free_spirit_etc

Interesting case where Service Connection was granted for skin cancer that resulted in Vet's death - from Sun Exposure in Vietnam. http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files3/0615645.txt

If you do have to hold your breath - make sure you hold your breath over a condition that is already service connected. That way you get extra money for a fancier funeral. Free

Thanks Vike and Berta for all your suggestions and guidance. I still haven't got a IMO. They seem so downright costly. The aggravating thing is there is already evidence in the record...where doctors pretty much did "opine" though they didn't come right out and say "more likely than not" or that they viewed all the SMRs - etc. Sometimes the BVA seems to accept these statements as probative - as they were the doctors documented them in the medical record - and didn't make them soley for the purpose of recieving government benefits. I have pointed these out in the records - and backed them with evidence of sound medical principles. Like where the doctor said that the doubling time of adenocarcinoma is about 6 months - we showed that is based in sound medical principles - as the accepted stadard reported is 180 days. This is taught in major universities and is on the SEERS Training Website for the National Cancer Institute --which is purported to be THE standard. According to their website "The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is an authoritative source of information on cancer incidence and survival in the United States... The SEER Program is considered the standard for quality among cancer registries around the world. Quality control has been an integral part of SEER since its inception. Every year, studies are conducted in SEER areas to evaluate the quality and completeness of the data being reported." Where the doctor reported that the risk of cancer from asbestos exposure and smoking combined was 80% - (where smoking alone would create a 10% risk and asbestos exposure alone would create an 8 % risk) we supported that with evidence such an Army Medical Training Site -- which reported the same thing. So though the doctors didn't write an actual medical opinion - they did give opinions within the medical records themselves that suport the claims -- We just backed it with evidence that those opinions were actually based on very sound medical principles. The VSO I talked to on the phone seemed to think we could build a case with the documentation within the records. What also might make the sources a bit stronger is that the doctors were Military Treatment Providers -not the VA - but Base physicians -- So the VA might consider them a bit more trustworthy than someone you hire just to write an opinion. So their opinions weren't detailed - but they were there - and we supported them with sounde medical principles from very reliable sources which support what the doctors said. Lung cancer is listed as the primary cause of death on the death certificate. I have not signed an authorization to release his medical information yet - as I was reading in the VBA manual to not sign a release until you view the information. That made sense. Though I don't think I neccesarily have anything to hide - I also don't need to provide them with a means to do what they do so well - which is to take something unrelated totally out of context and go off on a tangent about it. Most likely - as his death certificate lists lung cancer as the cause of death - I will look over his medical records at the hospital - and just send them some documents that support that. But I shouldn't have to prove the case that he died of lung cancer. Free

Yeah. That retirement pay offset has saved them lots of money. I know they do the offset when the person is alive. But I am not quite sure how they do it after death. I asked DFAS and the VA to see how it would work - but neither one seemed to know what I am talking about. I am talking about how any accrued benefits would be for a period in which my husband had already recieved retirement pay - and therefore any benefits which were not covered under concurrent reciept would be benefits to which he was not "entitled." Or would he be "entitled" to them - and as I am the surviving spouse and not recieving retirement pay - would I get those without the offset? What I had assumed was that if they decided he was eligable for benefits for a time he drew retirement pay - that I would have to repay the retirement pay for that time if I wanted the VA benefits. But no one at either the VA or DFAS seems to know what I am talking about -- so maybe that it not so. They just tell me it will be taken out of "HIS" check. But he no longer gets a check. The way I had figured it is that I would actually lose money on the deal - if I had to repay retirement pay -- Free

