Ricky

Good points Berta. However, let me throw in that it is nearly impossible to get most VARO's to reconize IMO'S and even medical records so if using internet references they must be specific to the claim as you have stated and you must continue to throw them into VA's face in your claim. Ricky

I respect and care for all vets. I understand the need for quick care and compensation for the guys now returning. However, the system was designed to work on a first come first served basis. With that said, there are a lot of older vets, especially VN vets that have not received their just dues. As a result of this they have lost their families, homes and all personal belongings becaused of a bull shit system. They also deserve their just dues and I can not see placing any new claims in front of these guys (nope I am not a Vn Vet just have the highest respect for them). If the returning vets are placed on the bottom of the stack as normal procedures demand I assure you the new vets are a generation that will not put with the same ole BS that us older vets did during the 50's, 60's 70's etc........... I feel that such an action by VA would result in the biggest stink in American history and force a change in the way all veterans are treated. I love them, respect them and support their mission, however, I do not feel that any veteran should receive special treatment above the rest. By placing these claims in front of the ones already pending the VA is being allowed to paint a false picture for the American public. Immediate and quick processing of the claims for the new veterans will allow them to stand up and say "see, we ain't so bad. We are currently turning claims around for IF vets in 4-6 months. We told you all of those old guys were just a bunch of complainers wanting a handout" at which point the politicians will pat them on the back and say "good job boys" as they are posting on their political web sites "see what I have done for the veteran community". I am NOT, REPEAT NOT, trying to downgrade any vets importance, I am simply providing my opinion. Ricky

If the disabilities exists the fact that they are under control should not be a problem but like Rick said I have seen it go both ways. DMII under control = meds. Oral meds will rank a 20 percent rating. Insulin with restricted diet and RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES will rank a 40 percent rating etc, etc........ All that matters is the history of the disease and treatment and the service nexus. Hypertension will be the same. A diagnosis of hypertension which is under good control with meds will rank a 10 percent rating so on and so on. Just make sure the history and service nexus is there. As far as the testing goes - as an example - if the DM is in the service medical records along with the type of meds that it is being treating with I am sure they are just checking to determine if the disease has progressed since the diagnosis. They want to insure that all of the other systems such as kidneys and heart are still ok as DM tends to have a terrible impact on such organs. As far as the hypertension they are just trying to confirm that a current diagnosis is present. I guess the medical records do not document this very well. Also the blood pressure checks will allow them to determine if it warrants a rating for continious meds (10 percent) or if a higher rating is warranted. Now this being said - this would be the normal reasons for the exams. As to the real reason for the exams the anyones guess principal has to be applied for no one really knows what goes on in the mind of the raters at VA. Hope this helps clam you down a bit. Bottom line is that if your hubby has DM and hypertension that is well documented and has a service nexus you will not have any problems. Just make sure you attend the C&P exam and as Rick said be truthful but make sure that the doc knows the ture effect of the diseases on your hubbys life and understands how his worse day living with them is.

Jstacy, at Montgomery RO I submitted my request in Aug 05, Resubmitted it in Jan 06, Mar 06 and faxed it to them in Apr 06. I received my letter granting my request on 1 Nov 06 so from time of original submission to granting of benefits was 15 months. Pretty long time frame but that is just SOP for Montgomery.

I currently have a claim pending for "sleep problems" as an undiagnosised illness associated with Gulf War service. Symptoms began in 99. Had difficulity sleeping with muscle aches, pain, fatigue, frequent waking during the night and just plain feeling like a Mack truck had ran over me during the night upon waking in the morning. Military doctor gave diagnosis of possible Fibro and "sleep difficulties". Complained during retirement physical in 2000 of same things - poor sleep, muscle aches, joint pain same Mack truck feeling. Diagnosis given was possible GW Syndrome told to follow up with VA. In 2002 it got so bad I could not sleep and I would wake up four or five times a night gasping for breath and the fatigued feeling was so bad during the day I would sometimes have to take a nap at lunch time just to make it through the day, civilian Doc said it was probably poor sleep hygiene, prescribed Evail on a trial basis which did not work. He then said change diet and excerise habits. In 2003 finally received VA GW examine. VA doc said it was insomia. In Jan 05 suffered a stroke. In August 06 I was so tired during the day I could not function. New civilian Doc said we needed to do a sleep study. Results of sleep study were moderate to severe OSA. He issued an IMO which stated that OSA was "more likely than not" began in service and was present during the 99 diagnosis of "sleep difficulties". He based his opinion on my symptoms then, my sleep study, my current symptoms and the fact that I was diagnosised with hypertension, GERD and DMII prior to 99 and AHA, NSA etc..... provided a profound association between all three and OSA (GERD is thought to cause OSA). Now my question. My current claim has been pending for 16 months. Now that I have a confirmed diagnosis for my symptoms do I: 1. send in new evidence with a letter requesting that my claim be amended to Sleep Apnea from Sleep problems (as a undiagnosised illness). 2. Withdraw current claim and submit new claim. If I amend the claim do you think VA will try to move the effective date to the date of current diagnosis or will/should it remain the date I submitted it (June 05) Thanks for your input.

