free_spirit_etc

Thanks everyone! I will try playing with it a little more -and especially try removing the quotes. Free

Thanks Rick and Spike. I think I might check it out with the email address. I seem to get further when people have to respond in writing (and you have written validation of what you asked). I haven't had much luck with what people tell me on the phone. Free

Are you talking about Dr. Craig Bash? You can check him out at the BVA site. Do a search with his name. I have actually only run across a couple of cases in which the claim was denied in spite of his opinion. Lots of claims granted and lots of remands - depending on the circumstances. Free

I posted here quite some time ago about the VA taking money back out of my bank account for my husband's final check. I thought they had taken it. But they still haven't. They placed a HOLD of the funds on my account (or probably more appropriately, they tried to place a hold on our joint account - and since that was closed the BANK placed a hold on MY account) - but they still haven't taken the money. The hold was placed May 20, 2007. The hold is still there - and the bank says it will stay there until the VA either takes the money or releases the hold. It seems odd that they would hold the money so long without taking it. And it also aggravates me that they can keep an eternal hold on my money. I wish they would either take it or give it back. Every time I check my account balance I am reminded that I have money that the VA won't let me spend and there isn't much I can do about it. Free

I don't quite understand how the private messages work. I have received several private messages through had it --and I type a response and click send -- but then it either says there is no such person or their messages are blocked. So it there a way to respond to private messages someone sends you? Thanks, Free

Jerry, I know it is absolutely frustrating!! Can you call the VA doctor, explain your situation, and see if you can get him to sign it and move things along. Maybe you can call someone at the VA center and get them to get the doctor to move on signing it - and get a copy for yourself - and send it to St. Louis. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your wife. Free

I have taught at two community colleges and as a general rule I have found that often the counselors there do not know what they are talking about. Gads! When I tried to sign up for a Pottery class - the advisors weren't letting me register because they did not have "proof" that I took Freshman English. I kept telling them "I TEACH here..." But they weren't convinced. I asked "Why are your standards for pottery students higher than those of instructors?" You would think if they HIRED you to TEACH they could assume your English skills were equal to or greater than a college freshman. Anyway - I have heard horror stories over and over again about students not getting into classes, students not given credit for classes. students being advised to take classes they didn't need...etc..etc... Appeal. Appeal. Appeal. Ask higher up. Most often when students do that - they find out they have been advised wrong in the first place. You might want to look up the residency requirements for the school online. They might be directed by the state, rather than the school. Around here - you have to be a resident for 30 DAYS before the beginning of the term. So I would look up the info and see if they are telling you right. Most community colleges also give in district rates to people who have an EMPLOYER in district. They can get nuts on this too. I lived out of district -- but had an in-district employer -which was the SCHOOL ITSELF. I get an employee discount on classes (I pay $2 a credit hour for classes) - so it shouldn't be hard for them to figure out. I had NO PROBLEM forever taking classes - because it didn't matter whether my employer was in district or where I lived - because as an employee of the college I got special rates anyway. Then - I actually MOVED -- and LIVED in district. The they went nuts wanting me to PROVE I lived in district. It should NOT have MATTERED -- since I was getting employee rates on tuition anyway. But for some reason - they wanted the proof. I actually showed up for class and was told I could not attend the class until I cleared my residency up with admissions. Guess what I used as proof of residency? My PAYSTUB from THEM. I took they paystubs THEY had been mailing to my new home address to prove that I was getting mail at that address. They are nuts!!!! Anyway - another benefit most community colleges have is mutual agreements with other schools. Instead of competing with each other with all programs - if the program you want is not offered at the school where you are in district - you can take it at ANOTHER community college that offers it as in district rates. You have to arrange this between the schools though. They do chargebacks to each other or something. But it is one thing many students don't know about. But if you can - check out the requirements yourself - and don't trust the advisors to give you correct information. Free

Thanks to everyone for clarifying the issue for me. Understanding sure helps. On this post - I think this was a reason my husband was denied service connection on a couple of his claimed conditions. He claimed them AT RETIREMENT -they wait over a year to give him a C&P - they FIND current disabilities - but then even state BECAUSE of the length of time involved they cannot specifically link the current disabilities to those he claimed on discharge. But don't you think it is kind of odd that the conditions he claimed AT retirement were found to be disabling. I thought this might be a reason they delay the C&P exams. Had they done them a month after retirement - it would be harder to disconnect the current disability from the one claimed at discharge. Free