Feels more like ping pong to me. Free

I wasn't clear about the inferred claim. That would be a claim for accrued benefits - not DIC. But I think they decide them at the same time. The DIC would be based on the lung cancer. I probably don't have a good understanding of inferred claims. I didn't realize they were a judgement call at the descretion of the VA. I thought if evidence was submitted that showed the possibility of an increased rating for a SC condition - that if the VA did not notice the inferred claim - that the claim could still be brought up as a "pending claim" - not as on the basis of a CUE. I do understand that the lumbar condition is not related to the cervical condition. However, I thought that since he was already SC for arthritis in one major joint or group of minor joints, that arthritis susequently appearing in other joints that were injured in service could be the basis of a claim for increased rating for arthritis (since his previous rating for arthritis was based on the arthritis only affecting one joint). I am not clear why you say my husband's C-file doesn't show any nexus between the cervical injury and the arthrits - as he had continued symptomology - they just didn't find any physical reason for the symptomology until the last C&P exam. I probably don't have much, if anything, to gain financially by proving the cervical claim now. However, my husband injured his neck in the service. He repeatedly and consitently reported to the VA that his neck hurt. They repeatedly indicated their was nothing physically wrong with his neck. When they finally decided there WAS something wrong with his neck - it was used to deny a claim for an undiagnosed illness, rather than to grant the claim he had been claiming all along for his neck injury. I know the cervical injury could not be reopened without a CUE, and as the widow I don't have the legal authority to raise a CUE on the issue. However, I thought it might fall under a pending claim for increased rating for arthritis. The biggest thing I would have to gain would be to finally get a ruling that my husband's neck injury was SC. One of his battles would be won - even if the victory didn't come until after his death. I guess I just wanted to win as many of my husband's battles as I could. It is probably a "widow thing" to want to keep fighting our husband's battles...regardless of whether we stand to gain financially from doing so. When your husband is dying of cancer - and when he asks for his morphine - and you ask where he hurts - and he says his neck - you just get really aggravated that the VA kept telling him there was nothing wrong with his neck. Free

I previously had asked about filing a CUE for a cervical condition my husband claimed. I have found I cannot submit a CUE for the condition - but am wondering if it can be raised as an "inferred claim" for accrued benefits. My understanding is that inferred claims for increased ratings for conditions that have already been service connected that have not been recognized by the VA - and addressed - are still "pending claims" Correct me if I am wrong on that. My husband claimed his cervical condition at retirement. Though his SMR's showed he had a cervical injury in service - he was denied SC as both the RO and BVA stated he did not show a "current disability." His first C&P in 1999 said his x-rays didn't show ANY disability. He continued to complain of chronic neck pain - and his C&P in 2002 found only a slight problem at the C4-C5 level - which they still didn't think was enough of a disability to be a "current disability" to grant him SC. I have NO idea why they didn't grant the service connection and rate it at 0 percent at that point, instead of denying SC based on the "No current disability." In 2003 - the C&P exam for headaches --for his "Desert Storm" C&P denied him SC for the headaches because they C&P examiner indicated they were a diagnosed illness (therefore not compensable under Desert Storm as an undiagnosed illness). THe C&P examiner indicated the headaches were caused by osteoarthritis of the cervical spine - which affected C1 - C7 - but by some miracle happened to appear the greatest at the C4-C5 level with hypertrophic spurs, significant restrictions in flexion and extension, etc. etc. My question is: As my husband WAS Service Connected for DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS in 1998 - based on the arthritis that had manifested in his lower back from a low back injury in service - wouldn't a VA report that indicated that arthritis affected ANOTHER joint that had a documented injury in the SMRs raise an INFERRED claim for an increased rating for ARTHRITIS - as now affecting two or more joints? So if the VA failed to recognize the inferred claim for an increased rating for degenerative arthritis (and just denied the SC of an undiagnosed illness) - would this still be a "pending claim" that is before the VA? Free

I am sending in evidence to go with my DIC / accrued benefits claim. My husband had a claim for lung cancer (which he died from) pending at the time of his death. As my husband's lung cancer claim also provides evidence of other respiratory conditions are these also "pending claims?" He did not specifically ask that his claim be adjudicated for other respiratory conditions. However, wouldn't they still be claims raised by the evidence submitted in the pending claim? He was diagnosed with mild emphysema and Interstial Lung Disease 2 years after his retirement. He does have some reduced pulmonary function tests in his SMR's (FEV-1 / FVC 83.8 in 1986 and 82% in 1987). He also was diagnosed with Chronic Bronchitis in 1985. In June 1996 (two years before his retirement - it is reported that he had coughing from bronchitis in Dec 95 that caused him to have left sided rib pain for 6 months. I submitted information from the National Cancer Institute, American Lung Association, etc that indicates that repeated bouts with bronchitis or pneumonia can be early symptoms of lung cancer. So that might add some support that he did have symptoms that could be attributed to lung cancer while still in the service. Or at least an argument can be made that they can't just blow off the respiratory symptoms IN his SMRS as "just bronchitis" without giving a medical rational for dissociating the bronchitis from the lung cancer - when medically sound principles indicate that repeated bouts of bronchitis can be a symptom of lung cancer. So can I request that all respiratory conditions that are reasonably raised by the evidence in the lung cancer claim be considered? Also -- as my husband required substantial care beginning in December 06 - through his death Feb 07 - does this raise a claim for Special Monthly Compensation (as the evidence submitted WILL show he required this level of care) - or will he not be considered for this as the evidence in his record at the time he died would not show the extra care he needed at the end of his life. Free Free

