free_spirit_etc

Yep. They DO read.And then they select which part to pull out and (mis)interpret. Here is an idea for accountability - When a rater denies a claim on using a nitpicky tidbit of information they pulled out of a supportive doctor's statement and twisted it out of context in order to deny a claim of a well deserving vet - they get sent to Iraq to live amongst the soliders for a period of time - so they can better understand what it would feel like to live in those conditions and then come back and have someone make such a nitpicky unfair decision about their life. Oh yeah - and if they are injured or become ill - they are not allowed to document the injury or illness - or if they are - the records will be lost for however many years it takes someone to find something in the record to take out of context. Free

I know the agencies trade information on benefits and payments - and maybe eligibility. But can they actually release other information from your file without your express consent? Free

Let me see if I can say what I intended to say before I get off on a tangent again.lol First - crossing my fingers that the AMC will do right by you. Second -- the reason I asked if the second C&P talked about in-service behvaiors is that that could be important if you go before the BVA. I know they said you have a personality disorder (by the way - most people with personality disorders think that nothing is worng with THEM - they think something is wrong with everyone else - which is NOT one of your traits). (you can quote me :) ) If the second opinion tries to link in behaviors and in service conditions to your so called personality disroder -- that could be used FOR your case. As the first C&P noted -- Whether you suffered from depression and anxiety was NOT in question. What WAS in question was when it STARTED. (and the doctor even pointed out that they did not correctly note the first time you started getting treatment). So in this case -- if the second C&P came along and also ACKNOWLEDGES your problems in service -- but tries to link them to personality disorder - now the balance has shifted -- because everyone agrees that you had problems that showed manifested in service - the only disagreement is what LABEL to put on it. So you don't have to focus as much on proving when it started -- besides getting the VA to notice that everyone agrees you had problems in service - you can focus on the battle of what to CALL it. Hmm. they both agree that these problems showed up around the time I was in service. My service discharge pretty well indicates a problem. The doctor I saw in the service acknowledges he sent me to a psychiatrist. And ____ doctors have labled and / or treated my for anxiety / depression - and ONE doctor labled it personality disorder. Another thing that might be interesting would be that IF you have to appeal higher - to get a copy of the request that the VA sent the C&P examiners to see what they ASKED for in the report. I read a court case where the COURT (above BVA) had ruled that the VA had prejudiced the Vet's case by the information they included in the Exam request. Basically, they told the doctor what to look for and what to not pay attention to. They tried to get the report that they WANTED by the type of information they asked for. They are not allowed to prejudice your case by leading the examining physicians like that. They should ask for a report - but leave it up to the physicians to review the records and examine you and make their own interpretations. The fact that the first C&P reported that the VA had noted your condition didn't start until (was it 1978?) would even cause me to wonder if they had not tried to lead that one. Yeah. Most doctors are busy. If the VA asked them to look at your records from 1978 -- many doctors aren't going to dig through earlier ones. So if they requested that the doctor give his opinion on the anxiety you have been treated for since 1978 -- they have someone prejudiced his opinion (it did not work in this case though - as the doctor caught it and pointed it out.) But they tried to plant in the doctor's mind "this is when it first started." They should just ask the doctor to view the records and issue an opinion on whether or not you have the disability or if it could be related to your service. So it might be very interesting to see the request for the second exam. Because if they had prejudiced the doctor in how they worded the request - you could cite the court case and ask the BVA to throw out the second C&P. Of course, the BVA might decide to remand it for the RO to send you to another C&P with prejudicing the doctor. But I would assume if you go to the BVA you will know exactly WHY the AMC denied your claim - and can address that with stronger medical opinions if needed. Free