Thanks to everyone for clarifying the issue for me. Understanding sure helps. On this post - I think this was a reason my husband was denied service connection on a couple of his claimed conditions. He claimed them AT RETIREMENT -they wait over a year to give him a C&P - they FIND current disabilities - but then even state BECAUSE of the length of time involved they cannot specifically link the current disabilities to those he claimed on discharge. But don't you think it is kind of odd that the conditions he claimed AT retirement were found to be disabling. I thought this might be a reason they delay the C&P exams. Had they done them a month after retirement - it would be harder to disconnect the current disability from the one claimed at discharge. Free

My thoughts and prayers are with you both. Sorry I am not much help on knowing exactly what resources the VA might help you with in the near future. She might be eligible for education benefits if you are 100% - but I am not sure how that plays out with her own VA disability. Is your wife's cancer considered a slow growing type? Is there any way a medical doctor would write an opinion that based on the type of cancer she has that it is more likely than not that her cancer started in the service? Id so - she has a potential for being granted 100% SC on her own claim. But that is still not something you can count on in the near future. My husband and I visited the Cancer Survivor Park when we were in Kansas City last summer. It is one of the parks built by blochcancer.org, a foundation for helping cancer survivors. Free

" (2) The effective date of an award of increased compensation shall be the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if application is received within one year from such date." So - is this talking about an increased RATING for something that was already granted SC --or increased compensation - in general. In my husband's case - If he was 20% Service Connected on his back and knee - but recieves an increased COMPENSATION based on his cancer -- can the claim go back to the date it can be shown the increase in disability occured - if he filed within one year of that date? With all the talk of Congress being specific where Congress intended to be specific -- Is an increase in disability only increased ratings in disabilities already SC'd? Or does an increase in disability also include percentage of disability increasing due to an additional Service Connected condition? Free Free

I hear you on that one. My husband waited from last August for a copy of his C-file -and didn't get one before he died in February. Now I have started over - and they tell me it takes 6 months to get a copy - or to get an appointment to view it. But of course, I am supposed to send in evidence. And if you get an IMO - they are supposed to look at the entire C-file. Though I am thinking if they could at least write the entire C-file isn't neccessary to issue an opinion because they viewed ___, ___, and ____ - hopefully that would be okay. But yes... it is hard to argue your point on what is in the record without getting the record. Free

So this would be similar to the Periods of Incontestability with insurance - where after the time frame (usually two years for insurance) they cannot contest your claim - except for fraud. Free

Welllllllllll... Yeah. I could see if something occured such as you were misdiagnosed with X - and they granted Service connection for X - and years later they discovered you really had Y, instead of X - they wouldn't be locked in to continuing to pay Service Connection for something you didn't even have. I guess misdiagnosis can go both ways - in favor or against the Vet. Free

Welcome back Josephine! I hope your move wnet well. I opened HAD IT and saw your name on the success stories thread - and thought you got lucky! Guess not.. Free