Here is a very detailed account on how they determine the actual family maximum benefits: http://www.teamncpa.org/main/calc_content.php?PageID=9 Additional Benefits If your spouse does not claim benefits in his or her own right, your spouse is entitled to a monthly payment equal to 50 percent of your PIA. Additionally, if you have dependent children at the time of your retirement, each child is also entitled to a benefit equal to 50 percent of your PIA. Thus it is possible that your PIA can be more than doubled, depending on your family situation. However, there is a maximum benefit your family can receive based on your own earnings. To illustrate how the family maximum is applied, continue with the previous example by assuming that your adjusted preretirement income was $42,000 a year. Thus your Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) (hot link to the page in this document on How your monthly Social Security payment is calculated) is $1,377.30. Also assume that you have a non-qualifying spouse and one dependent child. In 2000 the family maximum formula limits the amount paid on a single PIA to: 150 percent of the first $679 Plus 272 percent of any amount between $679 and $980 Plus 134 percent of any amount between $980 and $1,278 Plus 175 percent of any amount above $1,278. Thus the family maximum in this example is: (1.5 X $645) + (2.72 X ($980 - $679)) + (1.34 X ($1,278 - $980)) + (1.75 X (1,377.30 - 1,278) or $2,359.30. Before applying the family maximum, the total payment would have been $2,754.60, but the formula caps the payment at $2,359.30. If both you and your spouse qualify for Social Security, each of you can claim benefits in your own right. However, depending on earnings, one spouse may be better off claiming benefits as a dependent. Dependent children can receive benefits based on the parent's account with the highest PIA. Formula for Maximum Family Benefits The total monthly benefits which a worker's family may receive based on his or her primary insurance amount (PIA) are limited, in general, by a formula that depends on the PIA. There is a special formula for computing the maximum benefits payable to the family of a disabled worker. Computation of the Old-Age and Survivor Family Maximum The formula used to compute the family maximum is similar to that used to compute the PIA. It involves computing the sum of four separate percentages of portions of the worker's PIA. For 1999 these portions are the first $645, the amount between $645 and $931, the amount between $931 and $1,214, and the amount over $1,214. The dollar amounts in the formula which govern the portions of the PIA are frequently referred to as the "bend points" of the family-maximum formula. Thus, the family-maximum bend points for 1999 are $645, $931, and $1,214. See table of bend points below for amounts in years beginning with 1979. Consequently, for the family of a worker who becomes age 62 or dies in 1999 before attaining age 62, the total amount of benefits payable will be computed so that it does not exceed: 150 percent of the first $645 of the worker's PIA, plus 272 percent of the worker's PIA over $645 through $931, plus 134 percent of the worker's PIA over $931 through $1,214, plus 175 percent of the worker's PIA over $1,214. This total amount is then rounded to the next lower multiple of $.10 if it is not already a multiple of $.10. Determination of the 1999 family-maximum bend points The bend points for 1999 are obtained by multiplying the corresponding 1979 bend points by the ratio between the national average wage index for 1997, $27,426.00, and the average for 1977, $9,779.44. This amount is then rounded to the nearest dollar. For 1999, the ratio is 2.8044551. Multiplying the 1979 bend points of $230, $332, and $433 by 2.8044551 produces the amounts of $645.02, $931.08, and $1,214.33. These amounts are then rounded to $645, $931, and $1,214. Bend Point Table Dollar amounts (bend points) in PIA and family maximum formulas, 1979-1999 Dollar amounts in PIA formula Dollar amounts in maximum family benefit formula Year First Second First Second Third 1979 $180 $1,085 $230 $332 $433 1980 194 1,171 248 358 467 1981 211 1,274 270 390 508 1982 230 1,388 294 425 554 1983 254 1,528 324 468 610 1984 267 1,612 342 493 643 1985 280 1,691 358 517 675 1986 297 1,790 379 548 714 1987 310 1,866 396 571 745 1988 319 1,922 407 588 767 1989 339 2,044 433 626 816 1990 356 2,145 455 656 856 1991 370 2,230 473 682 890 1992 387 2,333 495 714 931 1993 401 2,420 513 740 966 1994 422 2,545 539 779 1,016 1995 426 2,567 544 785 1,024 1996 437 2,635 559 806 1,052 1997 455 2,741 581 839 1,094 1998 477 2,875 609 880 1,147 1999 505 3,043 645 931 1,214 http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/familymax.html Formula for Family Maximum Benefit Updated October 18, 2006 Introduction The maximum family benefit is the maximum monthly amount that can be paid on a worker's earnings record. There is a special formula for computing the maximum benefits payable to the family of a disabled worker. The following, however, is devoted to the more common family maximum for retirement and survivor benefits. Computation of the Retirement and Survivor Family Maximum The formula used to compute the family maximum is similar to that used to compute the PIA. It involves computing the sum of four separate percentages of portions of the worker's PIA. For 2007 these portions are the first $869, the amount between $869 and $1,255, the amount between $1,255 and $1,636, and the amount over $1,636. These dollar amounts are the "bend points" of the family-maximum formula. Thus, the family-maximum bend points for 2007 are $869, $1,255, and $1,636. See table showing bend points for years beginning with 1979 (table also shows PIA formula bend points). For the family of a worker who becomes age 62 or dies in 2007 before attaining age 62, the total amount of benefits payable will be computed so that it does not exceed: (a) 150 percent of the first $869 of the worker's PIA, plus (B) 272 percent of the worker's PIA over $869 through $1,255, plus © 134 percent of the worker's PIA over $1,255 through $1,636, plus (d) 175 percent of the worker's PIA over $1,636. We then round this total amount to the next lower multiple of $.10 if it is not already a multiple of $.10. Amounts in formula Average wage indices For 1977: 9,779.44 For 2005: 36,952.94 Bend points for 1979 First: $230 Second: $332 Third: $433 Computation of bend points for 2007 First bend point $230 times $36,952.94 divided by $9,779.44 equals $869.09, which rounds to $869. Second bend point $332 times $36,952.94 divided by $9,779.44 equals $1,254.51, which rounds to $1,255. Third bend point $433 times $36,952.94 divided by $9,779.44 equals $1,636.15, which rounds to $1,636.

