free_spirit_etc

So if we send it to our Senator - should we also mention the other Senators it is being sent to ? Free

This is a GREAT idea!! I have used many of the resources you have on this site already. And I learn as I go along, from the Master's. :( But it takes SO much research -- because this says that - BUT that cancels out this... An important issue is the court decisions that can give us information on how the Courts actually interpret the regulations. But then you get into the maze of this decision overrides that decision - and it gets downright detailed. I have a Master's Degree - and am a researchaholic -- and the whole process still overwhelms me. Free

I got my Veteran Benefit Manual from Berta!! :( I had no idea how expensive those were. But OMG! Helpful!!! It is just totally fascinating!! I am SUPPOSED to be getting other things done -- but it is just so interesting to read -- I keep putting other things off - and reading it! Am I sick or what? Kind of like being a BVA junkie... THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BERTA!!!!!!!!!! Free

Ricky -- My husband got treatment at a military facility too - and ran into the same problem. Well - not EXACTLY the same problem -- but he went to get a record of his medical files -- and got a bunch of computer generated check off lists with a FEW brief notes "digitally" jotted on them. I could not believe that he had a SURGERY -- and it was reduced to a few lines in his medical records. So he went out to base - and said "What is THIS??" I surgey requiring several days of hospitalization is reduced to a few lines in my medical records??" They said -- Oh -- we have OTHER records -- like the doctor's notes and things -- but you only asked for your MEDICAL records..." THESE are your medical records.." So he asked for the OTHER records.. It took him about a week to get them - as they had to get them from somewhere.. But we found a WEALTH of information in them. Like for his claim for Cancer.. The oncologist on the Initial Report stated that he had been exposed to asbestos while working as an electrician in the Air Force. The pulmonologist had noted several times his increased risk of cancer from asbestos exposure. Now - the RO had denied the claim stating that there was no evidence that he was exposed to asbestos as his records did not show he was part of any occupational screening programs (the Air Force did not implement those types of programs until AFTER he cross trained into another field - and once they started the program -- the electricians WERE included in the occupational screenings because of asbestos exposure -- but he spent 13 years with NO safety precautions). And we don't even know if the "OTHER" records were ever sent to the VA -- before WE sent them last year. He had assumed his medical records were his medical records -- and the VA said they had his medical records... But if the VA is aware of the fact that the MTF have OTHER medical records - and they allow them to just send that digital stuff -- and lead the veteran to believe they have all of the records - when they don't -- and deny their claims -that is totally ethically wrong! But you might want to see if you can get your hands on any "other" records they have on you.. Free

Josephine - I certainly would think so. Diagnostic Criteria - Generalized Anxiety Disorder Excessive anxiety and worry (apprehensive expectation), occurring more days than not for at least 6 months, about a number of events or activities (such as work or school performance). The person finds it difficult to control the worry. The anxiety and worry are associated with three (or more) of the following six symptoms (with at least some symptoms present for more days than not for the past 6 months). Note: Only one item is required in children. restlessness or feeling keyed up or on edge being easily fatigued difficulty concentrating or mind going blank irritability muscle tension sleep disturbance (difficulty falling or staying asleep, or restless unsatisfying sleep) I don't recall -- how long ago were you in the service? I was thinking it was sometime back. If your diagnosis is anxiety disorder NOW -- and you had nervousness listed in your SMR's back THEN (depending on when "back then" was) -- connecting the dots may even be easier. Personally, I like to use government documents as much as possible - or actual medical journals, rather than basic lay person internet sites, as sources to back my arguments (as they are considered more credible and harder to debate). But the basic sites are a good starting point. I ran across this: http://anxiety-panic.com/dictionary/en-dictn.htm Nerves - see nervous illness or neuron. Nervous - the feeling of anxiety, or regarding the nervous system as studied in neurology. Nervous Breakdown - a dated term referring to anxiety disorders that notably affect functionality. Nervous Disease - a dated term for an anxiety disorder. Nervous Exhaustion - a dated term referring to anxiety disorders which seemed a product of stress. Nervous Heart - a dated term for an anxiety disorder. Nervous Illness - a dated term for an anxiety disorder. Nervous Storm - a dated term for a panic attack. Lightbulb time. Though I wouldn't use this source as THE source with the VA -- what clicked for me was that - Yes... You didn't used to hear of people having "Anxiety." Quite some time back the SAME condition was called a "Nervous condition." People had "Nervous breakdowns." They were put on medicine for their NERVES. So -- depending on how far back your SMR's were -- Nervous WAS the term they USED for the disorders they now use the term anxiety for. So rather than just trying to connect today's use of "nervous" with today's use of anxiety -- you could possibly build a case that they are one and the same CONDITION -- and it was the TERM USED that changed over time. Just a thought, Free