Berta, Thank you for clarifying these things. I get the feeling that handling a claim with the VA is like walking through a mine field - and you have to be careful with each step you take. Because I see so many times that we should have done this instead and should have done that instead - I would rather fully check out many of the steps BEFORE I take them - rather than taking steps that I later have to backtrack and try to undo damage. I always thought - when THEY don't develop a claim and get an opinion - and the Vet dies -- and they restrict the claim to the evidence in the file at the time of the death - that is fundamentally unfair to the survivor - But - if you can continue to get opinions that stipulate that the medical evidence in the file at the time of death DO show Service Connection - and that opinion is not considered new evidence -- but an intepretation of the evidence - that would be more fair. In fact, I think I should point out to the VA that the IMO is just supporting the evidence already in the file - that the doctor wouldn't be saying anything new - so much as expanding - and explaining what the other doctors had said. So I am glad you pointed that out - as I wanted to be sure before I proceeded. I am also glad you clarified some things about Dr. Bash... and the VA's take on him. I was a bit hesitant about him when I saw the appeals where the BVA judge called him C.B. ( and I still think that case should be vacated for prejudice). Actually growth rates of cancer is very much in the field of radiology - because they are the ones that keep working on ways to improve how it is detected. And it does look like if there is ANY evidence AT ALL in the file - Dr. Bash seems to find it and research it...and find a way to make whatever connection he can. And if the medical evidence really supports it - the other doctors can't refute his opinions successfully. And a couple of the cases that were denied - the biggest fault they seemed to find with Dr Bash's opinion is that he based something on the Vet's self report. How odd in the medical world that a doctor would actually believe that the patient is capable of knowing whether they are hurting or not..... Dr. Bash was one of the doctors who opined in the 2006 case I just posted the other day - where the widow was granted DIC for the Vet's Skin cancer - based on the sun exposure the Vet experienced in the year he was in Vietnam. I was pretty amazed at that one - that the VA didn't try harder to say that he could have been exposed to the sun both before and after his service. It helped that he had an inside job and was not a "sun worshiper." But yeah -- the way they really warn people about the sun now -- think of all the Vets that get sent to these places where their skin is cooked for over a year. It would be hard to say that being cooked alive for a year did NOT contribute to your skin cancer. I take it from your comment at the end of your post: "I think I have exhausted all I can possibly offer in this matter.Others here will continue to help you." that you are bowing out. Thank you for all the help you have given me. Free

Berta, So I am not quite sure how a medical opinion submitted after someone dies supports the accrued benefits claim...unless it is stipulating that SC should be granted based on evidence that was in the record at the time of death. I wanted to be pretty sure on this because I don't want to mess up the accrued benefit claim just to get the DIC claim decided sooner. I have been looking up info on Dr. Bash. But it didn't look like he did the simple opinions. They are all pretty complex. He does seem to know the VA law well - as I have seen him instruct the BVA on what the LAW was - as well as give his medical opinion. I have seen him get a lot of claims granted - and quite a few of them remanded. I was wondering though about his credibility with the VA. I know you have had trouble getting your RO to accept his opinions. And it looks like some of the BVA are starting to pick his opinions apart a bit more. I was looking up his 2006 BVA cases - to see how his opinions have been doing recently. I think it all depends on the judge. Some are still listing his full name and credentials, etc. and acting as though his opinions came down from God. But some judges are actually starting to just call him C.B. (which, by the way, I think is totally disrespectful to him)...and not just say the probative evidence is against the claim -- but stating things like - C.B argued these inacurate facts again in his _____" Some of them seem to be downright slamming his opinions, rather than just not afford them probative value. I hestitated discussing this - as I know that many people are Doctor Bash fans. And I am not so much concerned about his opinion - as the VA's take on his opinion. I don't want my claim to be jeopardized because the VA wants to get in a Power Struggle with Dr. Bash - and use my claim to try to take a hit at him. This is not to say anything negative about him - or his opinions - so much as to say I want to be very careful about possibly paying the price if the VA wants to take some potshots at him. I agree that Dr Bash has been a Godsend to Vets - kind of like the Robin Hood of the VA -- and has not afraid to take them on - and has been very skilled at doing so - which is why some of them are beginning to have a problem with him. Odd that they don't seem to notice the glaring inaccuracies in the VA examiner's reports -- but they can spot tiny ones in IMOs. There are MANY Vets who deserved SC that would never have gotten it had it not been for Dr. Bash stepping up for them. And I think for them to just to refer to him as C.B. in their opinions should be addressed. To me it shows prejudice against him - which in turn prejudices the claim. I think it is totally unprofessional on the part of the BVA judges that do that. To me - it tells me they aren't taking his opinion as a doctor seriously. And to me that prejudices the claim. It is okay for them to deny claims they know should be granted just because the Vet doesn't have the IMO to push them to grant it. But when a doctor steps up to help the Vets - and help level the playing field -- Maybe the VA doesn't want the playing field to be level. They want control of the ball. So I have had some real mixed feelings about that. That doesn't mean I won't seek an opinion from him. But it does mean I want to check things out thoroughly before I do. Free

That sure is the truth. The new gimmic now is to offer insurance and NOT even unwrite it. No health questions asked. They take your premiums - and then when you die - they want to look at your medical records to see if they should pay you. I am fighting that with an insurance company right now. They sure didn't mind taking his money - but now that he died - they want to see if he was "insurable." Free