Tha sounds like an absolute nightmare - for the doctors to traumatize you while supposedly examining your anxiety. It almost sounds like they drugged you or something. Hopefully you got statements from your husband, family, friends, that help deny some of the accusations. And actually, those who live with you day in and day out - and have those who have treated you for years - should be MORE credible to testify as to your temperment, etc. than someone who talked to you an hour (psychiatrist or not.) I know psychiatrists don't believe that though --ACK! I have fought so many times over the fact that despite living with my son, and despite diagnosis - a new person will come in and DISREGARD every bit of it - and think they know MORE after talking to my son for 5 minutes. When he was 14 - he was hospitalized for about 6 months. At first - I went through all the "how can you learn to pay attention to your son so he doesn't have to act out to get your attention" games. But after THEY had to be around him 24/7 they quickly saw what I had been talking about. My visits with the social worker turned around - where SHE spent the entire session complaining to ME about his behaviors - and I was supporting HER...lol Then I read about Autism -- and OMG! It clicked! It made verything make sense for my son's ENTIRE Life! They didn't know much about high functioning autism at that time -- so most doctors didn't pick up on it. But when I read about it - it all fell into place. So I told the social worker - who thought I was "reading into" things. But the next visit she told me that the doctor had agreed with my observation. They did EXTENSIVE testing. Neuro-psychology testing, EEG testing, etc. before the doctor gave his offical diagnosis. Pervasive Development Disorder / Atypical Autism, and Left Temporal Lobe Brain Damage. (The doctor said his brain wave patterns were consistent with someone with a severe closed head injury. At that time they had suggested Residential School for my son. But the Department of Mental Health and the School System played pass the Bueracratic Buck of who was going to PAY for it. (Your son NEEDS this - but no one will pay). The GAME for them is DCFS. You are SUPPOSED to get THEM to pay by: 1. The hospital releases your child. 2. You refuse to pick them up. 3. BINGO! They are now a NEGLECTED child - DCFS HAS to pay for their care. Well - I wouldn't play that game. In essence, he would be "removed" from my "neglectful" care and become a ward of the State (to get his needs met). By the way - that is not legal -- but that is what parents had to do to get their kids help because no one else would pay for it because they knew dang good and well DCFS would if you did what was called the "DCFS lockout" (i.e. not pick them up on their release from the hospital. I was told "In order to be the good mother that you are, you have to let them declare you a 'bad' mother so your son can get help. What a CROCK of STUFF!! If my son couldn't get the help he needed with me in there kickin' butt all the way - how in the world would he get what he needed without me there to protect him. I called and called and called EVERYONE -- I went to the State Capital and cornered Senators at copy machines. I wanted so desperately to know - why can't anyone HELP my son while I am his MOTHER????? It is all a matter of whose pot the State $$$ come out of. The school told me that they couldn't pay UNLESS the Department of Mental Health denied a Grant to pay. So I applied for a grant with the Department of Mental Health. I went to a hearing. And was - of course, denied the grant. They DECIDED my son DID NOT have any of the diagnosis that he had recieved after intensive testing in the hospital. They just brushed all the doctors reports aside to decide he was not qualified for a Mental Health Grant. I called the head of THAT Board. He told me my son needed residential placement - and that I needed to do a DCFS lockout. I told him that I had read that since DCFS would pay for care based on "parent neglect" that my son would have to be put in the least restrictive environment. He would have to actually FAIL in several foster homes before they would consider placing him in a residential school. The guy (the head of the board that denied the grant) said "Based on his record that sholdn't take him long. ??????????? So they wanted to subject my son to FAILING in foster homes so that his residential school would come out of the tax dollars that DCFS spends instead of the Tax Dollars that the Department of Mental Health spends??? Now lets TALK about NEGLECT! THAT is NEGLECT!!! I discovered at that time that human beings are the only animal that have taken away the mother's natural instinct to protect her young. I wanted to BITE somebody!! Then - get this -- I called the school and told them I was denied the Department of Mental Health grant (so I could apply for the school one). She told me - we can't help you if you were denied the Department of Mental Health grant. I said - You mean he Can NOT qualify for a school grant UNLESS he is DENIED the Dept of Mental Health Grant - But IF he is denied the Department of Mental Health grant - he can't Qualify for a school grant? She said - "Yes" I said - "Then it is just a farce" She said "Yes" It was all a game to them to protect their budgets while I was running around jumping through their hoops not realizing that none of the hoops would lead anywhere -- they were jsut supposed to wear me out so I would do the DCFS lockout. Anyway - the school ended up messing up and writing on his IEP that he needed residential schooling. They tried to backpaddle on that one - but they were kind of stuck with it -- They had declared it as a need - which meant they had to pay for it if it wasn't provided by another agency. But then -- I couldn't find a residential school in the area that would take my son. (No wonder I was bonkers - I had been raising a child alone that even the residential schools didn't want to take.) My son had to be transfered to the State Hospital -- because the private hospital has to cure you in three weeks and he had already been there a couple of months -- but if he came home - he wouldn't "need" residential schooling. ACK! He even had to ride all the way there in an ambulance - because if he could ride with me in a car then he wouldn't NEED residential schooling. Games. Games, Games. But anyway -- we finally found a school in Wisconsin that dealt with kids like my son - with PDD - and high functioning autism. he Social Worker came down and evaluated him for 10 or 15 minutes - and didn't think he HAD PDD. He (the Social Worker) thought he was DEPRESSED instead. GEEZ! The kid had been in psychiatric units for SIX MONTHS! He had significant psychological testing! He had been under the care of psychiatric nurses and doctors ALL THAT TIME! NOT ONCE did ANYONE thnk he was depressed, test him for depression, or give him such a diagnosis!! But this guy just breezed right in - disregarded six months of psychiatric testing and notes - and made a determination that my son was NOT whatever all the doctors said - he was DEPRESSED!!! That was his only problem.. ARGH!!!! Anyway -- I lost all idea of where I was originally going with this post -- but I ended up taking my son home. I wasn't sure I would be able to help him, but I had to try. I just knew he wouldn't get what he needed from them. Free