Rick - I don't know much about the claim that you are working on but it seems that cue was not the way to go as it appears that it is an interpertation at question and not law. Looks like they are saying yep he did have sinus problems but the records lack the diagnosis. I have seen a lot of service medical records which say that the symptoms were clogged nasal passages with sinus infection - questionable sinusitis or possible sinusitis or words to that effect. Same with the post treatment records - vet has complaints of sinusitis but dx not clearly listed as sinusitis. I have also seen a lot of exit exams which say things like sinusitis ? follow with va for treatment - this won't get it either without a nexus statement. Did he have a C&P for this? if not why? Just my honest input ricky

Michelle, I have to deal with Montgomery on all of my claims. Each and every one of them has gone through this circus. Don't bother with iris or the 800 for this RO for each attempt will be met with a lie or some answer that is completely confusing. My latest was a Nod that I sent last Aug 05. I was told it would take at least a year. In Dec 05 I received a letter asking if I wanted a tradional appeal or DRO. I wrote them back and told them that my original Nod had provided that I wanted a DRO de novo review. In Jan 06 I received a rating and all claims were denied. I was surprised - in less than 4 months they conducted a de novo review. I then sent them my va 9 to them in Feb 06 and asked for a hearing at the RO cause I wanted to see face to face what idiots they had hired to work there. By July 06 no word was received on the hearing. I sent in an iris query - their reply stated that since my appeal had not been received until AUG 06 it would be a while hmmmmm - I replied informing them that I was glad that ro personnel were physic and could see into the future however, I had sent in my appeal and request for hearing in Feb. They replied and stated "yes, we do see where we received your appeal in Mar 06 however, based upon our workload, this office does not conduct local hearings - I quickly replied and quoted my due process rights to them to which they replied that I would be contacted as soon as the hearing had been scheduled. That was the last I heard until Thursday of last week. At that time I received a letter from them stating that my hearing with a travel board from the BVA could take up to two years and wanted to know if I wanted to change my election to a video conference type hearing with BVA. The letter also said "please be informed that you can also have a local hearing with local VA personal, however, if you desire such a hearing you must request it immediately" JESUS - I just fired off a letter to them changing from a travel board hearing and notifying them of my Feb request for a hearing at the local RO with a DRO. Funny how this works - it takes them less than four months to do a complete de novo review of a claim containing 10 seperate disabilities and damn near a year to plug my name into a schedule for a local hearing. Good luck to you.

Ok, I am tired of all this crap. I am going to hire a lawyer and go straight to the Federal Court of SDV (screw disabled veterans).

Some states require only one person knowledge.

Brandy, jangrin is correct. GM= General Medicine. It covers anything from DMII to whatever. From there if a specialized C and P is required one will be scheduled. The only thing is does not cover is orthro. Usually the C and P area has several GM docs with one or two covering orthro issues. The reason for the concentration on orthro is that so many of the claims focus around orthro issues and do not need an over all physical.