I would imagine the companies wouldn't cover suicide at all if they were allowed to do so. But it would be like most other things - after two years they can't contest anything but fraud. If you outright lie on the application - they can probably contest that indefinately. But if you die of some dreaded disease within the first two years - they can contest your claim - even if you thought you were healthy when you apply. That doesn't mean they don't have to pay -- but it means they have a better chance of not paying within the first two years. I think they get you on secondary connections on some of those contests. You didn't reveal that you had ___ because it didn't seem important - but the ___ led to ___ which caused ____ which led to your death. I think the two year limit on suicide would protect the company from people who buy policies with the intent to kill themselves. Two years is a long time to wait just to do that. I had a friend who told me that she decided to kill herself - and was going to walk out in front of a truck. But then she was afraid they would find drugs in her system and not pay the insurance -so she decided to get off the drugs before she killed herself -- and really kept to the plan - but at some point she started feeling so good when she got off the drugs -she decided not to kill herself. One of those happy endings. I could see where suicide would be higher among people with PTSD. And the risk would probably be as high two years after the policy was issued. Living with PTSD is not an easy thing. And a $300,000 policy is a pretty substantial one. So they would probably be more picky on that amount. A lawyer would certainly be willing to argue with them for quite some time for that amount of money. Maybe the VA could sell special PTSD life insurance. Or give it to you free when they send you to a war. Free

I think most policies just don't cover suicide (while sane)for the first two years. After that - they cover it. Free

Yep. There is quite a bit of discrimination in our society based on mental health issues. When I took my son to DORS to see about getting him in a work program - the woman talked to him for awhile - and then started talking to me as if he wasn't there. So he just kind of wandered out. Geez! She snapped "Did he just get up and walk out????" I wanted to say "No. He is still here....." I should have said "Well.. you were acting as if he was not in the room - so I guess he thought you were finished with him.." But she went on and on telling me how he couldn't get a job if he just wandered off like that. This was a program to get jobs FOR people with disabilities. They would NOT tell a blind person they had to see better - or a deaf person they had to hear better - or a person in a wheelchair they had to walk. Free

Nope. I wasn't eligible for that. You have to be married over a year - and we were actually only married for 10 months and 3 days. Plus, I think since he didn't take it on his spouse when he retired (as they were ALMOST divorced) - he wasn't allowed to add any spouse's he picked up along the way. I am not eligible for a VA pension either because of being married for less than a year. But DIC can kick in if you married the Vet within 15 years of their period of service in which the SC occured. I am not sure why they don't grant people the status of "real" spouse unless they have been married a year for many benefits. I think you are a real spouse the moment you get married. I think they don't want people getting married just so they can draw benefits. And I have already fought some prejudice witin the system (mostly SSA)because I am applying for benefits to which I am legally entitled - but I married a man who was already terminally ill. So I guess people assume you just marry the person and then sit around and wait for them to die so you can get rich. Odd though. I was his EX girlfriend who became a good friend because the woman he left ME for was driving him nuts. ("It must be love - I feel so crazy!) So I became his friend because I was about the only person he knew that he could talk to about her - because I COMPLETELY understood how he felt (because she treated HIM like he had treated ME). Then - when they only thought he had a few weeks to a few months to live in 2004 - Ms "Not Very Right" (fiancee) bailed - saw him one time in the hospital - and then sent him a dear John email that she suddenly realized she didn't really love him. So I stepped up to the plate - and told him I would take care of him. The plan was for me to take care of him the short time until he died. But then he ended up pulling through - and was actually in remission for some time. So since he lived -- it messed up all the plans -- and we ended up becoming the best of friends - and OMG we did so many things and had so much fun. And then last year he asked me to get married. People even questioned why I would marry a man with a terminal illness. Well - because I love him and because he wants to marry me and because I am going to be here through the illness anyway - I suppose... I am so glad I stuck it out through the rough times - because though we didn't have all the time I would have liked to have had - we had more time than was expected - and most all that time was GOOD time. He was only pretty sick right at the very end. But now I face the illusion that some people have that I was less than a "real wife" based on the time since we said "I do." Or that I just breezed into his life while he was taking his last breath so I could "cash in." I guess, like prison, they think marriage is a place where you have to serve a certain amount of time before the time really counts. Free