It might be a good idea to see if the C&P doctor would clarify the statment for you. She might be willing to do so - since it seems like she was saying that the person: 1. Had anxiety and depression that was secondary to heart problems 2. The anxiety MIGHT be contributing to worsening of the IBS symptoms. From what I have read anxiety does not CAUSE IBS - but can contribute to worse symptoms in someone who has IBS. And IBS can cause anxiety. They often co-exist. So it would seem like that exam would have resulted in SC for depression and anxiety (secondary to heart condition) - and if it had ANY affect on the IBS rating - it should have INCREASED it. It is amazing how the VA in ways restricts what their doctors can say - and then twists what the doctors say around - which is easier to do because of their restrictions on how the doctors are supposed to word things. You - as a lay person - are not qualified to interpret what the doctor meant. They - as lay people - are. Odd - a patient does not have the expertise to discuss their own illness. Though many people become virtual experts about THEIR OWN diseases. Yet - a VA employee - who has never even HEARD of an illness - is given the "expertise" ranking to make decisions about what they think the doctor said. Free

Yep. That is a pretty supportive opinion. I like how he points out that the records show you were in treatment LONG before the VA indicated you were. So did they ever give you a reason as to WHY -with several medical opinions already in your favor - they sent you to another doctor. It would seem like they would have to give a reason as to why they considered the medical opinions you had inadequate before they sent you for ANOTHER one. In fact, THIS one says that your DIAGNOSIS wasn't in question. So - again - you have been treated for YEARS for anxiety and depression. The VA C&P examiner even states your disgnosis is NOT in question - the only question is did you aquire it in service, or as the result of service. Then you get sent to another exam with a WITNESS in the room that suddenly decides that you have a DIFFERENT diagnosis - one that magically would make you ineligible for benefits. Geez....... Anyway -- didn't the second C&P kind of suggest that you already had personality disorder in the service? That you displayed symptoms in the service -- but that they were from a personality disorder? Free

Good point. I will have to admit - when I started reading it- and saw the length of service -and the pre-existing psych stuff - I was surprised by the decision. However, though schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder has a genetic base - it also usually requires SOMETHING to set it off. In this case, the VA ruled that it is at least as likely as not that the boot camp experience was that something. That is common with many psych disorders - you can have the predisposition for it - but it doesn't develop because nothing brings it out. Or you can experience the horrors of hell (with no predisposition) and not end up with a psych disorder. But just because you had the predisposition - or just because something would have occured to set it off anyway -- if it is at least as likely as not (benefit of the doubt to the vet) that what occured in the service IS what set it off - it would be Service Connected. That would actually be no different than to say that someone had a weak lower back that went out when lifting something in the service that never improved -- that the service CAUSED the degree of disability. Rather than to say that -oh..well - it would have ended up going out someday anyway --when they lifted something somewhere else. I think mental disorders are subjected to a lot of discrimination in that respect. It has been our culture to blame people for their mental disorders...adn see them as a sign of weakness. "Well that shouldn't have bothered them - it wasn't that bad -- it wouldn't bother a "normal" person ---yadaydayada.." But again -- some people can lift heavy objects and never have a back problem. Another person can lift something a fraction of the weight and mess up their back forever. They used to actually fight a lot of worker's comp claims with the "their back was bad -they had poor posture -- it would have went out anyway." But at least they are moving more to the "law suit" standard of You take someone AS THEY ARE. If picking up a cotton ball makes their back go out -- and you handed them the cotton ball - guess what... Free