rdawg - I used the Monday Morning Report to get factual remand - ie claims pending for a specific period of time divided by number of claims pending appeal = appeals rate. So if the constant number of appeals pending rating = lets say 13,000 and the constant number of appeals pending = 7000 then the appeal rate would be 53 percent (7000/13000). Now that does not mean they have an error rate of 53 percent only that 53 percent of their decisions have been appealed. Now to be fair to the RO I am sure that X percent of those appeals were good sound denials. My other comments were made on my own research of BVA cases submitted by my RO. I did a search on my RO at the BVA site. When the cases came up I had to sit in front of my computer and read case after case. This ain't to hard when case after case read remanded, remanded, remanded remanded.......... This was easy for me becasue there were very few, if any, partial awards with a remand. More than the majority of the cases were complete remands because of the reasons stated in my original post. Most of the time I was able to read through six to seven pages of BVA decisions before finding one claim that was actually decided by the BVA. My little research project is in no was backed by firm numbers from the RO nor is it intended to be a complete picture of my supporting RO. It was simply a small project done for my own use which I felt to be alarming. I know that there are hundreds if not thousands of dedicated VA workers in the system and I do not blame them for anything. It is the politicians and management within the system that is corrupt which causes the employees to appear to be the same. Do you think that some GS11 rater or GS13 DRO would, by themselves, decide to not follow a regulation which was designed to implement a U.S. Federal Law. I do not think so for if they did they would definitely end up in jail. However, if the system they have to work within is above and beyond the law and scrunity of law makers then it is no foul no harm and they must do as told to do in order to keep their jobs - business as usual. The system has always been this way and will probably still be this way 50 years from now. As I stated in another post the majority of Americans always stand up and go rah-rah troops but when they find out that those same troops are now back at home and injured we are viewed as beggars simply setting around with our hands out sucking the life out of the country when we ask that our service connected injuries be compensated and cared for. They quickly forget those that spent lonely and blood filled nights spent on the battlefield watching our brothers and sisters die and the pain suffered by some of us as we were being removed from the battlefield less two legs, one eye or other serious injury. They only remember being able to sit in their cozy little homes, reading bedtime stories to little Jack and Jill and thinking about later that night when they were going to be in bed with Barbie nice and cozy. Enough ranting - I think we all can see the picture that I am talking about - it ain't ever going to change guys. It is ok for us to go into battle to support the ideas of this country but when we ask for a little support back the majority of Americans will look at you and say "hell, you are the one who went into the service, it ain't my fault". Therefore, no support for change equals no change. Ricky

Just sitting around without anything to do so I decided to do a little research. Looking at the Monday Morning Report is what go me started. The Stats for my VARO are as follows: Percentage of rated cases sent to appeals: 57% This does not mean that they granted 43% of the cases received. You have to also take into account those that are denied and the vet simply forgets it, those that the VARO award at a lower level in which the SO convinces the vet that they go a good deal and those in which the vet died while claim was pending at the RO level. Based upon the high percentage of appeals I decided to take a look at the BVA rulings on these cases. Surely there would be some good reading there. To my amazement when I did a search on just recent decisons for my VARO I found that out of 300 cases, 70 percent had been remanded. Some of them were on their second and third go around. The majority of the cases had been remanded for: -RO failure to associate listed evidence with the file -RO failure to comply with previous remands -RO failure to provide requested and required meetings (DRO meetings and BVA level meetings) -RO failure to obtain VA medical records even after being informed of their existence by the Vet. - RO improper development of the claim Ya know we all make mistakes sometimes. Maybe failing to put a piece of key evidence into the packet before shipping it off to the Board 10, 15 or even 20 times a year one could understand. But hundreds upon hundreds of times a year is nothing short of intentional. The same goes for the other mistakes - continued failure to comply, failure to all due process hearings over and over again is simple criminal acts all the while thumbing your nose at the law. I thought they were just lazy, but even a lazy person would have better stats than this. This little bit of research opened my eyes and depressed me. How can such criminal acts be tolerated by the government? I am going to send my little research efforts to the newspapers and news stations that provide coverage of the area in which the RO is located. Maybe it will shame them into an attempt to clean up their act. Nah, hell I am just dreaming.

But there are several "HD only channels if you subscribe to a HD service such as HDNET, HDT, etc.......

What HDTV channel is it on? Unless it is on a strictly HD Channel everyone should be able to see it. The reason I ask is that I have HD via my cable company but it is my understanding that they might not be the same HD channels offered by other cable/sat companies. I would surely like to see the program. thanks Ricky

holding off will be ok. However, do not get tied up with life and MISS THE TIME LINE TO FILE THE FORMAL APPEAL...........

gwvet 90 - My understanding is that before the RO can certify the appeal is ready for the BVA all other claims must be settled. Eventhough the RO certifies the appeal as ready to rate the claims folder stays at the RO until called for by the BVA which is about 2-3 months prior to their action on the claim. Given this the RO should maintain control of the folder for about 16 more months. Now this ain't gospel but it is the way it should be. Then depending on the RO they may or may not work your other claim during this period and even if they do it will be the predetermination team performing all of the work. Although it could take about a year or little more to get a DRO review most of the time the DRO local hearing occurs at about the 6-7 month period at which time either the claim will be awarded or an SSOC will be issued. Then you can began your formal appeal. At any rate, your new claim could or could not be delayed because of your appeal. It depends on the RO. I've seen them deny additional appeals to close them out so the file could be transferred to BVA and I seen them actually work them and make the appropriate decision. Like I said just depends on the RO. I know this is not the firm decision you were looking for but if it were me I would request the DRO hearing.

