and activity director in a nursing home for 13 years - and did home health care. I hate to tell you how many people were admitted to the nursing home with the Alzheimer's label. Let's see - they were living alone - driving - handling all their own business - fall one day - broke a hip - and suddenly - they have an ALzheimer's Diagnosis. My cousin was in a farming accident. He fell off his tractor with his grandson mowing... fell UNDER the mower - and it cut off his leg. They had to amputate the ret of his leg. My cousin is one of those positive type people that just said "Oh well - it least it wasn't my good leg. That leg has been bothering me for quite some time anyway." A couple of days after his surgery - they had his wife come in - was telling her he had ALzheiemer's and they wanted to send him to a geri-atric unit. HELLO??? Did it EVER occur to them that POSSIBLY the heavy duty pain meds you require when someone cuts your leg off MIGHT interfere with your cognitive processing. I rememeber one guy in the nursing home who had "Alzheimer's." Was a former preacher that cussed like crazy. But then - he got sick and was put on oxygen. All of a sudden - he was alert. Totally. In time - they took him off the oxygen - and he went back to having "Alzheimer's" The oddest thing was that about 6 months later when he was sick and had to be put on oxygen again - he was not only alert - but he thought the last time he was alert was the day before. He had no memory of all the time that had passed. But he remembered everything that had happened six months earlier (or the day before to him). I talked to one of the nurses - asking okay -- why does this guy just have Alzheimer's when he is not on oxygen. Because MANY aging related problems rob the brain of oxygen. (Low 02 levels can cause confusion) Well - if they KNOW that - why not put people on oxygen - if it gets rid of the dementia? Because it is expensive... ACK!!!! Again -- I would NOT let the doctors start tagging this as Alzheimer's too soon. Alzheimer's means "We don't have to keep looking.." And yeah -- Odd that a lot of the older vets with "Alzheimer's" would have flashbacks. One guy would leap behind a chair - kneel on the floor and keep yelling at us to GET DOWN! PTSD may very well be a cause for what is going on with your husband. If not - it can still be an aggravating factor. Stress takes it's toll on the mind. Any kind of stress does that. Long term, chronic stress can change the structure of the brain. It is basically like being stuck in overdrive - the fight or flight response is a good thing when it saves your butt - but when you keep the sympathtic nervous system engaged all the time - it just isn't desinged to work that way. And if your husband, himself, is now starting to worry about it - that is stress on top of stress. I wish you well - and I hope you can find a way to get your husband back - and don't let the doctor's explain it away. Free