Josephine, I don't know all the particulars of your case - but based on what I know - I would think you have a pretty strong case - at least as far as the BVA would be concerned. Especially since you have a C&P exam that is in your favor. If you have been treated for nervousness and anxiety for that many years - yet your treating doctor - even if not a psychiatrist - didn't see any indications of personality disorder -- and the FIRST C&P was in your favor - it just seems completely odd that they would send you for a SECOND C&P that magically discovers that you have been suffering from an undiagnosed personality disorder all these years. When they had the evidence to grant SC - even from their own doctor -- you wonder what would compel them to keep digging for evidence that you have a personality disorder (besides all the retro). And WHERE did they get the information they came up wit to use against you? (The kicking walls, cutting, etc.) Can I ask - Does your relative that works for the VA think you have a personality disorder? Do you think SHE is having something to do with this claim? (i.e. looking at your FIRST C&P and deciding to tip the RO off that SHE doesn't think it is right - so THEY have to send you to someone who basis THEIR opinion on HER opinion?) Just wondered. It just does not make sense that you gave them YOUR evidence...THEIR doctor who examined you gave you a favorable report -- and then the case went all to heck with strange meetings with more than one doctor interviewing you at the same time -- who suddenly have access to all this private information --etc..etc..etc.. I hate to say it - but I would wonder if your relative not only did not help you - but totally set you up. Free

Yep. Good point. Don't give them any openings to go off on tangents. If he was diagnosed in service with anxiety and an examiner said that the anxiety POSSIBLY contributed to the IBS they would NOT grant SC on the standard of possibly. Therefore - they should not take away the presumption based on a possibly statement. If you HAVE IBS - then, yes, anxiety can play a role in increasing the symptoms. Just like anxiety can make the symptoms of many diseases worse. But the best thing is to not even encourage them to get off on those tangents. I do not think you have to be a doctor to point out that the IBS was diagnosed LONG before the anxiety and the fact that someone said it may POSSIBLY contribute to it does not create CAUSE. Amazing how they can ignore so much and focus on so little. Free

Well my bank account is $225 slimmer now. The VA FINALLY reclaimed the March 1, 2007 payment from my husband's Feb 5, 2007 death that they had put a hold on the bank account on May 20, 2007. According to the IRIS reponse - I won't get the Month of Death payment now until they decide the DIC claim. Oddly enough - I am relieved that they finally took the money back. I was getting aggravated seeing it sitting held hostage in my bank account - showing on my balance but unavailable to use. I asked them to either take the money or release the hold. You would think if someone died in February they could make up their mind by August. So at least they did SOMETHING - even if it was just taking the money back. Technically, what they SHOULD do in these cases IS to actually reclaim the money from the bank account. And then issue a check to the widow. Because the check is payable to the widow.. and there is no guarantee that the widow is the person with rights to the Vet's bank account. So to make sure the widow actually IS the one who gets the money - it DOES make sense that the VA would take it back from the bank and send it to its rightful owner. That way there is no question as to if the widow got the money - or if someone else also had access to the account, or if the account became part of the Estate, etc. The argument for leaving the money IN the bank account is most often the widow is the joint owner of the account (though I am not sure how this plays out in community propery states). Also - the more steps invloved - the more chances the VA has to make a mistake. So maybe - some day - down the road - I might get the $225 back. In the mean time - I am guarding the statement from the bank proving that the VA took the money - so I can prove I didn't already get it. Free

To me Possibly means - "there is a possibilty." But it does not neccessarily rise to the level of "at least as likely as not." It could be a 10% chance or 30% chance. At least as likely as not would indicate that the possibility was such that there was at least a 50-50 chance - that it would be AS likely that it contributed than that it did not. So possible just means it COULD happen - but doesn't really indicate that it is LIKELY to. Free

Allan, How are things going now. This post really helps explain your position. it had occured to me that - yes, a doctor could have an issue if you were getting pain meds somewhere else and he wasn't aware of it -- as his license is on the line. But for him to come in and throw such a fit about it - when you have been coodinating your pain management between the VA and a private provider ALL ALONG is totally uncalled for. Even if he didn't want to continue the pratice - he had the duty to treat you like a human - and just notify you that though you have been geting your meds that way all along - he isn't comfortable being responsible for your pain management if it involves drugs the VA doesn't authorize. And give YOU the choice of whether you want to have your pain managed by the private doctor or the VA. (Couldn't you still get your drugs from the VA even if they are prescribed by a private doctor --as long as the VA carries them?) So his over reaction was WAY out of line - changing your diagnoses and things. And especially refusing to write the script for the incontinence products. What are you going to do? Abuse the guards? Pee too much? What reason on earth could he use to justify his reaction because a Vet had been using two doctors for his pain management? And he surely can't justify mistreating a Vet because the Vet chose to get a second opinion about his medical issues. I am sorry he has seemed to manage to turn this back on YOU with your family. It seems like he is trying to convince them that your medical care is a stake - and if you don't "behave" you won't get appropriate medical care. Free (I don't like bullies either)