The family maximum is usually 150% of your benefit amount. The spouse (caring for kids under 16 or disabled) and kids (under 18) can get 1/2 of your award up to 150% of your benefits. So if your benefit is $1000 - your spouse and kids can draw up to $500 each - UP TO a family maximum of $1500. This does NOT include YOUR OWN payment - You would get $1000. Your spouse would draw $500. One child or two children would draw $500 each. If you have 3 children - each would draw $333.33 (instead of the $500). When the oldest child quit drawing benefits - the younger two would get their benefits increased to $500 each. Spouses CAN draw benefits if they work - but the benefits are offset by their earnings. They deduct $1 from your benefits for each $2 you earned above $12,960. So $500 a month in benefits would be $6,000 a year. If your spouse earned $15,000 a year $15,000 - $12,960 = $2040 divided by 2 ($1 deduction for $2 earned over $12,960) = $1020 $6000 in benefits - $1020 (earnings offset) = $4980 / 12 = $415 per month payment to spouse. The higher YOUR benefit - then the higher your spouse's 1/2 benefit - so the more they can earn before all their benefit is offset by their income. I THINK if the spouse's benefits are offset by earnings that would make more $$ available to the kids - IF they weren't already drawing their own max amount. But you will want to check that out - as I am not sure. So no matter how many dependents you have 1. They can only draw about 150% of your benefits combined. 2. They can only draw 50% of your benefit amount individually. If your spouse is making big bucks - their working can definately be worth it. But if your spouse is only making enough where their benefits are reduced - you might want to do some calculations to decide if their extra income is worth it. i.e. Your spouse can earn $12,960 a year and draw full spouse benefits (1/2 your amount). Any amount over that needs to be thought out. If they are making $18,960 a year - that last $6,000 cuts the benefits they can recieve by $3,000 (1/2 deduction). So if they are buying gas, paying childcare, etc. etc. - you can decide if it is really worth it for them to make the extra $$$ or if they would be better off cutting back and earning less (and saving time, gas expenses, etc.) Free Free