Woo Hoo!!! The runner up gets a prize too! I looked up the info -- posted it - and then looked and said Dang! Jack Beat me! But I still was happy I figured it out. (Likes to be right! ) I actually had NO idea what a drusen was. SO I looked it up. Did a search for Drusen - to find out what it was - and found out but saw no connection to Diabetes -- So then I did a search for drusen AND diabetes to see if there was a connection. And then started putting the rest of it together. 1961 would be hard to connect it to age related - it was in the same eye that he lost vision in - etc. I agree - it is the kind of detective work needed. And important that you SPELL IT OUT to the VA -- because they aren't going to see the connection. Interesting that the REASON I looked the word up is that I didn't know what it was. Unfortunately - sometimes when we know SOMETHING about a condition - we think we know it ALL - and therefore don't research enough. But we might have a tendency to overlook an important connection because what we already know stops us from looking further. For instance, had I known what a drusen was, and connected it in my mind to age related macular degeneration, I might NOT have looked any further (unless I caught that he was quite young when it was discovered). And I could have breezed right past an important piece of info. My students get so aggravated when I have them do research on a topic before a group discussion. They think "I already KNOW about the topic --why do I have to look anything up?" BECAUSE -- you can always learn MORE - you can always add to what you know, or even find important information that SUPPORTS what you already know! Anyway -- The REAL winner was the veteran who benefitted because BERTA caught the nexus and made the connection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Free

http://www.ifond.org/dict_d.php3 Drusen, Macular~, Optic Nerve~ Extra cellular material deposited either between between the basal lamina of the retinal pigment epithelium and the inner collagenous layer of Bruch membrane or in the optic nerve head. Drusen are seen with the ophthalmoscope as small yellow-white retinal or optic disc reflections. Drusen may be associated with vascular abnormalities in the eye, low retinal nerve fibre layer axon counts, glaucoma, anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, retinal hemorrhage, and premature visual loss. http://www.amd.org/site/PageServer?pagenam...nter_friendly=1 Diabetes Another Threat to Your Eyes In observance of National Diabetes Month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has launched "Small Steps, Big Rewards". The new national diabetes prevention campaign is an effort to stem the explosion of diabetes by emphasizing to millions of Americans that modest lifestyle changes can do much to prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes, the most common form of the disease. Diabetes attacks the retina of the eye in the form of diabetic retinopathy. It is similar to wet AMD in that blood vessels invade the macula. Laser treatment can be effective against it, but early diagnosis is the key. If you have diabetes, regular dilated eye exams are essential. The guy seemed kind of young to be showing the first signs of AGE RELATED Macular Degeneration in 1961 Free

The drusen that was noted in 1961 - was also in his left eye - the eye he later lost vision in. Free

The word drusen http://www.novartisnutrition.com/us/articleDetail?id=7161 The glycemic index study (1) The existence of diabetes or a raised blood sugar has not been associated, to date, with the occurrence of AMD. The researchers therefore decided to investigate the quality of the dietary carbohydrate intake in AMD patients. They examined the eyes of over 500 participants in the Nurses Health Study who had not had AMD diagnosed. The presence and degree of any AMD, along with the presence of any drusen (2), was classified as either (a) Unaffected, ( Without AMD but with drusen, or © AMD, with or without drusen. Dietary information came from food-frequency questionnaires collected over 10 years before the eye exams. The women were divided into three groups, according to their dietary glycemic index (3) or their total carbohydrate intake. The dietary glycemic index was found to be related to AMD, while the total carbohydrate wasnt. The likelihood of developing AMD was over 2½ times greater in the highest glycemic index group than in the lowest. Neither the glycemic index nor total carbohydrate intake was linked to the presence of drusen. .. Diagnosing early AMD The study described above also found that the glycemic index was related to one of the two major earlier signs of AMD - the presence of pigment changes but not the other (the development of drusen). Free