I hope this is this guy's last week working for the VA. Might make a nice news story though... Free

Oh yeah.. I remember you were pretty well counting on getting 100%. Gosh! It would seem like you would get an increase on the heart - needing the surgery and all. I wondered about the NOD because I had read once somewhere that you can only file one offcial NOD -- so I wondered if you were having your say - and getting it on the record....but waiting to submit your formal NOD. I thought it was a great idea. I read where they often do "top sheeting" - where they just skim over a report or two - and take their info from there. I am sure that is what they did on my husband's cancer claim. Everything is straight off the Doctor's opinion (NOT a C&P because he didn't SEE him) -- You were good at pointing out things they didn't consider right on the report though. You know what would be great -- if to work for the VA you had to take a reading test - and be able to read technical stuff and report it back accurately before you could get a job. -- since how they read affects people and all. Of course, this isn't unique to the VA -- have had the same problems with about anyone who is "giving out" money. They have an uncanny ability to read something and notice everything BUT the main point. Free

Can I ask why you specified that it wasn't a formal notice of disagreement? is that so you can write a formal one later/ Free

I wasn't sure... They have all kinds of second opinion sites that are willing to give you second opinions on cancer -for TREATMENT --but not willing to give an opinion on anything else about the cancer. So yeah.. they are willing to tell you something in regard to your cancer has been misdiagnosed as ___, or you should do __ treatment instead of ____. Stuff that can really affect your life... But as for saying -I think the 3 cm tumor didn't get there overnight... they can't mess with such stuff. I think though --even though I say it is not litigation --and just needed for the VA -- everyone is afraid that if they state the cancer was present long before it was detected - they might be called in a malpractice suit or something. Free

You don't have to have worked to get SSI - you have to be disabled and unable to work. I think some people draw both SSI and Vet Pension -- but then again, I think the deduct one from the other. Another option MIGHT be SSD. If you show he was clearly disabled prior to age 18 - and that as a result of the disability that started BACK then he is unable to work - you could try to get him on SSD on the record of one of his parents as an adult disabled child. Again - you would have to work on getting that -- as so long a time has passed. But based on what you have stated -- it might work. If you can show he had problems back in childhood -- barely made it in the service - has been unable to hold a job since based on the SAME disability he had back then - you should be able to establish that he was disabled in childhood, therefore not able to ever establish a fully functioning work record. If you can establish this - he should get to draw benefits from whichever parent would give him the larger amount. Adult disabled children basically get about 50% of what a living parent is drawing - or 75% of what a deceased parent got. Again, I am not sure of what these amounts would be in his case IF you establish it - or what amount of pension he is drawing to know if he would come out ahead of where he is. But then again -- it sounds like one of two things occured -- Either he was always disabled -- and barely made it in the service -- yet his disability never went away and even got worse -- so it is the SAME disability --thus SSD. Or he was somewhat disabled - but presumed sound - but something happened in the service that kept him from being able to work after that -- thus VA. The problem will be convincing THEM of that. The VA will probably try to say -- he was always disabled. Social Security will probably try to say --he wasn't disabled -he made it in the service... So it might take LOTS of work to prove either case. And they also can share records with each other --to hold something you said in one claim agaisnt another claim. But you can keep checking - keep exploring --check out your options - and file for anything you think he MIGHT get to protect the filing dates... and work like heck to make it happen. Free

