free_spirit_etc

Sounds like my husband's claim for Gulf War syndrome -- when they stated about his headaches : Service connection is denied for headaches as they have been diagnosed as headaches." ??????????????????????? Yeah..in the sinus thing they are making a leap statement that the sinus problem in service is not the same as the diagnoses after service -- but they didn't give any medically sound reasons for doing so. Unless they had a doctor who explicitly said the two are not connected AND gave some medically sound reasoning for HIM to make such a statement --- it seems like they are WAY OFF on this one. Sounds like they are making an UNSUPPORTED medical JUDGEMENT. I bet you could prove them wrong if you have 10 or 15 years to spare..... Free

Josephine. I also wonder how you can check to see if you are getting ALL the records. For some reason - the VA can decide to "protect" a veteran with metnal / emotional diagnoses by NOT giving them any evidence which they think might "harm" them.....(upset them - etc.) I even posted a regulation the other day whcih stated they can send a veteran an EDITED Statement of Case if they determine the vet would be "harmed" (upset) by what the SOC says. I Have NO idea how to go about finding out if you actually have ALL the info they have --or an edited version --except maybe to get a VSO to help you. When we went to the VA hospital to pick up my husband's records I was looking for a specific record of his lung C&P and didn't see it. We asked if they were SURE that was ALL the records. They said - Oh..yeah..they had a psychiatric exam report --but they don't usually give those out because they might "upset" the veteran. My husband asked for a copy of his --but they had to read it first to see if they thought there was anything in it that might "upset" him. ARGH!!!!! Also -- they are amking so many things digital. We aske for a copy of all his post service records at the Air Force base. He had his appendix removed and was in the hospital for several days --Yet the records showed a ONE LINE notation of the surgery. He went back and asked how a surgery and hospitalization could be reduced to ONE LINE> THEN we found out they have OTHER records (doctor notes, etc.) that they don't give you when you ask for a copy of your "records" We asked for those too - found quite a bit of info in those to support his claim. But they don't tell you they HAVE them --Unless you ask. They just give you what they call your "records" It's kind of "upsetting." Free

So isn't the VA required to give you reasons and bases for their determination that the sinutitis that he was treated for in service is not connected to the the sinutitis he now has? Something like medically SOUND reasoning....backed by medical opinion. Free

I also notice that some of the CVA decisions say they can not be used as precedents. Why is that? Free

Thanks. That is some useful information. SO all information of record would be all the info that SHOULD have been of record...if you did your part and the VA did not do theirs --or notify you that they hadn't. This sounds like one of the cases I read when the VA had not obtained the claimants SMRs NOR notified him that they were not available. Free

Thanks Carlie. Those are very helpful. I have been working on my letters to make them sound better. Free

Thansk for the info Berta. I am making some changes in the letters based on the feedback - rethinking a little bit - but not feeling as hopeless. The only thing my hsuband did between the service and his cancer was went to college. But also - as it was only two years from retirement to diagnosis -- the post service stuff wouldn't matter as much. Pulmonary adenocarcinoma has been linked to asbestos. It doesn't have a strong as link anymore. -- as some research is not showing as strong as connection -- but the ASTR sites are still giving it a strong connection. Basically -- adenocarcinoma HAS been linked to asbestos -- but any kind of lung cancer can be caused by asbestos. Interesting to note though, that adenocarcinoma is the most common cancer in nonsmokers. So the smoking connection is a bit weaker. We actually have been developing quite a bit of evidence -- but I was developing a letter to hit our main points and let them know that the package of evidence will follow soon. Don't want to send everything in at random --want to organize it. So the letters weren't our evidence. They were just letters. Free

I don't understand why they have been allowed to seal the records on that for so long. People have been pushing for them to disclose the other places where AO was used -- but as far as I know - they won't release the records. That is why I am wondering if I should make at least some reference to the AO and Guam in my husband's case -- in case they ever decide to admit it was used there.. Free