"all you need is to prove that within one year of service you had the disablity. You dont have to prove you got it from service or where it came from" Terry I agree with you and we both know what the law says but it all depends on the RO that you are dealing with. Montgomery appears not to believe in the "presumption" law and they deny all claims in which "presumption" is claimed based upon the fact that "the service medical records are void of any mention of X diease while in service". I guess they need more training on the law. Vike is right - if it ain't on the list you are batting a negative 1000 from the start and will have to have it somewhere in the service medical records along with an undisputable IMO Ricky

As soon as I get the final product I will post the results. He does not want his name published on the net as an IMO guy. He will only provide IMO's for his patients. I will also look up the links and post them. The American Heart Association, American Sleep Association,American Diabietes Association, National Institute of Health etc.... all have published articles on this tie. The problem is there is still a lot of discussion on which came first the chicken or the egg. In that I mean they are about equally divided on what disease came first - some say hypertension is the cause of SA, some say SA is the cause of hypertension. The same goes for the rest of the connections. You will just have to hope your doctor supports your theory. Regardless of the well written IMO that I have I expect an uphill battle with the VA just like on all claims. By the way my private Tricare Doc also supports this position and will issue his own IMO. So that will be two in favor ricky

I have in the past, since receiving my medical degree from VA U, hahahaha, drafted an example of what needed to be in the imo and gave this along with copies of SMR's and a 3.5 floppy with the draft on it to the doctor. He reviewed the SMR's made the "medical terms" changes, printed and signed the IMO. Seemed to work well. So I guess you could say I wrote it to a degree. Bottom line is it does not really make any difference who writes it as long as the doc reviews the SMR's agrees with what is written and signs the thing.

I agree with Hoppy. Looks like a benefit of the doubt call to me.

Sledge - GOOD ONE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Forgot to add - about 90 percent of these retro payments are having to be paid by the VA where they screwed veterans out of money. Since they have been discovered and called on the issue I bet all of the dead VA secretaries are turning over in their graves. Just to think that such a dumb person as Nicholson taking over their VA - hell he can't even screw veterans without being caught hahahahahahahahahaha. On a serious note both VA and DFAS knew what was going on but both acted stupid about it when questioned and pointed fingers at each other. Someone should go to jail. If I embellezed millions out of sick veterans I would be called an animal by the VA an sent to jail for the rest of my life. Ricky

mrstix - was yours paid by dfas or VA. I received a letter from dfas in which they provided that they owed me 86.00. I sent them a fax and asked about the 14 months that I did not receive CRDP payments due to a 14 month late approval by VA on a claim. They then provided that my information had already been sent to VA as they may owe me some money. I assume that such a payment will be just as hard to get as a regular claim. the reseaon dfas gave me was that VA had withheld all of the money so they were responsible. Oh well I guess I will never see that back pay if I have to depend on VA to make such a payment.

I agree with all below. Congress etc..... must take the blame for not taking action (funding); If I were a service center manager or RO director, my priority would be on quality. If the claims continued to back up because of this then maybe they would see the problem and fix it. This just deny it and get it out of here for a couple of years is criminal. I know that I would be fired but maybe just maybe my way of doing things would open up the eyes of all an result in a fix to the problem................... Ah maybe I need to quit dreaming. They know what the problem is they just do not want to fix it. Ricky

We through the service organizations filed a legal action which no longer allows BVA to develop claims. Now if you look at some of the shit the RO swears that is ready for BVA action, which in real life is missing evidence, medical exams, no SOC's etc..... then the BVA has no other choice. The sorry excuses for rating officers and senior raters and service center managers is the real problem. Not taking up for anyone at the VA, but if the RO's were made to take responsibility for their actions then you would see a lot of the stuff clear up. jmho Ricky