I am not real familiar with the Pension part of the VA. I DID apply for an increased pension for my ex-father in law at one point --but when my husband was ill - I passed the ball on that to my ex-father in law's daughter -and I think she just let it slide. Based on my limited knowledge - I would put in a written request for an increase due to housebound / aid and attendence. This should protect the filing date -so if the increase is granted - they can do back pay. I am not sure on that - but I think ANYTHING with the VA -- don't wait until you get the case together - FILE and INFORMAL claim - or give notice that you are filing one. You MIGHT even want to do this for the SC claim. If you file an informal claim - and ask to reopen the claim - and send them SOME new and material evidence - You have PLENTY of time to figure out if you can actually make the claim work for your brother. And you can always drop the claim or not appeal. But filing protects the date and he can get paid back to the date that the claim was first reopened - if it goes through. So if you think you might be able to show any kind of claim -- file -- protect the date - and THEN put it together. So you might want to file for increased pension AND SC. When I filed for increased pension for my ex FIL -- they sent me a doctor statement for his doctor to fill out. They also scheduled him for an exam at the VA. He was 97 years old at the time. GEEZ! Yeah. I know it was hard for them to take his doctor's word that a 97 year old man might have difficulty getting out of the house by himself. Also - you might want to try talking to his doctors at the VA. See what they think. Get EVERY medical records - or ANY kind of records you can get your hands on. And THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!! Look outside of the ways you have ALREADY been thinking about his SC conditions. Often - we get Tunnel Vision. We think in one track and miss all the others. You said your brother had lots of sick calls while in the service. And you think it was his nerves that made it happen. But were there other things diagnosed? Did they keep causing him problems after the service? Were they chronic conditions? I see MANY disabilities my husband missed claiming because he was thinking of the one's that he had claimed. He had many respitory problems in service -- was diagnosed IN SERVICE with chronic bronchitis and chronic sinutitis. But he never once claimed them to the VA. Even when he had his headache's evaluated for "Desert Storm Illness" the VA doctor stated that one of his types of headaches was CAUSED by his chronic sinus condition that was diagnosed IN SERVICE. Of course -the VA DENIED the claim for headaches (as they were a diagnosed illness) and mentioned that he was treated for sinus once or twice in the service. When we got a copy of the C&P exam this last year --the C&P doc CLEARLY made the connection -- CLEARLY stated that the condition was diagnosed IN SERVICE WITH X-RAY evidence --but the VA just blew it off...and denied the claim because the headaches weren't related to Desert Storm. We didn't know the doctor had said what he did because we didn't have a copy of his report. But there was a ratable illness that my husband didn't get rated because he didn't make the connection. Oh yeah.. the VA said my headaches were caused by my sinuses. I was treated for my sinuses A LOT in the service. So - again -- 30 years has gone by - so some connections might be hard - but there might also be some that you will look at a say - Man! I missed THAT one. There it says clear as day that he had ___ and it never did get any better. Just some ideas.. Free

I would think that would help a lot. An opinion from any doctor would help. And again, I would also check his medical records to see if ANY of the doctors made the connection between the cancer and heart probelms in their notes. Also -- keep in mind there is more than one "treating physician" here (I assume). The doctor who was "attending" my husband at the hosptial when he died was the one who filled out the death certificate. He was the MD who covered cases of patients of my husband's oncologist - who were hospitalized. But he also had a cancer doctor, a heart specialist, an infection doctor, a pulmonologist - etc. So you should have access to quite a few different doctors for an opinion. If his heart doctor doesn't note in his records --or isn't willing to give an opinion -what does the oncologist say? Rarely does someone with cancer die of "cancer." It is the complications that do them in. Pneumonia, heart, malnutrition, infection, etc. My husband's death certificate lists metastic lung cancer as the cause of death. Odd that he was readmitted to ICU with pneumonia 3 days after they had discharged him and taken him off his antibiotics he was on for pneumonia. If I was the doctor who released took him off the antibiotics and released him to go home - I wouldn't broadcast that he was back with full pneumonia 3 days later either. And though his heart was fine when they sent him home -- they had to call in a cadiologist when he came back because his heart was stopping momentarily every time they turned him or laid him a certain way. Anyway -- cancer (and cancer treatment) take a huge toll on the body. So it might not be difficult to get an opinion that it is at least as likely as not that the cancer contributed to his heart problems. Free

If they specifically stated that you were denied because the condition might have started prior to service - then you might have a case that they did not correctly apply the presumption of soundness. As to the conflicting statements - Are they saying that you made conflicting statements as to when the disease actually started? Or that you made conflicting statements as to when the current disability (i.e. when it started bothering you after service) started? Free