It was my understanding that the nexus could also be shown in the doctors notes. I am doing - and have done - research on IMO's. Two of the main things that have stalled this are: 1. IF the VA will grant service connection on the medical evidence in the file. I am entitled to accrued benefits as well as DIC. If they grant SC - and base that on an IMO submitted after his death - then I get DIC but no accrued benefits. Of course, I could appeal that - and try to build a case that the IMO only supported the evidence IN THE FILE at the time of his death. But I am not sure how successful that would be if they use the IMO as the basis for granting SC. If I do not submit an IMO now - I run the risk of being denied. But I can still submit one later - at the beginning of the appeal - the remand, whatever -- AND I would have the SOC telling me exactly why it was denied so that could be addressed in the IMO. And I still would probably want the IMO to focus on the fact that the evidence to grant SC was ALREADY in the record. If I submit an IMO now. I run the risk of being granted DIC but being denied accrued benefits - as the decision was not made based on the evidence in the record at the time of his death. A couple years of accrued benefits for 100% SC is a substantial amount to risk - IF I can afford to wait and see if I can get the claim approved without having to risk it. I might even risk losing it if the VA decides THEY need a medical opinion. I don't know. But I was trying to keep the focus on pointing out that the evidence to grant SC is already in the record. If not sending an IMO right now would cause me to lose DIC - and I wouldn't have a chance to redeem that choice - then I would send an IMO in a heartbeat. But if sending an IMO RIGHT NOW causes me to risk losing the accrued benefits claim - I would prefer to wait and not take that risk. 2. I have contacted several doctors about an IMO - but they either: a. Don't want to get involved. b. Want to complicate the issue. I wish I could find someone who would write a fairly simple opinion - such as what is already implied in the medical records. But the one that I have talked to about building a case wanted to base the case on the LONGEST doubling time of cancer, or adding this that and the other. To me -- if using the standard doubling time of the type of cancer - or even the SHORTEST doubling time of that kind of cancer would show SC - I don't know why you would risk trying to use the longest time. The STANDARD doubling time of pulmonary adenocarcinoma is 180 days. At that rate it would take 17 years for the tumor to reach 3 cm. My husband's tumor was that size two years after he retired (28 years of service). If you use the LONGEST doubling time as an argument - it conflicts with all the evidence already in the record, can lead to all kinds of arguments at the BVA level as to whether the longest doubling time is an accurate measurement, taking the focus off the fact that even the standard or shortest doubling time would make the cancer present for longer than two years -- and possibly cause the VA to not take anything they say as credible. I am also hesistant about the this, that and the other speculations - which again, I think could take the focus OFF the main argument - Based on standards of medical practice - THAT kind of cancer does not grow THAT big in THAT time frame. It is not even close. We aren't talking about the possibility that a cancer grew twice as fast - and grew to a size in two years that most cancer takes four years to obtain. We are talking about a 2 year vs. 17 year DIFFERENCE! I realize in some cases - a lot of connections have to be made. But I think in this case - the more simple I keep the IMO - to where it is only addressing the MAIN argument - without adding other things for the VA to argue with it about - the better. IF they did not grant SC with a simple, straight forward IMO - THAT would be the time to create the additional arguments. But I think adding the additional arguments early - or creating an argument based on longest doubling times (when that wouldn't be neccessary to support the claim - and MIGHT harm the claim) would not be the wisest course of action. I realize my course of action might take longer. However, the biggest thing I risk losing is time. I will still get the retro once I get the claim approved. I think I risk losing more by moving too quickly with an IMO I am not comfortable with. I have several emails out to doctors now in regard to an IMO - I want to already have my plan to get an IMO ready to move on whenever it is neccessary. Perhaps they won't grant SC based on the evidence that was in the record at the time of his death. If they don't - then I will lose my claim for accrued benefits. But on chance (however slight that may be) that they DO grant SC based on the record at the time of death - I stand a lot to gain to try to make that happen. Free

Thanks John. I would agree that the money for a good IMO would be money well spent. That is why I am researching IMOs a lot - to make sure if I get one - I get a good one. Free