Josephine, Thanks again. You give me hope. Having no hope is a sucky way to feel. I know we don't have an air tight case, or the strongest case in the world -- but I am hoping that some of our evidence will count for something. We can't appeal until we are denied (IF we are)... and yes, I have been trying to design the case so it is ready for appeal -- that all the issues are brought forward. The letter the VA wrote to our senator said that a supervisor will be handling the claim so they can expedite it --due to his terminal illness. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing... but I was thinking a supervisor might do more than just look at the first page --so we might stand a chance at the RO level. But again, that is just being hopeful. I tend to think like you with all the resp. problems and cancer. It does seem like breathing in all that dust and asbestos could really cause some sinus / bronch problems.. but I haven't really found any medical evidence to support that --so I didn't bring it up. I found a couple articles --but not a real strong connection like my other stuff -where LOTS reliable sources agree. I think by the time they started realizing the danger for real --they started protecting people from all the dust --so lots of the early stuff couldn't really be studied...because to study the early effect would mean you have to expose people to it to see. And I guess I am stubborn -- even if we lose I would rather feel like I lost because THEY were wrong - not because I didn't have a case in the first place. Bless you sister Josephine B) Free

He was an electrician from 1970 to 1983. Then he was First Seargent from 1983 - 1998. In 1998 - he went to school -- and started teaching college part time a few years ago. He didn't work last year. He is going to try to teach one class this Spring. He really enjoys teaching -- and says it keeps him going -- so I hope that can work out. We have obtained some buddy statements from former coworkers (four of them) that support the fact that they ALL did work that involved disturbing asbestos -- and that there were NO safety measures in place. One of the buddies said that after my husband left the field they started getting training in asbestos and found out that many of the buildings they had been working in had alot of asbestos in them. They also started the respirator programs --wet methods - etc -- in the late 80's. No significant pre or post service exposure. We also got a document through the Freedom of Information act that shows that asbesots is present or has been abated in 82 of the buildings on the base where he last worked as an electrician -- and ALL the housing there. The report --also includes an initial assessment of 38 buildings when the base first started their AMPs --and it stated that several of the buildings had significant problems (and recommended that some of them be closed off and labeled as a hazard area until the asbestos problem could be handled. The report also lists a few of the buildings that my husband has work reports for. For instance- he has some letters thanking him for rewiring certain buildings... Those buildings match the list of buildings that do have or have had asbestos. I THINK we have enough evidence to show probable exposure. But if they don't move past their thinking that he HAS to have occupational screening records --they won't look at the other stuff. That is why we spent so much time finding evidence that supports that those programs didn't even exist. We can't even go for the nexus -until we get them to concede probable exposure. Free Free

I really hope this case isn't as hopeless as it sounds now.

Thank you Josephine. I really needed to hear something encouraging right now.... though the crying it out bit will probably help too. I remember gambling once -- when I just kept winning a little and losing a little - back and forth. And finally I thought -- Gosh! I wish i would just go ahead and lose so I can go home and get some rest. That's kind of what I was feeling like -- that even if we lose -- at least it will be over - and I can get some rest. It's the trying to win that is wearing me down. I was hoping that I had at least something significant that still could use some polishing. But I don't know if I have it in me to start over. I don't know. Maybe I am just tired. My best wished to you with your claim. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers. Free

It wasn't based on the sinus infections. It was based on the doctor telling us that a 3 cm tumor of that kind fo cancer would have taken from 12 to 17 years to reach that size --and so a 3cm tumor (in 2000) couldn't have started after 1998. Thanks for your help. But right now I just really want to throw in the towel --cry for awhile -- and never hear the word RO again. I'm tired. Free

Thanks Rick! I certainly agree that none of the respiratory problems in service seem connected to lung cancer. The only reason I am listing them is that the letter from the VA stated that in order to be material, the additional evidence must pertain to the reason my claim was previously denied – and in that my claim was previously denied because my service medical records do not show any respiratory problems in service or exposure to asbestos – that evidence I submit must relate to this fact. So it seems like kind of a catch 22. None of the treatment in service proves the claim -- yet that is what they ASKED for. So I was hoping if we give them that in the letter - we can move on to the better evidence. My husband's lung cancer was detected 2 years after retirement when he was screened to be a bone marrow donor. Interstitial Fibrosis was discovered at the same time. But he wasn't having any symptoms at that time, per se. We are working on getting all the evidence we have together. But as we are running up against the 60 days -- I wanted to submit something. I hope to have all the evidence compiled over my Thnaksgiving break. One of the basic things I wanted to point out in the letter is that they ignored the evidence that IS in his record concerning exposure because he doesn't have any occupational health screenings --and they weren't even doing them at that time. Actually his My DLCO was 51% in 2001 - and though I can't find a record of what it was BEFORE his surgery --the doctor indicated it was BETTER in 2001 than it was in 2000. He also had decreased FVC (73% predicted) and decreased FEV1 (69% predicted) The bronchialdialtor made no difference. I am not quite clear on how the doctor's remarks on asbestos relative risk of asbestos exposure would be meaningless. If your risk from smoking alone is 10% --and your risk from smoking and asbestos is 80% --the normal risk -- doesn't it seem like the asbestos increased your risk...that it would be hard to say it did not factor in? We have support for the doctor's remark from an Army Medical site (government). So what do we do about the Resp. problems in service since they are the ones that say we have to show that? Do we just say the records show resp. problems - but they are not connected to his cancer? I actually thought of adding in a statement regarding this -- but wondered if I should. Do we submit the list of documented problems and let THEM tell us they are not related? Or do we just ignore the request and send what WE have? Free