Thanks Ricky and Berta! Sometimes the more I research - the scarier it gets. It is almost like they are sitting their having you jump through hoops - just waiting for you to slip and make that one fatal flaw to you case. I remember even reading a few cases at the Court of Veteran's Appeals - where the people had waited until the last minute to appeal - and their cases were thrown out because of postmarks. One had send their claim by Federal Express. But since Congress said POSTMARK -- it wasn't POSTMARKED by the last day - it was Fedexed the last day. And another case - the Postmark wasn't readable. The person had a proof of mailing from the post office. But Congress said POSTMARK - and since the postmark wasn't legible o the envelope the court got -- it didn't matter that the person had a proof of mailing. It needed to be a POSTMARK. Literal. Literal. Literal. I will have to work on the helpless child evidence I guess. I am hoping that they will consider Social Security's determination. They declared him disabled in 1993, at the age of 14. He has been on SSI since then. He had always been "different" and had a variety of diagnosis from the school system. He was even in a special preschool - Early Childhood education - like a prekindergarten Special Ed. He was in the hospital at 14 - and I finally read about Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder - and finally so many things he did made since. He was given a diagnosis of Pervasive Development Disorder - and thay also said he had left temporal lobe brain damage (which effects impules control) that was consistent with a severe closed head injury (though I don't know how that would have occured.) For quite some time he had just been seeing a general doctor for meds for anxiety and depression. He has been re-evaluated by the Social Security Doctors a couple of times - and they give him a few tests - and then come out and tell me he will keep getting SSI. But now my problem is - I got a letter from DFAS to get his doctor to sign a medical statement that just gives his diagnosis - when it started - if he is capable of self support. The doctor just gave me a vague letter that stated his diagnosis and that he is under his care. He wouldn't even put when he was declared disabled even though I gave him the statement from social security that GAVE THE DATE. He said -- well I don;t know when he became disabled for sure. He seems to think they will accept his letter - but the Air Force said it HAS to be on the doctor's letter -- I can't submit the doctors letter AND the Social Security statement. Why does this have to be such a damn problem for everyone!!!! Anyway -- most of my records on him were destroyed when my basement flooded. I called the hospitals and schools - and they destroyed the records as they are over 10 years old. So I don't have all the supporting documentation from back when he was 18 (he is 27 now) except that he was declared disabled by Social Security. I am going to call a few places and see about getting some psych testing on him -- The Autism Spectrum disorders (Autism, PDD, Aspergers) are all childhood developmental disablities. So I am hoping the diagnosis - the fact that he has been on SSI since 14 - will help establish the fact for the VA. The general doctor did put that my son had PDD in his letter. But during my phone call - he said "I don't even know what PDD is." ACK!!!! I asked him to refer me to a doctor that WOULD fill out the paperwork the Department of Defense wants to enroll him in DEERS. But he seems to think that what he wrote is "just fine" even though he only answered one of the four questions they asked. He did say if I had any problems to call him. But I told him I WAS calling him because I WAS having problems because the DOD had already TOLD me I needed ALL the questions answered. But -oh well - he is a doctor. Why should he follow anyone's rules? He said "I told them to call me if they have any quetions..." GRRRR They HAD FOUR Questions. What is his diagnosis? Is it permanent or temporary? Is it congential? If not, at what age was it diagnosed? Is the child capable of self support? It shouldn't be all that difficult. I have written to Social Security and see if they will send me a letter with his age, date declared disabled, diagnosis of record, and any reports from the doctor's evaluations. I sure wish I would have got copies of all his medical records before the hospital and school destroyed them. Because with PDD - unless the doctors know about it - the person can appear a lot more "normal" than they are. Like my son had a verbal IQ of 90 and a performance IQ of 70. AT 14 years old - he had the rote memory of an 18 year old (repeating back numbers) -- He actually remembers people's phone numbers from YEARS ago. But he couldn't put a 7 piece puzzle together. That is what is so odd about the Autism spectrum - they have a varying range of functioning. My son is 27 going on 12. A few years ago I was TRYING to get him to stop using a half of bottle of shampoo every time he took a bath. I got on him over and over. For Christmas he got me SEVEN Bottles of shampoo! The message HE got was "Mom sure does like shampoo. She thinks it is really valuable!" So I quit fighting about the Shampoo. He can read though. So maybe I could get him a job at the VA. B) Free Free

I would feel like smacking someone around myself. I encourage you to keep fighting the PD diagnosis. If you have been getting treatment all these years and never had that diagnosis before - it is very odd that at 62 a doctor can slap that label on you. One of the primary complaints that people have of people with Borderline Personality Disorder is the person with BPD doesn't ever think anything is wrong with THEM. They always think something is wrong with EVERYONE ELSE. Yet, you keep telling everyone that something is wrong with YOU. The doctor who gave you the diagnosis might be basing it on HIS opinion that the "stressors" you experienced in the service weren't "significant" enough in his mind to create and anxiety disorder. But it doesn't seem like you have that much documentation in your service records for him to validly base that conclusion in 40 years later. So I would keep fighting it - especially as the first C&P and your treating physician's reports are favorable to you. Technically, I can't see the evidence being in equipose - based on the report of one doctor. It still seems that the weight of the evidence should be in your favor. THough I think you woud have to fight for it. If he gave you the NEW diagnosis without so much as performing tests that are standards of practice for diagnosing personality disorders - I would point that out. Free