I am sorry you take exception to my statement. And I have nothing against IMOs in general. I realize they can be very neccessary. I do have an issue with the fact that the system is set up in such a way the vets (some on very limited resources) having to pay for an opinion in cases where such an opinion should not be needed. For instance - there is case after case of cancer granted based on the length of time it takes cancer to grow. Now if the time frame is close - then you have difficulty proving SC - but if you have a slow growing cancer diagnosed within a few years -- SC has been granted without a lot of problem. If the time frame is close - you would have a bigger problem getting SC. However, I was reading a BVA case where the VA medical "expert" stated that it is standard in the medical field to consider that cancer's "onset" was when it was diagnosed. So the claim was denied. Now to succeed - the vet will have to go out and pay for a doctor to challenge the VA expert's off the wall statement. In my case - I would just be paying someone to write an opinion. The evidence is already there. It is not all that complicated. I don't need someone to dig through all the records and look for medical connections. It is all right there - straight up. I haven't got the VSO yet. But I did talk to them. I actually asked them for a referal to a doctor who would write an opinion. They said that the VA might accept what is written in the doctors notes. The problem with the doctors notes is they didn't STATE it was their opinion. However, I am pointing out to the VA that they "opined" on the cancer in their notes. As they did not give reasons and bases in their notes - I submitted evidence to support what they documented in the notes. I didn't just submit an internet printout about the cancer and try to make the connections myself. Where one doctor had stated the doubling time of adenocarcinoma was 180 days and one stated 6 months -- I then submitted evidence from several reliable sources - and pointed out this supported that what the DOCTORS said is the Standard Medical Opinion in the Field. I realize this might not be successful - especially if they don't read it. And I realize that I might still need to get an IMO at some point. My husband wanted to submit what we had - and see if they accepted that - and if they didn't THEN go get an IMO. I do think as long as the medical information I sent is backing what the doctors put in their notes - and not purporting a new theory - that I should be on solid ground for an appeal. I think if they get a medical opinion that states his cancer probably did not start in service that does NOT address why they would think a cancer that typically takes 15 - 17 years to grow to 3 cm would have done so in less than two years -- I can at least get a remand. And then, of course, I would probably need to get a strong IMO. It frustrates me because the Base doctor is the one that told my husband that his cancer started long before he got out of the service - and he did document the standard doubling time - and the number of doublings required to reach 3 cm. But he didn't come out and STATE "this cancer probably started in the service." He WAS willing to write such an opinion when we asked - but then told us the base attorney told him that he couldn't. But he did let us have his notes - which still should be helpful. So yeah.. it bothers me that I should have to pay someone to write an opinion when the case should not be all that complicated. The evidence is THERE -IF they want to grant it. And I have seen BVA cases that you could tell they wanted to grant and they listed very little evidence to grant it. And I have seen BVA cases where the person had tons of evidence - and they picked it apart piece by piece. I HAVE seen BVA cases where they took statements in the doctors notes to be credible and probative -- and stated that they considered them so because the doctor made the statements in the notes - and did not make the statements merely for the person to get benefits. So I did point this out in my argument. 1. The doctor said the standard doubling time is 180 days in their notes. 2. All these reliable sources state the same thing. 3. Therefore the doctor statements in the medical record are based on established medical principles. 4. The evidence should be given credible weight as the doctor was not making these statements solely for the purpose of me obtaining benefits. It would be much easier if they just came out and said "In my opinion___ because _____" And in my opinion -- that would be ALL I need. A doctor who did not get into all the complex what ifs -- but a very simple direct statement. At this point - I am more concerned that if I get a more complicated IMO -it might harm the claim more than help it. The claim is pretty straighforward. But if all kinds of complex issues start getting added to the mix - and the doctors start debating the more complex issues -- the whole MAIN POINT can get lost. And I think the VA is good at getting off on the side issues to side-step the main point sometimes. I have contacted a couple of doctors about an IMO - and I will continue to research on that issue -- because I want to know exactly which direction to move when and if the time comes. But I would just be paying someone to write me an opinion - because the evidence is really already there. Maybe that is why they have failed to acknoweldge and address his claim that the cancer started in service. I was hoping to hold off and see if they accepted it - and if they did not - then I would probably get an IMO to address the opinion THEY paid someone to write. I am not opposed to IMOs. I am opposed to the notion that many vets have to pay for them in cases where the should NOT need to get one. I do not think all IMOs are created equally. And I do want to make sure that if I pay for one - it is one that will help my case. Free