This letter is in response to the letter (xxx) I received dated September 19, 2006. I am working on obtaining additional evidence to submit in regard to this claim as per your request. The letter also indicates that in order to be material, the additional evidence must pertain to the reason my claim was previously denied – and in that my claim was previously denied because my service medical records do not show any respiratory problems in service or exposure to asbestos – that evidence I submit must relate to this fact. As this is the information requested, I will certainly send any information I can in respect to this. However, this also seems to be a significant limitation on the scope of my claim, which seems to prejudice my case. I initially requested the VA adjudicate my claim for lung cancer based on the information I received from my doctor that based on the growth rate of my type of cancer, that my cancer would have most likely had its inception quite some time prior to my retirement from service, due to the size of my tumor when discovered in 2000. This originally seemed to be acknowledged in the initial response to my claim from the VA, which indicated they had received my claim for lung cancer to include as secondary to asbestos exposure. However, since the initial response, all the communication from the VA has only acknowledged the secondary claim of lung cancer due to asbestos exposure, leaving my claim for direct service connection unacknowledged and unadjudicated. Though my communication with the VA consistently reiterates the fact that I am claiming service connection for lung cancer as a direct service connection, in that it was incurred during my active service, that claim has basically been ignored. CFR 3.303 (d) specifically addresses postservice initial diagnosis of disease – and does not limit granting direct service connection only to diseases diagnosed during service or within the presumptive period. Additionally, granting direct service connection for lung cancer, which is diagnosed after discharge and after the expiration of the presumptive period, based on medical knowledge of cancer growth is not a unique or unusual precedent, as many of the BVA decisions indicate. §3.303(d) clearly states “Postservice initial diagnosis of disease. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. Presumptive periods are not intended to limit service connection to diseases so diagnosed when the evidence warrants direct service connection. The presumptive provisions of the statute and Department of Veterans Affairs regulations implementing them are intended as liberalizations applicable when the evidence would not warrant service connection without their aid. Furthermore, the VBA manual, in Section B (3) (a) (Direct Service Connection Under 38 CFR 3.303(d) ) states “Consider whether direct service connection may be established under 38 CFR 3.303(d), even if service connection is claimed for a disease diagnosed after service has ended.” The same section further states “Do not attempt to establish presumptive service connection for chronic or tropical diseases until the possibility of establishing direct service connection has been ruled out.” Section B (3) (e) (Presumptive Service Connection for Chronic and Tropical Diseases) in the VBA manual states “Note: According to 38 CFR 3.303(d), ROs should not routinely deny service connection for disabilities first diagnosed after service merely because the veteran is not entitled to presumptive service connection, or claimed disability is not subject to a presumption of service connection. I am requesting that my claim for direct service connection for lung cancer, filed in November 2001, be acknowledged and adjudicated. To continue to limit the scope of the VA’s development and decisions, or limit the scope of evidence I am to submit to be considered in support of my claim, to the secondary claim related to asbestos exposure alone, continues to deny me due process of having every equitable consideration of having my claim for direct service connection considered and adjudicated. The recent letter indicates a list of evidence you have received. Some of the evidence in the package submitted to you July 31, 2006 is not listed. This evidence includes several medical reports and treatises. The treatise evidence submitted is significant in this case, as it substantiates the note from Dr. xxx (submitted November 2001) indicating the growth rate (doubling time) of pulmonary adenocarcinoma, the number of doublings required for a tumor to reach different sizes, and the approximate time from inception to a 3 cm tumor (the size of my cancer when detected in 2000). The doubling time is further substantiated by the statement from my oncologist, xxxx, dated June 27, 2006. “The Court has held that, in determining whether a medical article or treatise evidence provides a nexus between a current disability and active service, that such evidence, standing alone, is sufficient if it discusses generic relationships with a degree of certainty such that, under the facts of the specific case, there is at least plausible causality based upon objective facts rather than on an unsubstantiated lay medical opinion. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509 (1998). …” “… Further, the Board notes that no medical or scientific evidence is on file which refutes the medical article evidence noted above. The Court has long maintained that the Board cannot reject medical evidence, or reach an opposite conclusion, based solely on its own unsubstantiated opinion. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991).” - From:Citation Nr: 0113204 Decision Date: 05/09/01 Archive Date: 05/15/01 DOCKET NO. 00-21 873 (http://www.va.gov/vetapp01/files02/0113204.txt) Due to the importance of this evidence, I want to assure that all of the evidence submitted is of record. I realize a list of the evidence in its entirety is quite lengthy. However, in order to completely substantiate my claim, and avoid remands, it was necessary to submit a comprehensive package of evidence. A list of evidence submitted on July 31, 2006, but not included in the September 19, 2006 letter from the VA is attached. Thank you,