Are the IRIS inquiries "written communication" as far as informal claims? When I applied for DIC - the form states that if you have an incapcitated child over the age of 18 - you need to file a separate application for them. That they need to apply in their own right. When I filled out my application - I listed my son - but did not list his resources or income - as the directions said I would need to fill out a separate application for him. I noted in the comments I did not include the info - as I would be sending in a separate claim for him. I sent in an IRIS inquiry and asked if I was supposed to re-send evidence that had already been sent about my husband's illness / death - or if I could just refer to his claim file in my claim. I also asked if when I apply for my son - if I will have to send everything we sent in MY claim - in his claim also. Their response was: "It isn't necessary to resubmit evidence that was previously submitted. That evidence was made part of the claim file and we will review all evidence of record when we make our deicision. It is also unnecessary to file and additional claim for your son, xxx. We are trying to establish him as your dependent on your claim, but we need the information we requested in our recent letter. We need to establish that he became disabled, incapable of self support, prior to his eighteenth birthday. If you have any additional information that you feel would be helpful to your claim, please submit that evidence. We hope this information is helpful. Thank you for visiting our website." So they are saying I do NOT need to send in a separate claim for my son. This would make a lot of sense - as then they just have to decide the SC issue ONCE - and could then decide whether my son is a dependent on MY claim - or is a claim in his own right. However, if I do not send in a separate claim - I do not want to lose the right to do so - if I should have. So if I sent in an inquiry - and they told me NOT to send in a separate claim for my son - have I at least filed an informal claim for him? In that - if they later try to say I SHOULD have sent it - the filind date is protected - as I have filed an "informal claim" - and if they do not send him his own claim form on the reciept of an informal claim on his behalf - the time frame is tolled? Free

Josephine, I am SO glad you read the post. Because I had given you innacurate advice before. I had told you if they wanted to call it a PD - that still wouldn't bar you reciving SC IF it was aggravated - and you had some pretty good proof it was aggravated. So when I read that last night - how they DON'T cover PD - I thought OMG!!!! I have to get ahold of Josephine BEFORE she takes my advice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder Personality disorder, formerly known as characterological disorder is a class of mental disorders characterized by rigid and on-going patterns of thought and action, sometimes referred to as "fixed fantasies". Because of the inflexibility and pervasiveness of these patterns, they can cause serious personal and social difficulties, as well as a general impairment of functioning, for individuals suffering from these disorders. General diagnostic criteria Diagnosis of a personality disorder, must satisfy these following general criteria, in addition to the specific criteria listed under the specific personality disorder under consideration. A. Experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. This pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the following areas: [cognition] (perception and interpretation of self, others and events) affect (the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response) interpersonal functioning impulse control B. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations. C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. D. The pattern is stable and of long duration and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood. E. The enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder. F. The enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition such as head injury. So it looks like they are NOW trying to say that the symptoms you had a discharge were revealing of a personality disorder - which usually do manifest in early adulthood. I think woman are diagnosed with Pesonality Disorders MUCH more than men. It can be a lazy diagnosis. Remember back in the 70s when so many woman were diagnosed with depression? They told their doctors "It bothers me that my husband drinks all the time and runs around on me.." And the doctor would just say "Oh..you are just DEPRESSED" and put them on valium. Now - though some people actually DO have personality disorders - it is still very easy for many doctors to just lable them with personality disorders as a way to avoid dealing with the real issues. Borderline Personality Disorder has become one of those "catch all" diagnosis for women who do not act like everyone wants them to act. You DO have a lot to fight with on this...As you were NEVER diagnosed with a personality disoder until they sent you for a SECOND C&P --AFTER the FIRST C&P examiner gave you a supporting diagnosis. So yes - it looks like they were trying to get a diagnosis that would bar you from getting benefits. As you had statements from the doctor who had been treating you for all thses years in support of your claim - and a C&P exam in support of your claim - for them to send you to ANOTHER Doctor - who suddenly decides all the other doctors have been wrong all these years - and that you actually have a personality disorder -- that is just sucky. Is there another doctor that your treating doctor can send you to - to back your evidence that you do NOT have a personality disorder? Free

OMG! Recently I told you it shouldn't matter if they label your condition a personality disorder - because you should be allowed the presumption of soundness and the presumption of aggravation. CHECK THAT OUT VERY THROUGHLY!!! I ran across this when I was looking up ratings. It looks as though they DO NOT give compensation for personality disorders UNLESS you can show they were CAUSED by a service connected disease or injury. So it doesn't look like they grant the presumption of soundness or aggravation IF your DIAGNOSIS is a personality disorder. And I doubt they will say an in service injury CAUSED a personality disorder. And it doesn't look like they grant benefits for aggravation on them. Basically, I am not certain what I am talking about - so check it out. But I just wanted to give you a heads up to watch out for this. § 4.127 Mental retardation and personality disorders. Mental retardation and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries for compensation purposes, and, except as provided in §3.310(a) of this chapter, disability resulting from them may not be service-connected. However, disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon mental retardation or a personality disorder may be service-connected. §3.310 Disabilities that are proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. (a) General. Except as provided in §3.300©, disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury shall be service connected. When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition. FREE