That almost sounds like they denied it initally because they found no "current" disability. And then granted it when the pain increased. If that is the case - it could be a CUE -in that it should have been SC as a nonratable condition the first time - but they could also say that it didn't "manifestly change the outcome of the decision" as you wouldn't have gotten PAID for the SC - the SC was granted - and you got paid when the condition was "ratable." (i.e. they could admit the condition should have been granted SC the first time - but that you didn't lose anything by it not being granted.) Just my thought -- based on VERY limited information -- so I might be way off base here. Free

Wow! I feel for you, but personally, I think the SC will be hard to get. You might be able to get SC on the lower spine -- but it probably wouldn't be rated high enough to offset his pension. I am assuming that if he got a 10% or 20% on that - they would just deduct the amount he ot for the SC from his pension. The cervical spine would probably be rated higher IF granted - but you would need a doctor to state (and the VA to accept) that either: His cervical spine was injured in the service - and his current problems stemmed from that. OR His lower back was injured in service and the problems in his lower spine caused him to develop problems in his cervical spine. But once again, even if you could establish that - I am not sure it would result in more$$$ than he is getting from his pension - unless he could get it rated high enough AND get Unemployable FROM his Service Rated conditions. As for the nerves -- the continued treatment would help IF it is documented that he had such problems in the Service or IF his post service treatment records talk about his problems starting in the service. I think it would be extremely difficult to go back 30 years later and try to prove they started - or worsened - in the service - if no one has mentioned it before. The fact that he had problems with this BEFORE the service would make it harder. I think they would see the fact that he had trouble making it through boot camp the result of a condition he had PRIOR to service - rather than a condition that manifested IN the service. So again - it would have to be established that the Service made his condition worse than it would have been otherwise. And again, the 30 year lag makes it harder.. to go back and show that the service is what CAUSED the worsening of his condition. Even with the presumption of soundness - the presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. If he is developmentally disabled -- even if it wasn't noted on his entry - I think the VA would have a case that his problems stem from that - and the service didn't cause the developmental disablity. It would probably take a strong medical opinion that his nervous condition worsened in the service in a way that it would not have worsend had he not been in the service. I know this sounds very discouraging. And maybe some others might have some ideas to help you with this. You might have a stronger case that I am not seeing. Personally, I think your best bet would be to see about seeing if you can get an increased pension - if he qualifies for housebound. You could try other benefits too - like Social Security / SSI / etc. but I think that whatever he got from those would be deducted from his Pension - so I am not sure if he would come out ahead. I am not sure of this - so you would want to check it out. Sorry I can't be of more help. My son is developmentally disabled --so I KNOW about the car thing. When I was trying to teach him how to drive (when he was 18) he would drive along okay for awhile and then ask "Now which side of the road is mine?" ACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK! You would think after riding in a car for 18 years - you would just kind of KNOW which side of the road to be on. But when he would THINK about it - he had to question it. Most parents are always telling their kids to THINK. When my son THINKS - it gets downright scarey. He does much better on automatic pilot --when he starts THINKING - watch out! Free

This is just a suggestion -- and I am not as experienced with claims as some on the board - so if what they say contradicts what I say -- you might want to listen to them. But it seems like there are two issues - getting SC and the CUE. It seems like they are treating the CUE as a request to reopen the claim. If they keep treating it like that - then they might just reopen the claim - instead of adjudicating the CUE. I think I would keep sending what they asked for - for the reopened claim - In this case it would probably be evidence that his condition started prior to 1996. But also re-iterate to them that they have not addressed the CUE. I am not sure how hard to push the CUE. I think I would just mention it - to make sure you have evidence that though they are treating it as a reopened claim - you have NOT dropped the CUE issue. If they deny the claim the second time - you wouldn't get the CUE anyway - and will have to appeal the issues. If they grant the claim - and don't back date. Make sure you appeal for an earlier effective date - and point out that they still have not addressed the CUE you filed on ____ and re-adressed on____. So there are the two issues. Should Service Connection be granted? And did they commit a CUE? The SC is the MOST important...because no matter what mistakes they made it can't be a CUE unless it would have manifestly had changed the outcome of the case (i.e. resulted in SC). Free

What did the letter say that they sent him. It sounds like the type of letter they send to re-open a claim. (your claim was denied because of ___. In order to reopen your claim we need new and material evidence about ___). He can reopen the claim -- and if he gets it awarded - file the CUE for an earlier effective date. What evidence didn't they use? Erroneous statements?? The VA??? Surely not!!!! Free

Do you think they made a legal error? As far as presumption of soundness - did they try to say you had the condition before the service? What reasons did they give for denying it the first time? Free