Thanks! I kind of sort of thought that duty to notify came under the duty to assit (since it is all part of the same regulation). But I wanted to check it out. With the VA - I have learned -- Assume NOTHING! Question EVERYTHING! Free

Is failure in the duty to notify part of the duty to assist stuff that is not a CUE? Or can it be one of those procedural errors that can be argued as a CUE? Thanks, Free

This letter is in response to the letter (xxx) I received dated September 19, 2006. I am working on obtaining additional evidence to submit in regard to this claim as per your request. This has been complicated by not receiving records I have requested from the VA. I attempted to obtain medical records from the National Records Center in June 2006. I was notified that the Records Center cannot provide me with copies of those records, as they are in the possession of the VA. On August 10, 2006 I filed a VA form 3288, requesting copies of my service medical records (including my discharge physical), and as of this date I have not received such records requested by the VA. The letter also indicates that in order to be material, the additional evidence must pertain to the reason my claim was previously denied – and in that my claim was previously denied because my service medical records do not show any respiratory problems in service or exposure to asbestos – that evidence I submit must relate to this fact. Evidence supporting my claim includes: RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS The evidence of respiratory problems in service is not new (as it is in my service medical records, which are purportedly in possession of the VA), but it should qualify as material in that it relates to the reason I was previously denied. These records would include the 14 notations in my service medical records ranging from October 9, 1970 – June 24 1996 of both upper and lower respiratory problems in service. (Atch 7e – 1 through 7e – 13, inclusive – in the package submitted to you July 31, 2006) Notations in my service medical records which indicate respiratory problems / treatment in service include: October 9, 1970 – URI x 1 Day May 9, 1971 – Emergency Appointment URI - Chest Cold – Congestion. Runny Nose May 10, 1971 - Strep Throat December 18, 1973 – Emergency Room Visit - Pharyngitis, Sinus congestion, Sore Throat, Nonprductive cough July 1974 – Emergency Room Visit – Flu - Sore throat, headache, pharynx – slight infection without exudates January 12 1982 – URI - c/o sinusitis– cough 3 weeks – sore throat – nasal congestion September 3, 1982 – URI Sinus vs. Bronchitis - Sinus problems x 2 days -throat drainage – throat mildly infected – runny stuffy nose January 17, 1985– Emergency Care and Treatment – URI – Coughing fit lasting 45 minutes today. History of chest cold 1 month ago. January 28, 1985 – Chronic bronchitis -c/o cough – seen in ER Jan 17 – not improving – periodic lightheadedness – white phlegm July 1, 1985 – URI – coughing fits January 31, 1986 Periodic Exam – in the section for notes which instructs to describe every abnormality in detail. Lungs / Chest 28 PFT FVC 94.4 FEV-1 96.8 FEV-1 / FVC 83.8 April 6, 1987 cough – rhinorrhea - nasal congestion – post nasal drip – nose congested – pharynx red December 8, 1993 – Strep Infection – c/o cough, chills, swollen glands x 2 days June 24, 1996 Rib Pain – Left Rib – pain for 6 months from coughing with bronchitis had a bout of bronchitis with much coughing in Dec 95 – it caused him to develop a steady left sided rib pain intercostally near the costochonral junction - over the past six months has improved a lot and is intermittent but pt is concerned since this left rib ache has not completely gone away yet. I am not certain what other evidence I could submit to substantiate the fact that my service medical records show respiratory problems in service – other than to continue to point out that the records do, indeed, indicate both respiratory problems and treatment in service. There may be additional service medical records which indicate respiratory problems which are not in my possession. As stated previously, I have been unable to obtain such records from the VA as of this date. As these records have not been provided to me, I request that the VA look over such records to determine if there is additional evidence of respiratory problems in the service which have been overlooked. I also want to point out that the RO and DRO may have reached the decision that my service medical records do not show any respiratory problems in service by misinterpreting the VA examiner’s report of March 19, 2002, as