Thanks. He was treated at a private hospital. Free

Also - if the only place a doctor treated you was in the hospital - would they also have notes at their office - or would all their notes be in your hospital records? Free

I am signing release forms to release my husband's medical records to the VA. Does anyone know if I should attach the letter that shows I am executor of his Estate to the forms. Or will the hospital release them on the signature of the next of kin? Free

I don't see a difference. Or how is it different than a vet being able to get SC for lung disease if their SC connected depression causes them to smoke. I would even think if you had a SC disability that caused you to pass out while driving and got in a wreck - that would be covered. I really don't see this as any different, legally. I don't think they will just hand it to a Vet on a silver platter - but if the evidence establishes that a flashback caused a vet to be involved in a wreck - I would think they would be legally entitled to compensation for the injuries. However, the vet would have to establish the initial service connection first. Free

I hope you get a big retro! Free

Thank you for explaining the difference. So on a claim he had pending - if they granted it - I would be able to file a CUE (if appropriate) for an Earlier Effective Date - because I would not be so much filing a cue on his behalf, I would be filing a CUE as it effected MY right to the accrued benefits from that pending claim. But if a claim was not pending - I could not reopen the claim on the basis of a CUE - as it was his claim - and not mine. Though personally, I think the surviving spouse should be entitled to ALL benefits to which the vet might have been entitled. But I see where the law differs on this. Where the Veteran Benefit Manual is talking about filing CUE claims - it was more to establish entitlement to DIC --for length of time the vet had been 100% disabled - than for accrued benefits. The stronger CUES are the smaller cases that my husband did not reopen prior to his death because he didn't want to delay the lung cancer case. I also have some evidence I should have submitted prior to his death - on the asbestos portion - but I wanted to wait until we had the time to connect the dots and send it all in together. Because of that there is evidence that will not be in the file at the date of death. Of course, they can still use the evidence for the DIC claim - Just not the accrued benefits claim. It isn't really so much about the money. The smaller claims that I can't CUE now would pretty much be a break even thing for me. Because he was getting retirement - any VA benefit I would get would be erased by the retirement benefit he had recieved that would have to be repaid. But I still wanted him to win his case on that - because he really should have. And I do understand that a strong IMO can really help -- but I also think it is horrid that a vet has to pay for one because though evidence is clearly in the file - the VA wants to overlook it - or have someone explain it away. The only thing I would gain from being able to file the smaller claims would be that he would finally win those issues - and if he recieved VA benefits - whatever retirement pay was repaid would be deducted from the retirement pay he HAD been paid - and his ex would have to repay the amount of Former Spouse Protection she recived off that. I am assuming the amount SHE repaid would be paid to his daughter (who was his beneficiary for any unpaid retirement pay.) So his daughter would come out somewhat ahead. And his ex would have to give some back. I am sure he would be happy with that - as she got the Former Spouse benefit just from making sure the marriage lasted 10 years in order to get it -- even though she was living with another guy for the last two years of their marriage. He tried to get divorced before the 10 years was up -- and you would think it would be easy if your spouse is already living with someone else. But she was able to delay it every step of the way. So she got $545 a month from his retirement pay and he got $157 a month from hers. Can you believe - she even got her full $545 for February -- but only sent me a check for $28.20 for the 5 days he was alive. So there would be some kind of justice served if he got to win his claim because he deserved to - and she had to give some back - and his daughter got the difference. I wouldn't gain anything financially - but I had still wished I could fight it. As far at the additional evidence for the DIC and accrued benefits. Again I am torn about the principle of the thing. The accrued benefits is important because that would be an admission that was something HE WAS ENTITLED to. That is why I have been hestitant to send a lot of additional evidence to support the DIC claim -- because then it would seem more like I would be winning the claim, instead of HIM. And I wanted HIM to win. So I have debated whether to just let his claim stand with the evidence of record - to see if HE could win it with what he already sent. I know that would realy delay the DIC if the evidence wasn't strong enough. But I could always appeal and send additional evidence later. It probably wouldn't be as important to him. He would probably just want me to send everything I could come up with - and as Berta says surround them with evidence. I know him - and as long as "WE" win - he would feel like HE won. But I have still had some trouble with that. Free