They don't quite have the deadlines that we do. But filling out that official form and "perfecting" your appeal is VERY important. Your case can be closed if you don't do that on time. If you fill it out timely (EACH TIME YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO) and you get granted service connection - you get retro pay for all that time you waited. If you don't fill it out. You have to reopen your claim -and if granted - you only get back to the last filing date. Free

§ 3.156 New and material evidence. top (a) General. A claimant may reopen a finally adjudicated claim by submitting new and material evidence. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5103A(f), 5108) ( Pending claim. New and material evidence received prior to the expiration of the appeal period, or prior to the appellate decision if a timely appeal has been filed (including evidence received prior to an appellate decision and referred to the agency of original jurisdiction by the Board of Veterans Appeals without consideration in that decision in accordance with the provisions of §20.1304(B)(1) of this chapter), will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal period. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) © Service department records. (1) Notwithstanding any other section in this part, at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section. Such records include, but are not limited to: (i) Service records that are related to a claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name, as long as the other requirements of paragraph © of this section are met; (ii) Additional service records forwarded by the Department of Defense or the service department to VA any time after VA's original request for service records; and (iii) Declassified records that could not have been obtained because the records were classified when VA decided the claim. (2) Paragraph ©(1) of this section does not apply to records that VA could not have obtained when it decided the claim because the records did not exist when VA decided the claim, or because the claimant failed to provide sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from the respective service department, the Joint Services Records Research Center, or from any other official source. (3) An award made based all or in part on the records identified by paragraph ©(1) of this section is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later, or such other date as may be authorized by the provisions of this part applicable to the previously decided claim. (4) A retroactive evaluation of disability resulting from disease or injury subsequently service connected on the basis of the new evidence from the service department must be supported adequately by medical evidence. Where such records clearly support the assignment of a specific rating over a part or the entire period of time involved, a retroactive evaluation will be assigned accordingly, except as it may be affected by the filing date of the original claim. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a))Cross References: Effective dates—general. See §3.400. Correction of military records. See §3.400(g). [27 FR 11887, Dec. 1, 1962, as amended at 55 FR 20148, May 15, 1990; 55 FR 52275, Dec. 21, 1990; 58 FR 32443, June 10, 1993; 66 FR 45630, Aug. 29, 2001; 71 FR 52457, Sept. 6, 2006]

That is what I thought. It seems like with that case load you would have time to do a pretty adequate job of handling the claims. Though I don't know what all is involved because it seems like the c-file keeps being passed like a baton in a very slow race - from one person to the next. I know it is sometimes easy to sit back and look at someone else's job and think there is a better way to do it - because you don't understand the whole process. If the caseload was 57 - 93 cases a WEEK - I could understand the delay AND the tendency to just glance through the case file. But if it really is 57 to 93 cases a YEAR - it would seem like they would have time to read the C-file. Free

http://www.geocities.com/vfw9951/docs/AFNEWS.html VA CLAIM BACKLOG UPDATE 06: The worst city in which to file a veterans’ benefits claim is Washington, where 63% of claims take longer than six months to resolve, according to a major veterans’ service organization. AMVETS, a 60-year-old group that helps veterans with about 24,000 claims a year, says a survey has shown veterans in Fargo, N.D.; Boise, Idaho; and Providence, R.I., have the fastest service, with only 6 to 7% of claims taking longer than six months to resolve. Washington may be the worst, but other major cities also are slow. AMVETS national service officer and Navy veteran Luz Rebollar said in Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, New Orleans and Montgomery AL about 40% of the claims take longer than six months to process. One reason for the differences is that the number of people assigned to process claims in some VA regions does not match the claims caseloads in those areas. For example, VA workers in Hartford CT handle 92 cases a year, while workers in Augusta ME handle 57 cases a year. The Bush administration has proposed hiring 450 additional claims processors to try to reduce the backlog, but AMVETS officials have warned that more people will not solve the problem and, unless the caseloads are more evenly spread, will not eliminate delays for some people. AMVETS is pushing the idea of allowing electronic claims filing and other efforts to use technology to help process claims. “The backlog issue is not going to go away until the federal government rolls up its sleeves and takes a serious look at expediting the resolution of claims,” Rebollar said. “Until that happens, young veterans just returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to continue to be frustrated with our government and with a system they believe is failing to fulfill the promises that were made to them when they entered the service.” To review the delay time in your city refer to www.navytimes.com/projects/pages/042007vastats. [source: NavyTimes Rick Maze article 20 Apr 07 ++] ---------------- That kind of surprises me --NOT the backlog - but the case load. I actually thought the VA case loads would be much higher than that. Free