well as relying on their misinterpretation of the report, rather than actually reviewing the medical records. The examiner’s report stated “His discharge physical at the time of service did not indicate any sign of any respiratory problems.” However, the February denial states “your service medical records do not show any respiratory problems in service.” The August 2004 Statement of Case states “The examiner could not find any significant exposure to asbestos or respiratory problem or treatment in service.” As I have consistently been pointing out – my service medical records do, indeed, show respiratory problems and treatment throughout my service career. I request that the VA review my service medical records with respect to this issue prior to making another determination that my service medical records do not show any respiratory problems or treatment. ASBESTOS EXPOSURE Evidence of Exposure: I have previously submitted: 1. My own statements which articulate both general and specific work duties I performed as an electrician in the Air Force from 1970 – 1983 which exposed me to asbestos. 2. Copies of work records / performance reports which supported my own statements as to the types of work I performed. 3. A handwritten note which from my treating pulmonologist at xxx Air Force Base which indicates my increased risk from smoking alone to be 10 times, and my increased risk from the synergetic effect of smoking AND asbestos exposure to be 80 times, the normal risk of developing lung cancer. 4. My medical records that include: Documentation in the physicians notes which include: Written Notes in Chronological Record of Medical Care 10/3/2001 – Dr. xxx(In Medical Records from xxx Air Force Base) states: “CXR rpt seen > Upper Lobe Scarring & 3 cm Left Lung SPN Also likely asbestos exposure as electrician 1969 – 1982 N.B. – Chart & Consult & pt. Is in Error & pt. In Non-Small Cell CA & Not Small Cell. Important Differences explained to pt. e. g. Poss. Adeno CA unk 1 ° ? “ New Patient Note 10/10/2001 – xxxx, MD – Oncologist (In Medical Records from xxx Air Force Base) states: “The patient’s past history is somewhat remarkable in that he worked as an electrician in the air force and was exposed to asbestos.” Additionally, my medical records show a pathology proven diagnosis of Interstitial Fibrosis (diagnosed in 2000). I am obtaining additional evidence to submit in respect to my asbestos exposure. However, one of the hardest hurdles to overcome is the VA’s reliance on occupational medical surveillance / industrial hygiene programs in order to prove exposure. Finding the evidence to substantiate that the lack of such records reflects the fact that such programs were not in existence at the time I was an electrician has been a time consuming process. However, it is an important part of the development of my claim for two reasons: 1. If the VA continues to deny my claim based on the lack of having records from a program that the Air Force did not implement until several years after I no longer worked as an electrician prejudices my claim – in that I cannot provide evidence which does not exist due to the fact that Air Force did not even keep such records. 2. The lack of such records, and thus the occupational safety programs for asbestos exposure, is an important part of my claim. Those very safety programs which were NOT implemented until AFTER I left the electrician field would have included occupational screening. And they would have included many other important factors such as: 1. OSHA training 2. Respiratory Protection 3. Safer work practices 4. Established PEL’s (Permissible Exposure Levels) In other words, the conditions I worked in as an electrician in the 1970’s to mid-80’s was LATER determined to be a SIGNIFICANT RISK when OSHA implemented the Construction Standard in 1986 (3 years after I had cross-trained into another field) and when the Air Force began developing their Asbestos Management Programs in the late 80’s. However, I spent 13 years working in such conditions with no safety measures being utilized. In all fairness to my claim, I need to be able to fully develop this evidence, rather than let my claim be denied again based on the lack of occupational screening records. I trust that when the VA is made aware of the fact that such programs were not in existence, they will not continue to disregard the evidence in my record that substantiates exposure just because there is a lack of a record that wasn’t even kept at that time. I am in the process of getting my final evidence together and plan to have it submitted within the next two weeks.