I looked it up a little at the BVA and it wasn't very promising. In one case they said the vet was manipulating and blaming others for his behavior. I think that was a bit uncalled for. I think they could deny the claim without attacking the veteran myself...even if he did manipulate and blame others. I think you would have a strong case if you were already SC'd for the mental condition - and the ambulance drivers got there and you were still flipping out. But I would agree - that you could lose your license for it. But the VA - and society in general - do not give mental conditions the same respect that they give physical ones. People with mental conditions are often blamed for those conditions -- or the manifestation of those conditions - or their pain doesn't seem as "real" as physical pain. Maybe because the pain is more hidden from others - or if it is not hidden people want you to hide it - or look the other way. That is sad because mental pain can often be so very devastating. And people who would never expect someone with a injured leg to stop limping - will expect someone with mental pain to "just stop that stuff." They seem to think you have a choice. Free

Yeah. My husband was given 3 weeks to 3 months to live in 2004 - when the cancer had spread to the aorta. But he just kept right on living. And I don't mean staying alive - I mean living. His set back for awhile was the combined chemo and raditaiton. Each one takes its toll - but combined they really kick your butt. But they are much more effective that way. And you will be able to regain your strength pretty rapidly once you have finished those. I didn't notice how much worse my husband looked when he was on the combined treatments until AFTER - when he started rebuilding -then I would look at his pictures from the year before and say OMG! You looked totally awful back then! lol It is good that you are SO proactive. You have to be. Because other people will try to make decisions that affect YOUR life. It helps to get ALL your medical reports and read them. I wish we had. Now they do chemo after surgey..as it really boosts your odds. At the time my husband had his lobectomey in 2000 - they didn't do follow up chemo. It wasn't the standard practice. He was "cured" by surgery. But when his cancer supposedly recurred in 2003 - it was right at the bronchial stump - in the very place they had removed the lobe. I do not believe it "came back." I believe there was a little bit left - and as they didn't do chemo back then to destroy the remaining cells -- it was able to regenerate itself. They redected the cancer in 2003 (Nov). For some reason they didn't do surgery until June 2004. They kept telling him they had to get authorizations from Tri-Care - this doctor had to talk to that doctor, etc. etc. - But it just kept going around the loop. So by they time THEY all got it together - when they did the surgery to remove the rest of the lung - they found the cancer had already spread to his aorta. So they left the lung in - and didn't remove it. And they ALL made sure to document in their records that HE (my husband) had put the surgery off! CYA But he kept asking why they couldn't remove the lung and the section of aorta. They kept telling him that can't be done. Yet they remove aortas all the time. Yes. It can be risky. But it can be done. When we got copies of his medical records last summer - we read the report. That was the first time we knew that they had removed a rib for biopsy because it looked "suspicious" The lab report on the rib came back negative. No cancer. No abnormal cells. And the surgeons report stated that upon attempting to remove the lung they discovered the tumor had adhered to the aorta. (This was still ONE tumor that had "spread" by growing to attach itself to the aorta - NOT cancer that had grown into multiple tumors). The doctor stated he had debated whether to dissect the aorta and decided against it. When I read the report I was ticked to the MAX! They never TOLD him that. I realized - OMG! The doctor though the cancer had already spread to the bone - so he didn't see any use in taking the tumor out. It had NOT spread to the bone! The bone came back negative - and none of the tests AFTER that showed it had EVER spread to the bone. But that doctor made that decision - and didn't even TELL him. My husband deserved to be TOLD the TRUTH (I thought the cancer had spread to the bone - so I didn't see much use in removing it." Or even "The bone came back negative - But I STILL think it might have spread to the bone - so I don't recommend surgically removing it.") But just to keep telling him you CAN'T resect the aorta - rather than that you decided not to - is just wrong in my book! How can a doctor sentence their patient to death without give them the chance to defend themselves? So keep up your proactive stance!! Question EVERYTHING! It is YOUR life! Free

If it said the SOC was a partial grant - perhaps they were not finished with your claim. So maybe they decided the other issues after that. Free

I think that would depend on a lot of factors. Legally, I would think it could be a secondary connection. If you already had SC for PTSD - I would think it would be easier to make a connection than if you were trying to prove it in the first instance. But I wouldn't conisder it any different than being granted a secondary connection from an injury caused by something else that you had a direct connection for...but you would have to have evidence to show that it actually caused it. ANd that would be the VA "rules of evidence" (meaning you get the benefit of the doubt if they can't find something to pick apart --) Can you get SC? I think you could. Will it be easy? Probably not. Free