Thanks! Your answers are very helpful. Free

Where the rules say that any service records that are not in the claim file are later discovered / submitted -- they will be considered to have been IN the claim file at the date of the decision. So I am basically getting that if the VA was supposed to get records from the military and did not get them - if they get them later -- and you are filing a CUE, or accrued benefits claim -- where it is important to establish that those records WERE in the claim file previously -- the decision must be made AS IF they WERE in the claim file on that date, even if they were not. Now I know the VA tends to act like SMR are the ONLY records that matter. But if the rule is Service Records - would this also apply to OTHER records on the veteran (military records) and other records obtained from the military (like asbestos reports, programs in place, etc.)If the VA had been put on notice that such records exist -- if such records are NOT in the claim file - but later added - can they be considered a Service Record which is presumed to have been IN the claim file at an earlier date? Free

I like what you said about an honest evaluation. I think that is what most people want. I don't think we expect the VA to do everything for us -- or grant service connection without evidence of such -- but it is especially frustrating when they just breeze through the information and overlook very important things. I think they refer to this as topsheeting. That was pretty apparent in my husband's lung cancer claim. Some of his previous claims --whether they were granted or denied --were somewhat fairly based on evidence presented. Others SEEMED that way on the surface - but if you read the case with any depth at all - you could see they weren't as fair as they could have been. Again - fair does not always mean grant it -- it does mean the evidence was fairly considered. But his lung cancer claim was just OUT there. Their responses weren't thorough --and didn't even give the appearance of trying to appear that way. It looked more like something you would write while you were drving or something. You can tell they just looked at the C&P exam -- that wasn't even an exam - and just repeated some of the things the examiner stated. And they didn't even get THAT part right. It is kind of like when you aregue with someone - You don't always expect them to agree --but you want them to at least hear what you say. And when they take one or two things out of context and act like that is the whole thing -- it is just totally frustrating. Free

This is an interesting concept. So if you file a claim - and it is still open - you can keep adding to the claim and maintaining the date the orginal claim was filed for your file date on all conditions? Free

OMG -- That is just TOO funny - sending his ashes to the VA. That is so nice that he could be an organ donor too. My husband couldn't donate his organs. The chemo and the infection kind of blew that. He sure would have liked to have given the gift of life though. He dontated LOTS of blood until he couldn't donate that any more. I was looking at these memorial things online - and they have windchimes for ashes now. I thought --Dang! All that money I spent on the funeral - I could have stuck him in a windchime for $175. (I don't think he would have liked it there though -- lol). I was married twice. I was divorced in 1983 - and got remarried in 2006. Kind of like Haley's Comet I guess. I spent so many years single -- but now it is hard. It is kind of odd. But then again, we were SO close for several years. Which in itself was odd - because we had both been so independent. We just fit together. Free

Well - maybe if the had to exhume the vets - at the spouse's request, to award them their benefits - they would find a way to process their claims before they die. My husband's claim was supposed to be assigned to a supervisor - to expedite it -because of his terminal illness. Can't say much for their expedited claims. He never even got a copy of his C-file he had requested in July /August - before he died in February. Got a bunch of "we are working on it" letters Free

Hoppy knows about back pain -- and Hoppy knows about STRATEGY. A good combination. Free

You are SO sweet! Actually, I was pretty much being sarcastic..... I'm not sure I would trust the VA to not lose my husband.Plus -- they would have to find someone that can read -- to find his name to know where to put him back... ;) Free

So would it be rude to ask the VA to cover the expense of digging my husband up -- fixing his teeth like they should have in the first place -- re-buryig him (planting the grass back, of course) and letting him have the dental work he was entitled to - but denied --) Free - another widow just wanting her vet husband to get what he was entitled to....