AH... I have a question about this too. My husband was in Guam in the mid 70's. They have lots of stuff about the dioxin in the soil in Guam --as well as all kinds of stuff in the water. I know Lane Evans had worked to get the records released on herbicides used in Guam -- but I don't think they have ever released them. Yeah...it is a big issue for national security -- the kinds of herbicides used in Guam in the 70's. I have seen a couple of cases approved by the BVA for AO exposure in Guam (just because it is not a presumption doesn't mean you can't prove it.) My husband's SOC stated that he was not in Vietnam and therefore gets no presumption for AO. Should we address this? Should we at least mention the allegations of AO in Guam -- and the ASTR reports that showed heavy dioxin in the soil at Andersen AFB in the 90's -- This is a report on one of their sites. Groundwater: TCE and PCE were detected. BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) were present at concentrations up to 7,200 ppb at levels above CVs.Soil: Dioxins (up to 19,000 ppm), VOCs (up to 109 ppm), SVOCs (up to 6.8 ppm), TPH, pesticides, and metals were detected at levels above CVs. . So --in order to protect that issue, in case the Government ever decides to admit they used AO in Guam (and it didn't just "appear" at the military bases on its own) -- we might be able to claim retro in some way. I was thinking something about after focusing on the asbestos -- Agreeing that he had not been in Vietnam -- but including a statement that since there is no safe level for carcinogens that the probably exposure to AO, herbicides, pesticides, etc. in Guam could not be ruled out as contributing to the subsequent development of his cancer. Free

Good idea. Especially since he was in for 28 years. It would be pretty hard for them to rebut that -- so actually not having anything in the SMRs might work in his favor there. If he wasn't getting treatment for it for years -- it probably did NOT occur prior to service. Free

Thanks. Since claims can take so long I didn't know which would be the best approach. Free

ACK! In looking over my husband's claim I noticed - he filed for benefits in August 1998. (Retired in October) After the denials and NOD's etc. He appealed August 19, 1999 The appeal was recieved by the Board on April 18, 2000 The VA REMANDED the claim back to the RO January 11, 2001 BECAUSE the RO didn't include his DD214 with the file. The RO obtained the DD214 and sent the claim back to the BVA September 28, 2001 The BVA decided his claim October 30, 2001 So yeah..it added 10 months to the process. Free

Thanks to both of you. I was thinking the same thing - but not sure. I thought if he claimed it prior to discharge it should be obvious that it bothered him before he left the service. We haven't been able to get a copy of his discharge physical. Tried in June and was told by the records center that the VA has his records. Requested from VA August 10 -- but just gettting delay letters from them so far. But I still thought that making the claim PRIOR to the discharge should kind of set a date for it as during service..especially with 28 years in. And they did confirm the injury -- just said that it was not documented in the SMRs. I keep wondering if I should wait to send the CUES in though. We have the shoulder injury. We also have cervical strain - which he also claimed upon his discharge. Was documented in his SMR - but the VA could find no current injury -- except for Some slight something or the other at a certain location on his cervical spine. But later - when they did the exam for Gulf War illnes -- they denied service connection for his headaches because they said they were caused by his cervical disorder which was at the ExACTSAME location that they found the exact same insignificant whatever when he tried to CLAIM cervical strain. I think they should award this back to the date they actually found something that confirmed the chronicity of the injury at the cervical region that was documented in the SMRS. He also claimed for dental TREATMENT -- but was denied - though the regs clearly state that Gulf War vets who did not recieve dental treatment within six months of discharge are allowed one time dental treatment for each tooth / condition. I think we have possible CUES on all of these (plus maybe more) but I am concerned that if we file it now before the lung cancer claim goes all the way through.... that will slow down the claim for the 100 percent for the lung cancer -- and i don't want to do that. Free

I admire your strength Josephine. I cannot even imagine trying to wade through this stuff WITH a diagnosis of anxiety or depression. I have been depressed in my time -but it has been pretty situational (arising from specific situations - but not long term) and i was basically useless much of the time --just plugged through what absolutely needed to be done and let the rest go --forver....lol Anyway - if you have ACQUIRED anxiety AND your treatment started in service -- that seems to be the place to make the connection. I think you actually DID make the connection there.... but not sure THEY are getting it. I was reading how they do "top-sheeting" - (just reading the topsheet of things) - so though we are sending plenty of evidecne to back my husband's claim - we are creating our own topsheets for them. meaning we CLEARLY and CONCISLEY stating what the evidence shows on the first page our two (summarize the high points) and then include all the evidence to support it. Free