I am thinking that when the original law was passed the dollar amount specified equaled about a month's pay. But now that same restricted amount doesn't amount to anything for a lawyer. But the law is supposed to protect vets (ahem) from being taken advantage of by lawyers -- I was reading a case the other day where a lawyer's fee agreement had been approved for a widow to fight for service connecting her husband's death. They seem to do it kind of like SSA --where they approve of the fee agreement and then take the money out of the retro up-front. THAT might be a way to discourage vets from hiring lawyers - make the wait forever for fee agreements to be approved. Anyway -- the woman won and was awarded retro and the lawyer got his cut. But then the woman had a disabled child who was entitled to DIC in his own right. So she filed for retro for HIM - and it was awarded at the RO level. The lawyer tried to take a ut of that -- and the Court denied him fees as the child's retro was awarded at the RO level --which was the nonadvesarial portion of the process.(where you aren't supposed to NEED a lawyer). Had they had to go further up the chain to get the child approved - he would have been granted a portion of the retro. So -- if the VA REALLY wants to protect vets from lawyers - they could do THOSE kind of agreements - and start approving more claims at the RO level (without remands). Of course, lawyers probably won't help with the claims much UNTIL it goes above RO in that case. So it would be kind of like dropping the bar for where you are allowed a lawyer to the BVA instead of the CVA. In the comparison of SSA to VA -- another nice touch to the SSA process is that it seems like the upper levels of appeal look at the facts - and if the facts are in favor of the claimant - they just go ahead an AWARD it -- rather than send it back and forth on a never ending series of remands... Like with my husband's claim for the one time dental treatment. The BVA remanded the claim --telling the RO that my husabnd just wanted treatment --not compensation. The RO, instead of granting treatment --proceeded to develop the claim AGAINST compensation --though they did notify the out patient dental clinic of my husban's request. The out patient clinic sent him a letter stating his dental wasn't service connected. But neither the RO or BVA EVER denied the claim for treatment -- they just kept focusing on compensation. The RO denied compensation again -- the BVA remanded for further development to MAKE SURE he didn't qualify for compensation -- meanwhile everyone kept ignoring he just wanted treatment... Even on the final denial --the BVA stated that the decision was for compensation ALONE -- and not about the TREATMENT. No one EVER issued a decision about the treatment...they just kept bouncing it back and forth. How much easier would it have been for the BVA to say: THe RO denied compensation. The Vet asked for treatment. THe law states vets are entitled to ONE TIME treatment for any dental conditions that were not treated within 90 days of discharge. The man was in the service 28 years. He wants his treatment he is entitled to under law. FIX HIS TEETH! Free Free

Hey! Thanks! I saw these offered somewhere and they wanted $5 for them. ACK! Free

I imagine it will take awhile before the lawyers become very involved in this process. It will probably start with lawyers who already handle vet claims at the CVA - or claims for Vet Estates. Many Social Security lawyers only handle Social Security -- However - I forsee some of the SSA lawyers adding Vet claims. And in time -- it will probably evolve to lawyers who only handle Vet claims. I imagine they will hire paralegals to do a bulk of the legwork. I know the VA has been "concerned" that lawyers would clog up the system --filing all sorts of claims - I don't forsee this being a big problem. Like with SSA - a lawyer is not going to waste their time on claims they do not think are valid...especially on contigency. ANd just like SSA -- a person still has the right to go pro-se. But a lawyer will be an asset to a person whose case is not as cut and dry. And the lawyers will establish a connection for vets to get qualified IMOs -- and will have a stronger voice in making sure the IMOs are afforded the eight they deserve. I can see where lawyers would be drawn to VA cases -- and the early vets will have to pay the price for that a bit - because of the slowness in the VA system. By the time the case is decided -- IF the vet wins -- the retro can be very large -- and the lawyer's cut will reflect that. I think in time - this may shift - as lawyer;s involvement might make the VA start getting it right the first time (or even the second or third). -- so the big retros for years and years might decrease. However, unlike the SSA -- a bulk of the veterans are NOT 100% - so lawyers may not want to spend their time on claims for 10 and 20% SC -- because it is just as much work as a 80 or 100 percent claim -- but much less pay. This would also apply to vets who already have a high percent disability and are going for 100. If you are at 80% -- getting to 100% is a BIG deal -- but to the lawyer -- it is just a 20% claim. Free